Democratic Leadership and Sticking It to the Veto

This was a slow week in the looming showdown over Iraq war funding legislation. House and Senate Democrats still haven't finalized a compromise bill and President Bush still hasn't vetoed it. It's getting to be a slow walk down to the OK Corral for both sides.

According to conventional wisdom, the Democrats have three possible responses to a presidential veto--Option 1. Give Bush the bill he wants; Option 2. send Bush another funding bill with a deadline; Option 3. don't send Bush a bill at all. In other words, the Democrats can either give into Bush, give Bush the finger by sending another bill he doesn't like, or vetoing the war by not funding it. Although I don't view caving as the complete disaster projected on the right, I've been in favor of the Democrats using the showdown to stop the war altogether.

Ending the war and getting on with the next step in dealing with the Middle East is the best policy. We can get our troops out of the Iraqi civil war, deploy our soldiers in ways that are more effective in protecting American interests, and distance ourselves from the corrupt, incompetent, and militia-ridden Iraqi government. If the war in Iraq has taught us anything, it's that American influence is best exercised at somewhat of a distance from the day to day management of affairs in a country like Iraq.

Ending the war is also good politics for the Democrats. For once, the Democrats are broadly in sinc with the public on a military/ foreign policy issue. The American public wants to get out of Iraq one way or another and has been supporting withdrawal deadlines by 60% to 34%. Unless the public does a 180, the Democrats will have broad public support. Standing up to Bush will also make the Democrats look better. For years, the Democrats have been preceived as too weak and vacillating to govern. Standing up to Bush on war funding would create an impression of principle and determination that would do credit to the Democrats. Given Bush's belligerent refusal to negotiate or compromise, the Democrats would also look more reasonable than Bush.

Not that looking more reasonable than Bush is ever very difficult.

But the Democrats have a fourth option that would also be both good policy and good politics. If Bush vetoes the current Iraq funding legislation, the Democratic leadership could draw up a new bill that defunds the surge altogether and appropriates money solely for drawing down American troops, training the Iraqi military, and maintaining buffers against Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the Democrats could vote to "end the war as we know it." That would be a bold step, but writing legislation to draw down the war would make the current deadline legislation look like a moderate position and put the Democratic leadership in a stronger position to negotiate a compromise.

Unlike the current deadline legislation, defunding the surge does not have broad public support at the present. However, the Democrats might be able to generate support for drawing down the war if they put that position into legislation. Who thought last November that the public would be supporting deadlines at this point? The Democrats have already moved public opinion by pushing for withdrawal deadlines in war funding legislation. They could move public opinion again by pushing for troop withdrawals.

It's time for Pelosi, Murtha, Rahm Emmanuel, and the other House Democrats to take more in the way of bold steps. Responding to a Bush veto by writing legislation to draw down the war would be such a step.