Toward a Second Veto

TODAY, the Bush administration rejected attempts by the Democratic leadership to cut a deal on war funding. They didn't accept proposals for withdrawal deadlines the president could waive, benchmarks with consequences, and or the removal of domestic pork for that matter. The Bush administration said they weren't going to compromise and they didn't compromise.

WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE DEMOCRATS?

GREG SARGENT of TPM suggests that the Iraq funding battle has boiled down to either Bush caving and accepting Democratic mandates or the Democratic leadership caving and giving Bush what he wants.

I don't think that's quite the case, at least not yet.

THE CURRENT SITUATION: BUSH VERSION. For the Bush administration, the main point is to show how tough they are. They're eager to play chicken with funding for the military mission in Iraq and don't care about consequences for American troops. Thus, they view the funding battle is a win-win situation. If the Democrats cave, Bush can gloat about how much tougher than hs is than the Democrats. If the Democrats go to the mat and cut off funding, then Bush can blame them for any negative consequences for American forces in Iraq.

But, Bush's position weakens daily because the surge is such a loser. More American troops are dying, Baghdad isn't any more secure, and the military situation is actually deteriorating in provinces outside Baghdad.

The military failure in Iraq tars everything Bush has done. The overseas kidnappings, torture policy, and warrantless wiretapping all look like exercises in criminal behavior rather than national security strategy.

Likewise, Bush's refusal to negotiate with Congress looks more like petulance than principle.

THE CURRENT SITUATION: DEMOCRATIC VERSION. The situation is more complex for the Democrats. Their ultimate policy objective has been to seize control of the war and force the withdrawal of American combat troops. But there's only two ways that can happen and both now appear impossible. First, Congress would have to pass legislation to cut off funding for the war with a veto-proof majority. That was always impossible. Second, Congress could just not pass war funding at all and just let the money for the occupation run out. But it doesn't appear that the Democratic leadership wants that kind of confrontation.

However, the Democrats have succeeded politically. Pelosi and Reid have shown that they're determined and tenacious and that they can get legislation passed. These were things that were seriously in doubt in January when Democratic majorities took control of the House and Senate.

At the same time, Pelosi and Reid have shown that they're willing to negotiate with the Bush administration in good faith. Unlike the Bush administration, the Democrat have demonstrated that they're more committed to American interests than their partisan agenda. The Democrats have swung public opinion in their direction. Almost 2/3rds of the American public wants either the immediate withdrawal of American combat forces or a mandatory timetable for withdrawal. Although Bush controls the "bully pulpit," the Democratic leadership has rallied public opinion around withdrawal from Iraq.

All in all, the Democratic leadership has done better than people expected, including people on the left. As Greg Sergent observes, the Dems have "consistently hung much tougher than anyone expected and [have] steadily defied expectations in the process." And they've probably done a great deal better than Bush himself expected.

PUSHING TOWARD A SECOND VETO. In this context, the Democrats have accumulated some political capital and I believe they should invest it in the conflict over Iraq war funding. The best thing the Democrats can do is send up another bill that Bush will most likely veto. Pelosi could send up another bill with a withdrawal timeline, a bill with enforcable benchmarks for the Iraqi government, or a short-term bill like the House has passed that forces the Bush administration to come back for more money in August. I've come to favor benchmarks. The Bush administration has announced that it believes in benchmarks, the public supports benchmarks, and benchmarks are targeted to the Iraqi government rather than American troops. All of these things make benchmarks more appealing to the American public and more painful for the Bush administration to veto.

If the Democrats send up a bill with enforcable benchmarks, there is the possibility that Bush would sign the legislation just to throw the Democrats off balance. But the chances of that are slim. The 30% of the public that still supports Bush is insisting that he only sign a "clean bill" with no restrictions on Bush's freedom of action. If Bush caves in to the Democrats, his support base would most likely collapse and he might as well resign.

But a second veto also entails risks for Bush. If the public perceives the Democrats as having negotiated in good faith, the Bush administration will seem even more arbitrary, rigid, and peevish than it seems already and public opposition to Bush might harden to the point that there will be a consensus for a quick withdrawal as soon as Bush leaves office. Dick Cheney has announced that he doesn't particularly care about the future of the Republican Party, but Republicans in the House and Senate do care and they might finally start acting to undercut the war themselves and help prepare the way for a post-Bush withdrawal.

Perhaps the Democrats won't be able to seize control of the war from Bush before he leaves office. However, by continuing to push on the issue of war funding, they can create the conditions for a national consensus on withdrawing from Iraq as soon Hillary or Obama is sworn in as president. The Democrats may not be able to force withdrawal now, but they are creating conditions that will make withdrawing from Iraq easier in the future.