What Should the Democrats Do About the Veto?

Tonight President Bush vetoed the Iraq war funding bill with a short, exhausted-sounding speech on national television. Bush's argument for getting more war funding without strings attached boils down to "give Gen. Petraeus a chance." That's disingenuous. Bush wants one more chance for himself and his administration to succeed in Iraq with their new general and new strategy in place. But Bush, Cheney, Michael Hadley, and Condoleeza Rice have run out of chances to succeed in Iraq and the Iraq war funding bill effectively takes the war out of their hands. The extent to which the Bush administration is no longer a credible leadership is illustrated by the fact that Bush vetoed the war funding bill on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" celebration aboard an aircraft carrier. It's a devastating illustration of the self-deception, cluelessness, and feckless of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq occupation.

Unfortunately, Democratic responses to Bush's veto haven't been very effective yet either. Sen. James Webb claimed in his response that we've really won the original war but are fumbling the occupation. But that's just a semantic distinction. The occupation is part of the Iraq War as well and Sen. Webb can't wish it away any more than President Bush. Wordplay also characterizes the response of the liberal bloggers at DailyKos when they emphasize that it is really President Bush who is refusing funding for the troops. Technically speaking, Kos is correct. But it's also a distinction that doesn't make a difference. The question isn't about who is denying money to American soldiers. The question is who ultimately is going to control the military effort in Iraq--President Bush or the Democratic leadership in Congress.

For their part, the Democratic leadership is criticizing the veto, but not revealing what they intend to do about it.

As I've stated before, there seem to be three options for the Democrats:

1. The "Full Cave Surrender." This seems to be the media favorite. Congress would give Bush a funding bill with no mandatory strings attached and then revisit war funding in September when the regular budget is considered. This would allow Democrats to avoid accusations of undercutting the troops, but would undermine the credibility of the Democratic leadership with anti-war activists and public at large. But the Democrats wouldn't look bad for long. First, public opinion strongly supports a "full cave surrender" by the Democrats. So, they wouldn't look tremendously weak for following the will of the American people here. Moreover, Given the non-stop bad news out of Iraq and the enormous number of scandals plaguing the Bush administration (fired prosecutors, Jack Abramoff derivatives, violations of the Hatch Act, Bush's marital problems, etc.), the Democrats would start looking good again before anybody really new it. For better or worse, the Dems are the only alternative to the incompetent Bush administration in town.

However, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seem disposed to go in this direction. According to Pelosi, Congress is not going to give the president "the blank check" he wants to run the war while Reid emphasized the determination of the Democrats to "change the direction of the war in Iraq." At least for now, it doesn't appear that Pelosi or Reid want to engage in a "Full Cave Surrender."

2. The "Second Veto Strategy." In this scenario, Congress could apparently give in to Bush's demands, but could incorporate provisions that Bush would find unacceptable and thus force Bush to veto the funding bill again. Forcing a second veto would put more pressure on Bush to accept compromise because then he really would look like he was petulantly keeping American troops from being funded. The most popular "apparent cave" strategy would be for Congress to put a short time frame on the funding like two or four months and then retry the issue in June or August.

There are other things that Congress could do to provoke a second veto as well. The Dems could take out the withdrawal deadline, but leave in the "readiness" provisions that were in the first bill. Bush would veto those provisions as "micromanaging." The Democrats could also make the "benchmark" requirements mandatory for the Iraqi government to end "de-Baathification," spread around the oil wealth, and settle other regional issues. The benchmark idea is Jack Murtha's, but I also believe that what Murtha really wants is a second veto that would put more pressure on the president.

Like the initial deadline legislation, the "second veto" strategy would take the war out of President Bush's hands. It would just do so in a less direct fashion.

3. All-Out Confrontation. There are several ways that Congress could force a confrontation with Bush. The most direct strategy would be for the Democratic leadership to just sit on the war funding bill and let the money run out for the military. The disadvantage is that that would give the Bush administration and the right-wing media a strong talking point about Democrats undermining the military. A further disadvantage is that the Democrats would be in the disadvantageous position of not doing anything during a time of war. That would be extremely hard if not impossible to justify.

A more plausible way for the Democrats to confront the president would be for the leadership to formulate a bill that funds troop withdrawals now rather than waiting until this October or next March. That would provide the president with two options--the original withdrawal date or immediate withdrawal. Bush could decide that he liked the original withdrawal date better. Getting votes for an immediate withdrawal bill might be a dicey proposition though.

My personal preference is for the "All-Out Confrontation" option. However, it's unrealistic to expect the Democratic leadership to undertake something that risky with a general election coming up in 2008.

Ultimately, "The Second Veto Strategy" is the option that provides funding for the troops, takes control of the war from Bush, and is politically doable for the Democrats.

And that's what I think we'll see from the Democratic leadership over the next few weeks.