home

Why Would Bush Veto The Iraq Supplemental?

Digby cited to some real insight on the Bush calculus on the Iraq supplemental funding bill from Gene Lyons and then added some of the special Digby insight. It got me to thinking, and hopefully adding some insights of my own. But first, Gene Lyons:

Here’s a puzzle: If President Bush really thinks he’s holding all the cards in his impending showdown with congressional Democrats over Iraq funding, why bother with a veto ? On previous occasions when Congress passed laws Bush found irksome, he’s quietly issued “signing statements” declaring in essence that the president is a law unto himself. . . . Two somewhat paradoxical reasons. First, the stakes are too high, because everybody’s watching. Bush may be commander-in-chief, but the United States isn’t yet a military dictatorship. Second, some Republicans have convinced themselves they’ve got the Democrats where they want them.

The first is the right answer. Too many people have become convinced that Bush can do anything and get away with it. Only if Dems LET him. Look at Gonzogate The second I think is not true. I do not believe there isa Republican in the United States that does not believe Bush is leading them towards an unprecedented electoral disaster in 2008. I think Lyons is wrong on 2. Then why will the GOP not jump off of Bush's political kamikaze mission? I'll tell you why I think they aren't on the flip.

Digby says:

I understand why the political establishment is convinced it's incredibly risky for the Democrats to face down the president on this. As they always do, they are fighting the last war (and half a dozen before that.)

Digby then makes the point that everyone should remember but does not - Clinton fought Gingrich to save Medicare, an incredibly popular program. Gingricvh fought for tax cuts. Clinton remembered his lesson in 1998 - he "saved social security first." Here Bush would be "saving" the Iraq Debacle.

But does this explain why the GOP is marching in lockstep like lemmings to political suicide? The answer lies here:

Said Grover [Norquist]:
The base isn't interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush. If Bush said tomorrow, we're leaving in two months, there would be no revolt.

And here:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

And whenever Matt Bennett, Leon Panetta, Lee Hamilton and every other Broder/Ignatius Democrat opens his mouth.

In plain language, the GOP is an authoritarian political party where the Decider decides and everyone else nods. The baa baa base will make you pay if you do not. Moreover, the GOP hopes the Dems continue to cower and fear playing hardball with Bush.

The GOP is hoping that Obama will listen to Broder and Ignatius and save them from Bush and Iraq. They have no other play. So that's the play they will make. So far Obama is trying hard.

< Alberto Gonzales Resignation Contest: Free Ice Cream | In the Mail: "The Italian Letter" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Recess appointment of Sam Fox (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by conchita on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:01:56 PM EST
    So much for Hilary's entreaty towards compromise and bipartisanship.  This is clearly war with the Dems in Congress.  More than ever I hope Harry Reid has the spine and the strategy for this battle.  I didn't think he would veto, but this looks like a metaphorical gauntlet, and we are clearly in for a fight.

    Thinking about this some more changed my mind (none / 0) (#5)
    by conchita on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    A veto would be simpler than a constitutional showdown over a signing statement, but it could be that they are gearing up for the mother of all showdowns.  Wish I could remember/link to where I read that they have been building towards a showdown - which they expect to win - over EP.  After today's kick in the face, it is clear that a battle looms.

    Parent
    Line item signing statement (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Zeno on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    I was thinking along the same lines: If Bush thinks his presidential signing statement can actually modify the legislation he signs, why wouldn't he sign any supplemental funding measure sent to him by Congress and then indicate he's going to ignore whatever deadline it might contain? He's the decider, you know. I wrote a post (Fun with Presidential Signing Statements) about it last Saturday.

    It (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    needs vetoed just for the massive pork in the bill.  

    Which means... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TomStewart on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    Georgie should have vetoed EVERY funding bill since this lovely war began.

    Sorry Super-Genius, try another one.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:42:29 AM EST
    Yeesh (none / 0) (#6)
    by jarober on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    Norquist is a fool.  Republicans back Bush mostly in spite of Bush, and mostly because we believe that the Democratic "ideas" on foreign policy are Chamberlain-esque.  Watch the 2008 primaries on the Republican side - you won't find a "get out of Iraq now" candidate getting any traction.

    70% of Americans want us out (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    ... so you 29%ers keep drinking the rove kool aid.

    Parent
    Reid has the backbone (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    If he can control Biden (and it seems like he can), then Obama should be cake.

    Re: the GOP is marching in lockstep like lemmings (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:50:20 PM EST
    Many, most, seem to be marching in lockstep on Iraq only because they are for bush, yes.

    But on a few other things some of them, an increasing number, are thinking about next year and moving to jump the sinking ship and dump bush like a bad habit.

    Though it's out of self interest, some...
    Leading voices in the conservative movement are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress restore checks and balances within the government and rein in the power of President George W. Bush.
    One big problem they are having is that
    ...their point of view is consistently being drowned out by the "Anne Coulter wing" of the Republican Party, fed by the "ignorance of members of Congress about the principles of a constitutional democracy."
    William Fisher: The Right Seeks To Rein In Presidential Power
    The [Liberty] Coalition has launched a new initiative, known as the American Freedom Agenda. The AFA's ten-point action program calls on Congress to [among other things]:
    * Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.

    * Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.

    * Challenge presidential signing statements.
    AFA principals are: Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene, Richard Viguerie

    So he may lose (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    what little support he has left now in the GOP if he doesn't veto?

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:48:49 AM EST
    It was a rhetorical question.

    Parent
    So I guess you're predicting a certain Nebraska... (none / 0) (#9)
    by cal11 voter on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    Senator won't be running for President?  Or, at least, won't be the Republican nominee?

    Hagel? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jarober on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    Hagel won't even stay in the race, much less win.  Mind you, the next President won't be Hillary, Obama, or McCain for a simple reason: in general, Senators don't win the White House (not directly from the Senate).


    But what makes anyone think (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:25:47 PM EST
    he won't do exactly that (not veto, then issue a signing statement)?

    These threats to veto are vintage Bush, pushing to see what he can extract from Dems, especially since statements from people like Obama would lead him to think opposition can easily be bulldozed if he just holds firm. I won't be surprised in the least if he makes threats to veto right up till the very last moment and then signs, adding a signing statement to try to negate restrictions on his Occupation.

    BTW, that comment from Grover Norquist is incredibly revealing. The party of authoritarianism - exactly. Whatever Big Daddy says, that's what they're for.

    the mumbo -jumbo of "the base" (none / 0) (#13)
    by orionATL on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    it's not the base that is keeping bush going.

    it's congressional republicans.

    were they to desert him, even in small numbers, it would signal the end for bush, at least for an arrogant bush.

    but few congressional republican will oppose him in house or senate votes.

    even the so-called moderates simply will not defy him.

    why?

    "the base" will take revenge in the primaries?

    possibly.

    but i suspect the republican congressional caucus is held together by white house black-mail.

    why does arlen specter continue to play ball? remember the little story that leaked out about a staff member of his having issued lots of chits for earmarks?

    and olympia snow?

    and gordon smith, who is being set up to lose to a democrat next year?

    and john sunnu?

    politicians are normally EXTREMELY sensitive to power switches. in politics, undue loyalty or stubbornness are very destructive vices.

    yet the congressional republicans do not seem to be as sensitive about their futures as one would expect.

    if true, why?

    again, i suggest

    white house political black-mail.

    in time we'll know if mine is just a crack-pot "conspiratorial" theory or not.

    and just to add an even crazier note,

    recall that  there has been domestic spying  in this country since at least 2002 - only on "peace activists", of course.

    supplemental? (none / 0) (#14)
    by mjvpi on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:43:26 PM EST
    Why aren't we talking about why this amount of money wasn't included in the budget. I'm sure that there are many people who knew that this money would be needed. That's the point at which politics are really being played. Funding a 5 year war on supplemental appropriations? It was done like this to make the budget deficit look smaller, even though the projected costs were known.

    the strategy (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:40:00 PM EST
    Of course 2008 will be a bad year for Republicans.  The strategy is to stay in Iraq despite the polls say (compared to Vietnam, deaths and costs really are low) since Bush is sure that leaving would be a mistake.  If the Dems leave in 2009 and Iraq turns out fine, the GOP has lost anyway.  If the Dems abruptly withdraw in 2009 and a nasty war takes over with terrorism and increased oil prices, it will all fall on the Dems.  Withdrawing in 2008 will give Bush no credit and all the potential for being blamed.

    where has this commenter been for the last 6 years (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    a nasty war takes over with terrorism and increased oil prices
    That's what we currently have, perhaps a change of course is in order. Like diplomacy with all the countries in the region and screaming for help to the UN.

    Parent
    Obama's brain fart makes veto near certainty (none / 0) (#17)
    by fairleft on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:11:15 AM EST
    Read the diary I posted over at booman tribune on this a couple days ago, at http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/4/2/205336/5831

    In short, "if he vetoes, watches the Democrats capitulate and then signs the clean bill, he gets the money AND gets to watch congressional Democrats perform their excruciating ritual, 'We are Weaklings in the Age of Terror.'"

    worst-case scenerio (none / 0) (#22)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    The bad outcome is terrorism in the US (a la Madrid) plus some sort of war/terrorism in the gulf itself that cuts off supplies and pushes oil prices way up.  At this point the terrorists do exist, as Sailor says, but they are mainly restricted to killing fellow Iraqis and bombing Madrid to influence the Spanish election.  The hope would be that our withdrawal seen as weakness which would promote an attack.  
    Maybe we should ask the Israelis for advice at this point, since they have actual experience dealing with terrorists of the nationalist/Islamist persuasion.

    Shouldn't we ask soneone successful? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    Maybe we should ask the Israelis for advice at this point, since they have actual experience dealing with terrorists of the nationalist/Islamist persuasion.
    in case you hadn't noticed israel has been very successful dealing with the folks whose country they are occupying.

    Parent