Story here.
If it passes and if W does veto it – what then? Does that put the Congressional Dems in a weaker or a stronger position? And can they override it? If not, then there’s no spending bill – so how do the troops in the field get their continuing funding? And if there’s a problem there, who gets more blame – the POTUS or Congress?
And if this comes down to a question of what constitutional authority WRT war rests with which branch, who has the better case?
I think it can only be a good thing for the Democrats if they get a bill together and get it through both houses. If Bush vetoes it, that might even be better for them, but I’m not sure. I do think the public is probably getting tired of the Democrats considering one idea after another and then nothing happening.
That’s a good point, I think. People are getting tired of the dithering over whether they can pass something or not, and whether that something would have teeth or not. I think it would be more productive to just push something through that’s substantive and let whoever plays the obstructionist take the heat for it, whether that’s Congressional Republicans or the White House.
Right. Frustration over Iraq had a lot to do with the November election results. So far, the Democrats have talked a little, squabbled and done nothing. From what I’ve seen in polls, the public is unhappy with the Republicans, but isn’t much happier with Congressional Democrats - so they need to get something done on the issue.
Make the President veto it.
The Democrats have him trapped. This is a bit of political gamesmanship that I didn’t the Democrats had the stones for. It’s about time. 
I say let him veto it. I think the Dems would have public opinion on their side regarding a deadline for withdrawal. I’d expect a propaganda blitz from the WH predicting all manner of dire consequences if we set a timetable in Iraq, but if the Dems hang tough for once, I think they can still win the political battle. Bush could not let the soldiers in Iraq fester without pay or supplies for more than a day or two. Even if he was stubborn and psychopathic enough to continue refusing to sign the spending bill, I think the public pressure migh be enough to drive Congressional republicans to join in an override of the veto.
Unfortunately, I think that’s all a pipe dream. I predict the Dems will ACTUALLY go belly-up like they always do. 
He vetoes, Dems can’t get enough pub votes to override, war goes on and it’s the fault of the Republic party.
But if he vetoes and the Dems can’t get enough help for an override, then the war can’t go on, can it? This is the bill that would fund it.
That would be where the negotiations come in, something Bush hasn’t had to do. He’d be seen as holding up money for the war. The Dems would have to get some sort of bill through eventually to not be seen as starving the troops, but I’d expect they would be able to get some concessions. They would still have a plan to refute the talking point they have none, and they’d still have put the onus of the war’s continuation on Bush.
There has been some erosion in the repub mantra of supporting the troops. They have not taken care of the returning injured soldiers like they said they would. They cut funding for the vets health care. Now is the time for the dems to remind America that the admin did not supply the proper armor. Also that during the passage of the bankruptcy bill the dems offered an amendment that would allow an exemption for soldiers who are returning to combat and suffering financial hardship’ The repubs rejected it along strict party lines.
If Bush vetoes the bill, the Dems can send up a new bill that’s the same as the old one (no point in going for the override unless they’ve got a lot of GOP help - extremely unlikely!), and he can veto that. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Eventually he’d have to sign a bill in order to ‘support the troops’ by means other than a sudden and total evacuation.
I think thats overly pessimistic. I am not willing to judge the Dem’s performance quite yet…they haven’t been in all THAT long after all, and they are still getting their feet under them after over a decade where the Republicans controlled both houses. Give them some time.
As others say, I think the Dems should push on this one and force Bush to veto if thats what happens. I think its a win/win for the Dems.
-XT
Of course, public approval of Congress is lower than for Bush. Bush is (currently) at a trifle over 35%; Congress at 31%. Cite. So they need to [list=A][li]do something to get ahead of Bush [*]Not do anything stupid to fall behind.[/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Of course, public approval of Congress is lower than for Bush. Bush is (currently) at a trifle over 35%; Congress at 31%. Cite. So they need to [list=A][li]do something to get ahead of Bush [*]Not do anything stupid to fall behind.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
These statistics are deceptive, because while Bush has a disapproval of 65%, Congress only has a disapproval of 53%. 16% remain unsure (mostly Dems & Independents), and I think that’s because those undecideds are waiting for Congress to act. This bill will do that, and I think a single strong action by Congress will easily bump that 31 well above Bush.
Oh, certainly…though I think it might be becoming the case of ‘a pox on both your houses’ kind of thing.
True. And if the Dems think that the mood of the country is such that a push on Iraq will win them approval, then this might be the ticket. Regardless, it will show that the Dems in Congress are willing to do something besides talk.
Well…thats the trick, isn’t it? 
-XT
I noted earlier that nobody’s happy with Congress either. (But I’m guessing I Reps who agree with Bush about the war are helping to drag that number down.) But Congress doesn’t need to be popular the same way a President does. Incumbents rarely lose and they’re only accountable to their constitutents, not the country at large.
This is a ghastly, wretched situation for all involved. Are the Dems timid? You betcha! Because the ground can shift tomorrow. An incident, a scandal, anything like that offering the opportunity for the Repugnicans to wave the bloody shirt and scream their collective heads off about patriotism and supporting our heroes. Would they stoop to such? Is The Bear catholic, does the Pope shit in the woods?
Bush wants another Friedman, another six months or so, with an option for an extension. He really believes (apparently) that its all about to turn around dramaticly, just a little longer, and the sky will begin to rain ponies. Probably the next trick will be to agree to a withdrawal, but without a timetable, which, ya know, would ensucken.
I’m fairly sure the answer to both of these is ‘no’. So, what does that say about your answer to the 'Pub’s (Pug’s?? 
) possible actions?
-XT
On the question of Iraq, though, about 70% of Americans oppose the war and and a majority (56% last I checked) favor setting a deadline for withdrawal. If people disapprove of Congress, it’s not because the Dems want to force Bush to set a deadline but because they’re still being seen as ineffectual and gutless. A decisive move to impose a deadline on the war can only be a political winner.