The House Sets A Deadline

In a very close vote (218-212), the House passed an Iraq spending bill which sets a deadline for US forces to come home (September 2008). It's not the best bill in the world but it's the best deal the Democrats could get at this juncture. And what's more, the four California progressives (Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey) were allowed to vote their conscience. They didn't whip up support against the bill, but they were allowed to give their personal opposition to funding any more money for the war. So good for the progressives and good for Nancy Pelosi. The media stories will all say "Democrats vote to end the war," and I would expect people to take notice of that.

The Senate bill which mirrors the House Appropriation got out of committee.

Now here's what the Democrats ought to do. I know that the Republicans are vowing to filibuster in the Senate, and failing that the President is threatening to veto. LET THEM. And then pass the same appropriations bill again and again until the President signs it. If he truly wants the money, he can sign the bill. If not, he cut off funding for the troops. This is the message that needs to be sent to the Capitol. Today.

UPDATE: This should be the content of the Speaker of the House's press conference on the bill, after the President's expected remarks of "I'm disappointed, I will veto it, give me a clean bill."

"The Congress was asked to appropriate money for the troops in Iraq. We have fulfilled our duty. If the President doesn't like the terms, we're very sorry but we've done our job. The money is on the table and I'm frankly surprised that the President refuses to accept it. He ought to think about how desperately the troops need that money rather than his own political agenda.

If the President wants to continue this war, we in the Congress have given him all the money he needs. Our work is done. If he vetoes the bill, we'll have no choice but to send the same bill right back up to his desk for him to sign. We don't want to cut off funding for the troops. Apparently the President does. That's disappointing but it's the President's call."

The same kind of speech should be made by Harry Reid, directed at Republicans in the Senate.

The pressure is on Bush, not the Congress to craft something that Bush wants. Congress is done with the appropriations process. They shouldn't look back. This is the message that must be sent to the House and Senate leadership. Eseentially the message is this: take it or leave it. And if you don't like it, then stop your little war.

Why anyone would care about this President stamping his little feet is beyond me. The Republicans and the White House have to make a somewhat convoluted argument to turn the Democratic Congress appropriating money for the war into "the Democrats are cutting off funding for the war." The reverse argument is much cleaner. By vetoing the bill, the President is cutting off funding for the war. Literally. Very specifically. Without question. Why won't anybody say that?

The American people will get behind this if the argument is made clearly and simply. No majority would support the President getting carte blanche to continue the war. If he wants to do it, he should be compelled to accept the language of this bill.

Now, if he makes a signing statement, that's another matter...