Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

Bumped -- Jonathan... Feel free to continue this thread as President Bush explains his decision to block funding for American troops in Iraq so that he can attempt to force Congress' hand into maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq forever.

As I type this, the Iraq Accountability Act has been signed by Reid and Pelosi. Now, it is heading to the White House, where it will be vetoed. Use this thread to discuss.

Tags: Iraq, Open Threads (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Re: Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

I hope that the Democrats are ready with a PR strategy to put into place the minute Bush vetoes...it's important that the American people see that it is Bush who is endangering the troops, not Congress.  Public sentiment will be crucial in terms of what Congress decides to do next--get tougher with Bush or cave in.

by MVD 2007-05-01 11:39AM | 0 recs
How 'Bout This?

There was a war in Iraq.  It ended four years ago.  We won.

The "war" has long been over.  We are now engaged in an occupation.  And the people whose country we're occupying would like us to leave.

It's wrong to talk about winning or losing at this point.  We won the war.  But now it's not about winning anything -- it's about staying, or going home.

There might once have been a good reason to occupy Iraq.  But not any longer.  We're not serving any useful purpose by staying.  In fact, we're making things worse.  Much worse.  That's why we have to leave.

by Perry Oikos 2007-05-01 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: How 'Bout This?

you're exactly right about the framing here.

I'm glad Reid had the courage to say the war was lost -- he got a lot of people talking about it. Now that they're talking, they need to adopt the frame you're in.

by msnook 2007-05-01 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: How 'Bout This?

I believe that's essentially the pov that James Fallows took in the Atlantic Monthly last fall. It's how we (Americans) should have been looking at things all along. The idea that we are still at war is probably a frame that Karl Rove came up with.

by nstrauss 2007-05-01 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

Right.  We need a competent PR strategy and need to speak on one voice and marginalize Joe Lieberman so people don't think he speaks for the Democrats in Congress.

We should have a speech already in the can ready to go to respond to Bush's nationwide address right after he's done with it a la the state of the union address.

Do we have someone to speak?  And will the networks give us equal time for a response?

by jgarcia 2007-05-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

Maybe Bush will be Bush and accidently sign the wrong line.

crosses fingers

by belili 2007-05-01 11:57AM | 0 recs
What Will Congress Do Next?

I have a couple dream scenarios, but I'd like to know what the plan is for after the veto.

Dream Scenario #1:  House Dems do nothing.  There are no new funds forthcoming, and Bush is forced to withdraw the troops now.

Dream Scenario #2:  Dems agree to a funding solution that does not include a timetable for withdrawal.  However, they attach a repeal of the Partial Birth Abortion Act to the funding.

Realistic (?) scenario:  Dems provide funding for another 2 months of the war.  They revisit the funding again after the 2 months are up and try again to force Bush to agree to a withdrawal.

Anyone know what they are going to do?

by Reece 2007-05-01 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

I've heard the third option thrown around a lot. It would be betting on the idea that the war will continue to go downhill and public support will continue to wane. Except it's not like betting because that is exactly what will happen. The Dems will only be in a stronger position 2-3 months from now vis-à-vis the war.

by LandStander 2007-05-01 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

How much "stronger" could our position be?

It is clear that the knows-no-bounds Bush administration plays by a different set of rules in terms of how "strong" a "position" is. And the ball's in his court here. There is no such thing as a "strong position" to him, only power. We need to take the ball back.

I will only support the idea of a 2-month extension if there is a really convincing argument made for how this will put the ball in our court, or establish hard power regarding the war, and so far I have no heard one, except that "of course we'll be stronger in 2 months!"

by msnook 2007-05-01 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

There should be some hard-to-swallow stipulations in any short-term bill. Troop readiness or veteran's benefits maybe.

As for positioning - Bush has only one, default position. He is the decider, the war-president, the commander-in-chief, with a national mandate and a mission from God. They will never let that line drop. But the Democrat's position has been improving, dramatically so, and it is based largely on the shift in public opinion. That shift hasn't stopped yet.

by LandStander 2007-05-01 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

God, option #2 would be fantastic.  I wonder if attaching a health exemption to the partial birth abortion ban would be sufficient to garner a veto

by Valatan 2007-05-01 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

yes he would veto it. it would be an idiotic political move. right now they're saying we're playing politics with the troops lives, and most people aren't believing it. if we did this, everyone would, including me.

by msnook 2007-05-01 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What Will Congress Do Next?

I've been fantasizing about option #1 for a long time.  "Hey, we tried to fund the war, but Bush vetoed it."  The only problem is that stupid people may then give Bush credit for ending the war.

by Go Vegetarian 2007-05-01 02:15PM | 0 recs
a note on the D.C./Media Zeitgeist

This notion that the bill is D.O.A., that the veto is a foregone conclusion and all eyes should look past it, that the Democrats knew it would be vetoed and so the passage of the bill amounted to "playing chicken" with the administration (but not the administration playing chicken with them) -- it's not exactly "wrong," per se, but it's incredibly situated, and shields the public from the incredible reality of the day.

We are one signature away from ending this god-forsaken war.

That is the reality right now. And the difference between that, and what we're hearing from the media has profound implications for public opinion. There are a few ads out there that use dramatic music and images to show just how epic this moment is, I got and email from Barack Obama and one from John Edwards about how close we were, but there needs to be a bigger push from us to get the media to tell the story in simple, what's-actually-going-on terms, or to tell it ourselves.

It aint's over until the fat lady sings. With a stroke of the pen, Bush could end this war, or he could send more brave men and women off to die. To ignore the choice behind this choice takes all the onus off the President himself -- the only person keeping us in Iraq.

by msnook 2007-05-01 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

It's genius that they are making Bush veto this on the Anniversary of 'Mission Accomplished.'

by Fro 2007-05-01 12:15PM | 0 recs
It's odd that he's doing it today

Since politics and spin supersede policy in this WH, there must be a deliberate calculation by the WH to do the veto today.

I'm sure we'll hear the spin reason tonight.  

Probably some nonsense that he doesn't want to delay a single day to to send money to the troops but it's up to the Democrats to make it happen.

I wish, wish, wish, that the media would point out that all Bush has to do to send the money is uncap his pen and sign the bill.

by sawgrass727 2007-05-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
No

The date thing was a deliberate calculation by Reid/Pelosi. Bush is signing it today because Congress is sending it to him today, Congress is sending it to him today because they want to force him to sign it on the anniversary. I can't find the link but the White House was actually expressing public annoyance at the Congress's timing.

by Silent sound 2007-05-01 12:38PM | 0 recs
Send the same bill back

over and over again.

by littafi 2007-05-01 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Send the same bill back

yep.

by msnook 2007-05-01 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Send the same bill back

If we keep sending the bill back, the moment of truth will be when the money actually runs out.

At that point, if Bush has a funding bill on his desk and he vetoes it, everyone will know he is to blame.

by msnook 2007-05-01 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Supplemental Signing and Veto Thread

It's easy to be discouraged, but this really is a big step forward.

I think the important thing, at this point, is September. It's (probably) inevitable that Congress is now going to just shove through a temporary funding resolution and set up a second confrontation in Septemberish.

So when that second confrontation comes, we need to be ready. We need to have a detailed record of all the times this month that Administration officials said "just a few more months, to see if the 'surge ' is working", so that if they say "just a few more months" in September, or come up with a different stalling tactic altogether, everyone remembers that that's what they did last time. We need to be ready for nearly instant revisionism of what happens over the next few months, and positioned such that if they try this time to do something like claim the surge "worked" because while it was going on shootings decreased while car bombings increased more, it does not go unchallenged in the press. And we need to be thinking about how to convince Republican congresspeople that going with the veto override vote a few months from now is in their interests...

Do you think, when the "temporary" funding bill passes, there will be any way to slip any concessions in there-- say, craft the bill to drop the timetable but include the troop readiness requirements? Would Bush really veto a bill whose only "strings" were troop readiness?

by Silent sound 2007-05-01 12:36PM | 0 recs
Why is Bush cutting off funding for the troops?

I'm just asking?

by gasperc 2007-05-01 01:38PM | 0 recs
We knew this was coming

 We better have a PLAN for the aftermath.

 At the risk of jinxing things, I will say that the Democrats have been better-organized than they've been in about a decade, standing firm in the face of  one right-wing PR blitz after another. So I have reason to hope Reid and Pelosi will continue to have their acts together.

 We'll see...

by Master Jack 2007-05-01 02:11PM | 0 recs
a political statement about opposition to the war

that's what congress is good for to this guy. to make political statements. he is the decider. congress just expresses their opinion, and shame on them for doing that.

by msnook 2007-05-01 02:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads