bush vetoes war spending bill over timetable

During the attack ads next year running up to the election, the conservatives will no longer be able to use their favorite line: "The Democrats don't have a plan."

Why not? Because the Democrats do have a plan. And they put it before Congress in the form of the 2007 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. This legislation, having passed both the House (218-208) and Senate (51-46), approved $124 billion in funding for the Iraq war, but also gave a timetable for withdrawal.

Today, President Bush vetoed the bill.

So the Democrats put forth a comprehensive plan on how to clean up the president's mess, but he rejected it. What more can the Democrats do at this point? Yes, the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, but the majority isn't large enough to override the president's veto unless the bill garners more bipartisan support. An attempt to override has been scheduled for tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

If the president will remain immovably stubborn on this costly issue, there is nothing else that the Democrats can do besides utilize the power of the purse. It will take time to work out the best approach: should the Democrats immediately cut funding, refusing to reintroduce legislation that would re-authorize the president the use of that same $124 billion that he vetoed today? Or will they take a more subtle route? Or, will they force the Republicans to face the consequences of their mistakes as a Democratic president is ushered into office in 2008?

Whatever happens in the coming months, keep in mind that President Bush started this unpopular war in Iraq, and today in the Oval Office he used a red stamp that spits in the face of the majority of Americans. At the same time, he assured us that our troops will face the continued chaos and danger of the battlefield indefinitely. No wonder his approval rating is only 28%.

Cornyn Is Unwavering in Support for Bush on Iraq

In a rare Saturday session, the Senate failed once again to advance a nonbinding resolution to the floor for a vote that would have condemned the President's Iraq escalation. The latest proposal floated in the Senate was identical in wording to the House resolution that passed earlier in the week.

The United States Senate met for a rare weekend session Saturday to vote on taking up a House-passed resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq. And, just as they did last week in a similar vote, Senate Republicans managed to block the resolution from consideration.

The measure picked up several Republican Senators who deferred to pressure from Republican leadership in the last debate - including Snowe, Hagel and Warner. Of course, both Texas Senators voted against advancing the resolution. Senator John Cornyn has been especially strident in his support of the administration, sticking like glue to Bush's failed war policies. Despite falling poll numbers, Cornyn hasn't softened one whit on his stance on the war - whatever George Bush wants, George Bush gets.

He is certain that President Bush's decision to send more troops into battle is the right move. He is certain that Democratic war thinking is wrong. Despite the growing misgivings of so many GOP lawmakers, Cornyn is certain that the United States should stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Stay until the job is done....can someone please define what that means? Because it sure sounds as though he's advocating for an indefinite stay.

He not only supports Bush's troop-increase plan, he describes any alternative in the starkest possible terms. "Are we going to allow Iraq to become another failed state which will then serve as a launching pad for future terrorist attacks, perhaps including against the United States?" Cornyn asked during a recent Senate floor speech.

That might have been a good question to ask a few years ago, when there was still hope of avoiding the hard choices brought on by civil war. But it ignores the reality on the ground, which is that Iraq is already one of the most dangerous places on earth, and it happened on our watch. As stated in a previous post...

".....stay the course" is no longer the Republican mantra, but other than semantics, nothing has changed. The administration still has no plans for a troop drawdown, no idea how to quell the sectarian violence, no definition for victory and no intention of admitting the truth. In the face of the recent meltdown, the Republican candidates' grim determination to keep uttering nonsense about "winning" is supposed to be viewed as being resolute. Actually, such obstinacy only serves to reinforce the reality that they cannot be trusted to manage the mess that they created or to level with the American public about our limited options. This is political posturing at its worst.

And as for the overwhelming public disapproval on the conduct of the war, Cornyn seems not to notice.

The freshman senator is such a throwback to the early days of GOP fealty to Bush that his Senate Web site includes a "compassionate conservatism" link. Choosing survival over solidarity, other Republicans are seeking political cover. Cornyn, 55, is one of 20 GOP senators up for re-election in 2008, but he is trying a different strategy from most of the others: unwavering loyalty......

Cornyn is a favorite at the White House, where he remains a Bush insider and close friend of Karl Rove. But his unalloyed defense of Bush's Iraq policies have some back home wondering whether he has gone too far.

"He's pretty much married himself to the president and to Karl" Rove, Bush's top political adviser, said Harvey Kronberg, editor of the Quorum Report political newsletter. "I'm just speculating, but we like to see a modest amount of independence here in Texas."

North Texans Debate the President's Escalation Plans

H. Con. Res. 63 --Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

As rumors of Republican defections surface, the congressional debate on the Iraq Resolution continues unabated today.

Despite having failed to secure any resolution to the Iraq crisis while in power, the Republicans now promise to snipe at any proposal, no matter how cautious, that would criticize the President's failed war plans. The House version of the Iraq Resolution is a non-binding statement opposing the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. Make no mistake - Bush is determined to proceed with this ill-conceived plan, despite the lack of support from Congress, the military or the American people. It's a huge political risk, and judging from this post from Gonzo Muckraker, the Republicans know it.

The stench of political desperation became so rank last week that a wisely anonymous staffer from the offices of either Rep. Shadegg (Arr-AZ) or Rep. Hoekstra (Arr-MI) leaked an insider memo to GOP friendlies, outlining how the party will attempt to avoid the debate. Their “strategy” - quoted verbatim - is …

“The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”

Read the resolution. Anyone voting against this resolution is voting for escalation. Given the unpopularity of Bush's proposal, the Republicans don't want to debate that issue, so they simply sidestep it altogether. Instead, they whine, misdirect and fall back on the tired fear-mongering that got us here in the first place.

Let's see which of our North Texas Republicans got the memo. Here is a selection of comments from the floor of the House yesterday.

Pete Sessions (R- Dallas): "With this resolution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study group -- which notes on page 73 of their report that it would 'support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.'

Nor does it provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq -- it simply says 'no' to the only strategy for success which has been put forward."

Michael Burgess (R- Lewisville): "When I was in Iraq in August of 2005, General Casey told myself and a group of us who were there, that 'There is no group in the world that can stand up to the American military. In fact, the only organized body in the world capable of defeating the American military was the American Congress.' I believe he was right......"

"I fully recognize that by voting against this resolution, I put myself in jeopardy of re-election, and I am willing to do that because I believe a vote for this resolution puts my country's fate in significant jeopardy for decades to come. ... Is it in our road national interest to win this fight? Can we prevail? Can we provide a modicum of security in the country of Iraq? Can we provide a modicum of sovereignty in the country of Iraq? For me, the answer ... is yes."

So Burgess is prepared to stake his future re-election on support for the surge. Let's see how that plays out in 2008.

[Note: C-SPAN has video links for the full text of the speeches, sorted by state. As soon as the link is updated, we'll provide it. ]