Blank Check to Wage War

Since Congress sent Bush his requested war supplemental with a timetable for combat troop withdrawal and some pork attached on May Day, which he promptly vetoed because of the presence of the latter two aspects, Congress has been in flux on what to do about Iraq. The House first attempted two resolutions: the first ordering the withdrawal of all combat troops within a nine-month period, which drew 171 votes (including a majority of House Democrats), and the second offering a budget that would give Bush his war money in installments instead of imposing a timetable for troop withdrawals. The first bill came short of passage obviously, with but 171 votes (out of 435 total House Representatives). The installments would have given Bush $43 billion in war money immediately and scheduled a vote on the second $53 billion for July. The installment budget passed in the House, but was considered dead on arrival in the Senate (fortunately).

Next, the Senate took up the debate. Liberal Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced a bill that would cut off funds for combat operations on March 31, 2008, forcing Bush to withdraw the combat troops by that time. The bill was co-sponsored by such high-profile figures as presidential candidate Chris Dodd and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The measure surprisingly managed to garner the support of some major Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary's support was very surprising, given that she has, up to this point, adamantly opposed any binding effort to withdraw the troops and, to this day, refuses to revoke her original vote to authorize the war. She gave reporters conflicting answers on her position in relation to the bill, first explaining "I'm not going to speculate on what I'll be voting on in the future." But a few hours later she said: "I support the ... bill. That's what this vote ... was all about." That, in particular, was a mystifying development. Anyhow, the bill managed to get the votes of 29 Senators, including 28 Democrats (the majority of Democratic Senators) and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Obviously, it failed to come close to the 60 votes required to pass over the heads of the Senate's minority party, the Republicans. But it was a noble effort. The Republicans introduced a bill that called for cutting off about $2 billion worth of reconstruction money for Iraq (out of the nearly $100 billion supplemental request), and made that cutoff non-binding by giving Bush the power to waive the requirement. 52 out of 100 Senators voted for it, but failing to reach 60 votes, it too failed to pass. Voting against were, among others, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Finally, the Senate passed a non-binding bill stating the Senate's goal of passing a war funding bill by Memorial Day (that's this upcoming weekend, folks). 94 out of 95 Senators who voted on the legislation appallingly voted in favor! The lone dissident was Russ Feingold.

Then on Friday, a group of Congresspeople, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, met with Bush Administration officials to attempt to reach a (further) compromise. Pelosi initiated the discussion by offering to give Bush a waiver for the combat troop withdrawal timetable, effectively making it non-binding. Bush rejected it, claiming he would veto any bill that so much as included timetable language, binding or otherwise. Pelosi then offered to, in addition, remove all the domestic projects from the bill (the Katrina relief, the health care for children, veterans, etc.), effectively offering Bush an essentially clean war bill. Still, Bush refused the offer because of the timetable language. That was the end of the meeting.

Now we reach this week. Check it out, folks (and here for an updated account): The House voted yesterday (Thursday, May 24, 2007) by a vote of 280 to just 142 and the Senate also voted yesterday by a vote of 80 to 14 to not merely give Bush his record nearly $95 billion worth of war money, but to do so completely and utterly without conditions on his war policies. The only war policy conditions -- the requirements of proper training for soldiers and the conditions of $2 billion worth of reconstruction money for Iraq -- were made non-binding in the final bill by way of giving Bush the authority to waive both. While the bill does at least include a favorable domestic spending package that includes, among other things, long-overdue Katrina relief, health care for children, and an increase in the minimum wage over a period of two years from the current $5.15 an hour to a whopping $7.25 an hour (still not a living wage), it fails to, in any way, restrain the president's authority over war policy. To say that I am appalled would be an understatement! I am absolutely infuriated! This Congress was elected to end the Iraq War, and here it is giving Bush the green light to continue on doing as he wishes without condition. This move comes as public opposition to the war reaches a record high and a fevered pitch: a new opinion poll (as cited in the first article) shows that -- get ready for this -- an overwhelming 80% of independents oppose the Iraq War. That's four out of every five! Is the mandate of Congress not abundantly clear?

And what of the presidential candidates, you might ask? Where did they stand on this bill? It might be important to note in deciding who to vote for next year. Thanks to his early declaration of support for the bill and ultimate vote in favor of it, Joe Biden is now officially off my list of considerations for the general election. If he wins the Democratic nomination, I will not vote for him in the general election. The "front runners," Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, remained non-committal on the measure until the end, when they finally ultimately decided to vote against it, fortunately. House Representative Dennis Kucinich voted against it without hesitation, as he has every war supplemental. Senator Chris Dodd, who usually votes in favor of war supplementals, came out against this one early on and was the Senate's first presidential hopeful to announce his opposition to the bill. John Edwards also came out early against the measure and published a calculation that, even if one favored the measure (which Edwards doesn't anyway), Democrats cannot politically afford to give Bush his war money without conditions or they will lose their base next year. Personally, I will not vote for any candidate next year that voted in favor of this bill. While I have endorsed Dennis Kucinich as my primary candidate of choice and remain firmly behind him, my secondary (that is, back-up) options are increasingly looking Greener and Greener. John Edwards now is the sole Democratic candidate I would vote for for sure in the general election other than Kucinich if he won the party's nomination. I remain uncertain about Mr. Obama, but, having seen his health care proposal and his hesitancy on this of all bills, am leaning toward opposition.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law this afternoon.