War funding

[nlm]

I was thinking - what chips does Bush really have to play in order to fund the Iraq mission? Veto - nope that will not get him the funds, it will stop a time table - but it doesn't fund his mission. He can not get the funding without Congress. So what chip does he have? It seems to me the only chip he has is to threaten to leave the troops in Iraq without funding, using the live of US Soldiers (and the implied threat of their deaths) as a means to get what he wants. Am I missing some other leverage that he has?

[MODU]

It's not about "chips."  By vetoing the bill, it pushes it back into the hands of Congress to defend why they think their bill should be signed.  At that point, the public spotlight is placed upon them, and if they quibble (which they will), then they will get the heat for abandoning our troops in a time of war.  I also expect to see one or two interest groups running commercials comparing this Congress with the one that abandoned our troops during Vietnam.

[elcorazon]

It's not about "chips."  By vetoing the bill, it pushes it back into the hands of Congress to defend why they think their bill should be signed.  At that point, the public spotlight is placed upon them, and if they quibble (which they will), then they will get the heat for abandoning our troops in a time of war.  I also expect to see one or two interest groups running commercials comparing this Congress with the one that abandoned our troops during Vietnam.

yet the choices made to get out of Vietnam were and still are the popular choices.  The Presidents who got us stuck there are unpopular still.  Congress pushing to get them out is not viewed negatively.

I'm not sure the same dynamic would play out this time, but the Vietnam comparison is one that will work out favorably for those looking to get our troops home, frankly.

[nlm]

It's not about "chips."  By vetoing the bill, it pushes it back into the hands of Congress to defend why they think their bill should be signed.  At that point, the public spotlight is placed upon them, and if they quibble (which they will), then they will get the heat for abandoning our troops in a time of war.  I also expect to see one or two interest groups running commercials comparing this Congress with the one that abandoned our troops during Vietnam.

While I think Congress may get the blame from the public, that is only because of perception management. It will be the choice of the Bush administration to put the mission ahead of the troops if funding is cut. Congress is holding up the mission - the President is using the lives of the troops as a "chip". It seems to me that he is betting that the American people and Congress care more about the troops than he does - which is most likely a safe bet. But if the American people understood that Bush was using the lives of the troops in a high stakes game of chicken, perception would shift.

But you didn't answer my question - what leverage does Bush have other than using the lives of the troops as a "chip"?

Congress is under no obligation to provide any funding for the war - so you've twisted things up a bit in your statement. Bush needs to make the case why he should get funding just as much as Congress needs to make the case why Bush should sign the bill. So really it does come down to "chips" in the management of public perception. And the only one that Bush seems to have is threatening to leave the troops on an unfunded mission and trying to blame Congress for the choice that he will have made.

Congress seems more than willing to abandon the mission, Bush seems more than willing to abandon the troops in order to keep his mission.

[MODU]

As I said, it's not about chips.  The leverage will be public opinion.  Even though they might not be happy with the war, they are equally unhappy that excessive pork was added to a war bill, and an insane timetable is forced onto the troops.  Look for both items to be dropped or be non-binding in the revision.

[nlm]

As I said, it's not about chips.  The leverage will be public opinion.  Even though they might not be happy with the war, they are equally unhappy that excessive pork was added to a war bill, and an insane timetable is forced onto the troops.  Look for both items to be dropped or be non-binding in the revision.

I say chip, you say public opinion - but we are talking about the same thing. Managing the opinions of the public. Bush is doing it by trying to set up a senario in which he believes - and want Congress to believe - that Congress will be held accountable for the possible Bush administration choice to leave the troops on a mission without funding. It is the only "chip" (or means to shape public opinion) that he has.

Most of the pork has already been taken out of the bill (it was very dumb of the Dems to put it their in the first place). The "insane" time table is actually backed by the public and Bush has failed to come up with any "chips" (means to shape public opinion) to change that.

I don't disagree with you that Bush is most likely to win this game of chicken - but his only means of winning it is to threaten to leave our troops to die on an unfunded mission and hope the public doesn't figure out that is what he is doing. As long as the public doesn't figure it out - he wins.

[MODU]

By insane timetable, I mean that if Iraq doesn't do all that Congress expects, they will begin to remove troops on day X.  If Iraq does do all that Congress expects, they will delay the troop removal date by 3 months.  THAT is what is insane.  It's a bill designed for failure, and just by listening to Reid and Murtha, that is what they want.  They don't want to win, and they don't care what the public and international opinion will be when they get what they want.  They just want to withdraw as a way to poke a finger in the eyes of Bush with no regards for the big picture.

[nlm]

By insane timetable, I mean that if Iraq doesn't do all that Congress expects, they will begin to remove troops on day X.  If Iraq does do all that Congress expects, they will delay the troop removal date by 3 months.  THAT is what is insane.  It's a bill designed for failure, and just by listening to Reid and Murtha, that is what they want.  They don't want to win, and they don't care what the public and international opinion will be when they get what they want.  They just want to withdraw as a way to poke a finger in the eyes of Bush with no regards for the big picture.

I see you have been getting the right wing opinions of what Reid and Murthas opinion are as opposed to their opinions.

But even if we pretend that those opinions of what other peoples opinions are correct (I find those opinions of opinions to be utterly silly and beyond logic) - that doesn't change the fact that the only means by which Bush has to change public opinion at this point is to use the lives of the troops (and the threat of their deaths as a result of a choice he will make - not Congress) to get what he wants, and that he appears to be more than willing to do so.

[Padfoot]

Haven't congressional leaders said that they will pass a funding bill without the timetable if Bush vetos?  With the timetable bill the real goal is to draw more attention to Bush's stubbornness and unwillingness to bend to public opinion and get out of Iraq.  There really is no motivation for Bush not to veto it because Congress is going to pass a funding bill with no strings attached afterward.

[nlm]

Haven't congressional leaders said that they will pass a funding bill without the timetable if Bush vetos?  With the timetable bill the real goal is to draw more attention to Bush's stubbornness and unwillingness to bend to public opinion and get out of Iraq.  There really is no motivation for Bush not to veto it because Congress is going to pass a funding bill with no strings attached afterward.

If you can find a quote from Harry Reid saying that - I'd love to see it.

The last thing he said on it was ""If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_23

Congress is certainly willing to talk - but that doesn't mean "no strings attached" - though it could end up that way if they lose their spine.

[Mr. Morden]

nlm-

You've figured out something that much of the media appears to be clueless on: Congress does not need a veto-proof majority to cut off $ for the war.  All they need is a majority in either house to simply refuse to approve funding for it.  Unless both houses of Congress continue to approve $ for the war, the funds will dry up.

Of course, this also means that Congress bears some responsibility for what happens in Iraq as a result of their policies.  If they provide the $, Congress will bear some responsibility for the continuation of the policy.  If they don't, then they'll bear responsibility for the consequences of that policy as well.

[nlm]

nlm-

You've figured out something that much of the media appears to be clueless on: Congress does not need a veto-proof majority to cut off $ for the war.  All they need is a majority in either house to simply refuse to approve funding for it.  Unless both houses of Congress continue to approve $ for the war, the funds will dry up.

Of course, this also means that Congress bears some responsibility for what happens in Iraq as a result of their policies.  If they provide the $, Congress will bear some responsibility for the continuation of the policy.  If they don't, then they'll bear responsibility for the consequences of that policy as well.

I certainly will argue that if the Congress cuts funding for the mission that they would bear responsibility for ending the mission. Only the President can keep the troops on a mission without funding, not Congress - so if that happens, that will be the Presidents choice and thus his responsibility. Saying that it will be Congresses fault if the President chooses to leave our troops in harms way without the funding they need doesn't added up - they simply don't have the power to make that choice. That's like blaming a police force that didn't cave into the demands of a hostage taker for the death of a hostage. In the most simplified of terms that is what the President is doing - holding the troops hostage and saying he will harm them if his demands for money are not met. That isn't something I support, respect, or find admirable - it's actually fairly disgusting.

[Mr. Morden]

nlm-

You've figured out something that much of the media appears to be clueless on: Congress does not need a veto-proof majority to cut off $ for the war.  All they need is a majority in either house to simply refuse to approve funding for it.  Unless both houses of Congress continue to approve $ for the war, the funds will dry up.

Of course, this also means that Congress bears some responsibility for what happens in Iraq as a result of their policies.  If they provide the $, Congress will bear some responsibility for the continuation of the policy.  If they don't, then they'll bear responsibility for the consequences of that policy as well.

I certainly will argue that if the Congress cuts funding for the mission that they would bear responsibility for ending the mission. Only the President can keep the troops on a mission without funding, not Congress - so if that happens, that will be the Presidents choice and thus his responsibility. Saying that it will be Congresses fault if the President chooses to leave our troops in harms way without the funding they need doesn't added up - they simply don't have the power to make that choice. That's like blaming a police force that didn't cave into the demands of a hostage taker for the death of a hostage. In the most simplified of terms that is what the President is doing - holding the troops hostage and saying he will harm them if his demands for money are not met. That isn't something I support, respect, or find admirable - it's actually fairly disgusting.

Has Bush actually said that if Congress provides no $ for Iraq, he will just leave the troops there anyway?  I don't believe he's done so.  I think what he's said is that if Congress doesn't pass the supplemental bill, the DoD budget allows him to shift $ from other accounts to keep the war going, but it won't be at the funding levels he wants, so he considers that "Congress putting the troops at risk".  However, the FY2007 budget expires on September 30th.  Congress could simply refuse to pass a new DoD budget that gives Bush that same flexibility to shift $ to the Iraq War.

In that case, starting Oct. 1, there wouldn't just be reduced $ for the war.  There'd be *no* $.  I don't believe that Bush would actually say at that point "I'm going to leave the troops there anyway, and use that as leverage to get Congress to change their mind."  (More likely, I think he would go ahead with the withdrawal and blame Congress for the consequences.  It would be an easy out for him to avoid responsibility for Iraq after that point.)  If he did, then I agree with you that Congress couldn't be held responsible for him doing that, but I don't think that that's what would actually happen.

[nlm]

I think what he's said is that if Congress doesn't pass the supplemental bill, the DoD budget allows him to shift $ from other accounts to keep the war going, but it won't be at the funding levels he wants, so he considers that "Congress putting the troops at risk". 

That's exactly the point - it would be his choice to keep the troops on a mission that was not funded well enough for them to survive -  Congress doesn't choose the mission - Bush does. Congress just set the financial limits for the mission.  If Bush chooses to exceed those limits - that is his choice. The lives of the troops is exactly the "chip" he is trying to play when he says "Congress is putting the troops at risk" - Congress is putting the mission at risk - not the troops, only Bush can put the troops at risk - which is what he is threatening to do every time he makes such a statement. Thus the whole "taking the troops hostage" thing. It is what he is doing - using the lives of the troops as a "chip" to get the money he wants to continue a mission that he wants to continue. I also think you are over simplifying the options that Congress has - there are many shades of grey they can venture into in terms of restricting use of DoD funding and restricting discretionary DoD funds. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Congress could also tag money to be used only for the withdraw of our troops or relocation of them. They have quite a few options, if they have the guts to use them (which remains a question).

What does Bush do if he gets a bill that only pays for the relocations of troops and some of the other items layed out in the Baker/Hamilton report? Does he veto it? What if Congress says that's it - if you want funding, this is the only choice you have? I know Congress is actively trying to avoid that happening, they are trying to give Bush some options - just not the ones he wants. I have no idea how this whole thing is going to play out - but it is wide open.

Getting Bush to veto the funding bill is the first step to making some of those options more achievable and setting the stage for better management of public opinion on their part. We will see how it plays out - both sides will be going at it hard and outside spin doctor groups will be getting involved as well in this battle for public opinion.