Yesterday, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved a bill that funded $122 billion to the Iraq conflict but called for a withdrawal of most of U.S. forces by March 31, 2008. A few days earlier, a similar bill was passed in the House. President Bush answered with the threat of vetoing both bills, accusing Congress of withholding important funding from our troops and undermining Executive power over military policy. He has recently engaged in strengthing ties with his fellow Republicans by inviting the entire House GOP caucus to the White House in an attempt to assure a presidential veto will not be overridden with the 2/3 vote it needs.
The funny thing about the presidential veto is that it is most powerful when it is not used than when it is used. A powerful president will strategically place the word “veto” next to “cooperation” and “compromise” while the legislation is still in its early phases in Congress. By alluding to his constitutional power to veto legislation, he encourages the House or Senate to work with the executive to create laws that appease both branches. A wise president understands that he/she may even appear weaker by using the power of the presidential veto because it indicates an inability to work with Congress to pass legislation that fits the administration’s agenda.In the current Congress-Bush struggle with funding and Iraq War withdrawal timeline, the President George W. Bush takes center stage. The perceived weakness by a potential veto on his unpopular war in combination with the President’s lame duck status and unprecedented unpopularity combine to leave the most damaging of circumstances to Bush…a losing legacy in the American history books. If President Bush vetoes either the House or Senate finance bill with an Iraq withdrawal timeline, he should do so on unconstitutional grounds. Legislation must be vetoed on grounds of unconstitutionality, not merely unpopularity in the administration.
That being said, there are points made by both Republicans and Democrats on this particular issue:
Points for Republicans
o Senate and House Democrats (and a few Republicans) are resolved in removing troops but have yet to agree to an effective unit of measurement for proper withdrawal…if they can’t do it how can they hold the administration responsible either?
o There is some truth to Republican criticism that the Congress is micromanaging military policy and…
o Failing to pass legislation for funding leaves thousands of our troops stranded, poorly equipped and at the fate of lawmakers thousands of miles away. By withholding proper funding to make a political point to the Bush Administration, the Democrats are using these men and women as political pawns.
Points for Democrats
o President Bush’s unpopularity has never been more defined. Period.
o Momentum in the bills passed in both the House and Senate stem from momentum of Democrats taking Congress in the midterm elections. They have enough support to suggest an electoral mandate to counter certain aspects of the Bush administration’s legislative agenda.
o The Democrats have successfully thrown the ball in President Bush’s court and leave him directly responsible for the fate of the bill as well as the programs and, most importantly, the men and women affected by the proposed funding within the legislation.
The moral of the story, however, is no one is completely right. Compromises must be made, and quickly. Representative David R. Obey (D, Wisconsin) and chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, “Nicaragua ended with a compromise. El Salvador ended with a compromise. Vietnam did, too. The president will compromise.” Let’s hope both the President and Congress can make history repeat itself in ending the Iraq conflict.
