As posted on the front page, one possible solution to our current impass on how to deal with funding for Iraq would be to provide 2 months of "clean" funding. This is a variant on the Blue Dog's strategy of providing funding in 3 month chuncks offered in H. Res 97. This plan is all well and good for buying the Democrats more time but what do we exect to accomplish with this? What do we plan to do in once the 2 months are up?
It would put pressure on those opposing any restrictions on funding as they would have to vote against a bill similar to the one just vetoed again but at this point I don't think we will pick up that many more Republicans, probably not enough to override a veto. I could be wrong and we could get the votes to beat a veto in 2 months but past experience as to the extent of Republican insanity gives me doubts.
So where does this leave us in 2 months? I think there is one possible solution if you will be so kind as to join me below the fold.
For the rest of this diary I will be going off the assumption that the Democrats will eventually give Bush 2 months of clean funding and that the situation in Iraq in 2 months will either be the same as today or slightly worse.
First, lets take a look at what is, in my opinion, the most likely senario to play out in 2 months. In 2 months, it will be time for the congress to authorize more funding for the war. It is likely that the Democrats will propose a bill which funds the war but includes restrictions which will in some way bring an end to the war. I assume that the bill will pass both the house and senate with the support of some Republicans, probably more than the number that supported the last bill, but probably not enough to override a veto. I then expect Bush to veto the bill and I expect an attempt to override to fail. At this point we are at a position similar to today's. We also have very similar options.
- We could cave in and give Bush a year's worth of funding but with no binding or meaningful restriction to end the war since that is about the only type of bill that Bush will not veto. Obviously this is the worst case, which none of us want to come to pass.
- We could not send another bill at all and end funding. This option is one of the more appealing options to me but I do not believe it is realistic. The congress will not cut funding in 2 months time, it just won't happen.
- We could give Bush another 2 month extension in hopes that enough Republicans will join us the next time around. This is possibly an exceptable outcome, if we believe after 1 or 2 more of these extensions we will be able to get a veto proof majority, however I do not think this will happen. Or,
- We could give Bush an ever shortening leash, to steal georgia10's analogy. I'll explain this in further detail.
It is my belief that the root of our problem lies in the fact that, at the moment, the Democrats are not will to end funding for the war. This is why Bush feels safe to veto the Iraq funding bill. He knows the congress will eventually give him funding. If this were to change, and if Bush were not certain that the congress would give him funding if he rejected a bill with restriction, he may be forced to accept the bill with restrictions as better than nothing. I think here in lies the key to ending this war before the end of Bush's term.
At the moment there is not enough public support for cutting off funding for the war to get congress to do it. According to the latest Gallup poll on the subject that I could find, here, the numbers are against us. Also, for as much as I respect the Democrats in congress not enough of them have the backbone to withstand the waves of criticism following the cutting of funds. I believe the numbers supporting the cutting of funds will increase as time passes however the growth of these numbers will need to be encouraged and our congressional representatives will need to be given a leg to stand on to withstand the right wing attack if they make calls to cut funding.
I feel the best way to make cutting funding justifiable is to make it seem that congress has no choice. If we paint a picture of Bush refusing to accept the congress's terms and the congress giving him more time but slowly running out of patience, I think we can force Bush to give in and accept restrictions on funding. The way to do this would be to pass ever shortening clean funding bills. We do this so that we set the trend here and now that the number of extensions we will give Bush before he accepts restricted funding is finite.
If the congress goes with a plan like this the majority of Americans, or close enough to a majority, may feel the congress is justified in cutting off funds. It may also give our representatives enough of a defense that they feel they can take the storm of right wing attacks following a proposal to end funding.
If we can get Bush to believe it is a bill with restricted funding or no funding at all we may get him to sign something. The Democrats talk about racheting up the pressure, well this is the way to do it. It may also be enough to get more Republicans to support restricted funding. Again, I have strong belief in the stubborness of Republicans so I don't know if even the threat of a looming head to head confrontation with congressional Democrats and Bush will be enough to get them to budge.
Finally, what happens if Bush is stubborn to the end and the clock runs out? I see this primarilly as a strategy to force Bush to accept restricted funding since I have no doubt that this is the option most prefered by congress. Really, this whole idea is a semi-bluff. The idea is to convince Bush that he has no choice but to accept congress's terms. However, if Bush calls the bluff congress will be faced with a hard decision.
- Cut the funding. If public opinion has swayed enough towards the Democrats ending the war right here and now great. Make Bush regret being so stubborn. Will the congress ever have the spine to do this? I don't know, the whole idea of this is to make it so that they are willing to take drastic measures but I don't have much confidence in the spines of some of our leaders.
- Muck our hand and give Bush a rather large victory. I suppose at this point we would have no choice but to fall back to option 3 and fund the war a month or 2 at a time and hope that enough Republicans feel they cannot keep voting to support this war.
I'm not an expert at this. There may be a serious flaw in my reasoning, but this is what I believe at this moment to be the best option. It is probably a bit risky since it may commit the Democrats to doing something they aren't willing to do but to end this war before Bush's term expires we may need to take risks.
Here's my to bits on the matter, lets hope many more people can find plausible solutions to this problem.