Many of you may be wondering why the pretzeldent vetoed the Iraq Accountability Act instead of signing it and issuing one of his infamous "signing statements," and simply declaring his intention not to abide by the provisions of the law he didn't like.
While there were surely elements of pure partisan politics involved, and not a little bit of ego, there may also be a more practical reason: killing time and running out the clock.
Take a look at the parting shot in Bush's veto message:
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.
If there's anything more important to Bush than funding his occupation of Iraq, it's escaping out the back door of the White House in 2009 with his vision of the authority of the his presidency unquestioned and unchallenged.
Recall that earlier today, I pointed back to the February assertion that:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
With yesterday's veto message, we finally get the "legal theory" behind Condi's rather unusual (for a Secretary of State, anyway) statement. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation on the grounds that it's "unconstitutional." Now, there's plenty of good reason to believe that's just dead wrong. But more important than whether Bush is right or wrong is what it buys Bush to cast doubt on the issues.
A veto of any bill that interferes with his imaginary powers is an important and necessary time waster for Bush. With no signature, there's no law. And where there's no law, there's no way to break it. And if the law isn't "broken," then Congressional Democrats remain paralyzed, unsure of how to proceed.
Consider the statement by Speaker Pelosi the other day, as reported by kid oakland:
The Speaker was quite clear. The important thing is for Congress to reassert itself. When asked what she would do if the President chose to sign this or a future bill with a signing statement that rejected the clear meaning of the bill that Congress had passed, Speaker Pelosi said, "We can take the President to court."
Now consider what happens if the bill is simply vetoed: nothing.
Yes, the Congress goes back to work to try to find some other way to reassert itself, but so long as there's no signature or no override, Bush does not give the Congressional leadership a signal it understands -- or at least is willing to act on -- and we remain stuck in neutral.
If the day comes when Bush feels he absolutely must sign an appropriations bill (and depending on how far you think he's willing to go in stretching the boundaries of the law, that day may or may not arrive), then he may in fact resort to the use of a signing statement. At which point, no doubt, many Congressional foes will be waiting for definitive proof that he has indeed acted in contravention to the law, and not merely threatened to do so. But given both the complexity of the issues involved, the fact that they're intricately tied up in issues of national security, and this "administration's" penchant for secrecy, it may be months before even a manifest violation of the law comes to light. All the better for Bush, of course, whose main interest at this point is making sure that if there's ever going to be a court ruling, it happens as close to his scheduled departure date as possible. Preferably well afterward.
Bush's veto message is no different in its substance from what he's said in the past in his signing statements, when he purported to disagree with the constitutionality of laws that Republicans passed. But he signed those bills, even as he professed to believe they were "unconstitutional," and simply reserved the "right" not to obey them.
So this may also be the answer to whether or not there's any kind of withdrawal legislation Bush would sign, and that answer is probably no. Not because he couldn't live with "goals" or "benchmarks" necessarily, but because signing it and then ignoring it is the very signal the Democratic leadership is waiting for to take this to the next level -- or at least what they think is the next level -- that is, going to court.
Note: A gold star to KenBee, who nailed this very same issue all on his own in the comments to my last post, and which I discovered in the middle of this writing. Good eye, KenBee!