For some months, Democrats have been trying to force an end to the war in Iraq without being blamed by the public for cutting off funds for the troops. Given the resolve of President Bush to continue the mission however, it’s clear that eventually the Democrats will have to choose. They must either force an end to the Iraq mission by not funding it, or admit to their base that they are unwilling to take that political risk. The suggestion from some House Democrats that they plan a short-term funding measure is clearly a step toward cutting off funds. Some may argue that this is a bridge to full funding, but this isn’t the pattern that Congress uses in such cases. If the Congressional leadership intends to fully fund… something, and face a deadline to do so, the bridge funding–typically a continuing resolution–is introduced late in the process, shortly before the deadline. This keeps the pressure on for quick action on the regular appropriations bill. Further, the CR is short term, to ensure that the pressure remains on to the greatest extent possible. Thus, if House leaders intended to give the troops the support they need, there would be no talk (yet) of a short-term measure. Rather, House leaders would say that right after the first supplemental is vetoed, they will turn to work on a new version. They would not yet discuss the CR. Thus the very mention of a short-term measure confirms what ought to be obvious: House leaders are now considering cutting off funds. But while the House may want to go this route, the president and the Senate are clearly not thrilled with it. From Roll Call ($):
The Bush administration is warning Democrats not to pass a short-term war spending bill following an expected veto of a long-term war supplemental later this week, arguing that doing so would wreak havoc with the military’s ability to plan and prosecute the war.
Print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account
Digital subscriber? Click here to login/register your account.