Getting Around Bush

"Li

sten, I understand Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq," President Bush said on April 16, in an attempt to appear flexible. "That's healthy. That's normal. And we should debate those differences." Nonsense. The President has no interest in debating anything. In fact, the current legislative argument over Iraq is right in his comfort zone. He can stand "with the troops"; he can argue that the Democrats want to leave the U.S. military naked in Babylon. He can do what he has done throughout—politicize the war, use it as a bludgeon against Democrats instead of trying to find common ground and thinking through the consequences of his intransigence. Best of all, he can do this secure in the knowledge that this is one battle he will surely win... even as the war shows many signs of worsening, including hundreds killed in Baghdad bombings this past week.

The screeches you just heard—No! No! Klein, you Bush appeaser!—are coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party, which, despite its incredible erudition, is unable to count to 67, the number of votes needed for a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Right now the Senate Democrats are stuck at 51 in favor of their version of the $100 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for the war through Sept. 30. It's a version that posits March 2008 as a goal—not a deadline, just a goal—for troop withdrawal. The irony here is that Bush could sign this bill because it gives him implicit authority to revise the withdrawal date toward perpetuity. Signing the bill would not only avoid a damaging political confrontation at home but also please the vast majority of Iraqis, who, according to the polls, want an American timeline for withdrawal. He might even be able to bolster the al-Maliki government, which has lost six Cabinet ministers, followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, who quit—nominally, at least—over the absence of a withdrawal timetable. Bush could simply say, "I agree with the goal set by Congress. I hope we can have all our combat troops out of Iraq by sometime next year, though we may not be able to do that."

But this is a President who won re-election by fomenting political confrontations, and he knows the Democrats are in a bind. They won't block funding for the troops. Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that 9% includes the noisier elements of the party's base. Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action was to "keep the President on a shorter leash"—that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, proprietor of the Daily Kos blog, who wrote with typical restraint, "What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach. Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him."

Kos assumes Bush will negotiate. He may also assume there won't be severe consequences if Congress refuses to authorize funding and the U.S. thoughtlessly skedaddles from Iraq. But even Senators like Obama and Jim Webb, who opposed the war from the start, say the extrication must be careful and must involve far better planning than the Bush-Cheney invasion. Sadly, the left-wing Democrats and Bush are playing the same game—all or nothing—and, even more sadly, the President is destined to win. Congressional Democratic leaders admit privately they'll give Bush his appropriation when the current Kabuki is over. The question is, What, if any, restraints can they put on funding for the troops? Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin says the next version of the bill should tie continued funding to progress on reforms the Iraqi government has promised and failed to meet: "We'll send him a bill with economic consequences for the Iraqis if they don't meet their own benchmarks in 60 to 90 days. The President says he favors those benchmarks. Let's see if he means what he says."

Levin also supports a proposal by Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois: "Give him the funds until September, but ask that he bring back the [Baker-Hamilton] Iraq Study Group to report then on three issues—whether the surge is working, whether the Iraqi government is meeting the benchmarks that even the President agrees need to be met, and how the U.S. military is standing up to the strain on its resources." A number of Senators told me they thought the idea was "ingenious," but one of them said, "Sure, but do you think Bush will approve even that?" No, I don't, and it's a disgrace.