Pressure

Congress isn’t happy. And the President is in trouble. George Bush has again been pushed by Congress to bring American troops home, and he’s vetoed them. That bill was the one granting money for the war in Iraq, but it had one string attached: he had to bring troops home. It’s only the second veto of his presidency, though. President Clinton whipped out his veto pen a whopping 37 times during his time in office.

On May 1st, President George Bush cast only the second veto of his presidency, rejecting an attempt by both chambers of Congress to bring American troops home from Iraq. Never before has Congress passed a bill requiring the commander-in-chief to withdraw from a still raging war.
- The Economist

Other United States political figures moved to attack the President.

With this latest veto threat, the President has once again chosen confrontation over cooperation. For four years, the President has refused to pay for this war responsibly, and it is his veto of the Iraq Accountability Act which gave him more than he asked for that brings us to this point today.

- Nancy Pelosi

Earlier today I said the compromise under discussion is a concession, and now the president is already saying he’ll veto it. The president has just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be compromised with.

He is dead set on pursuing his discredited strategy in Iraq without regard to the cost in lives, the evidence of its failure, or the clear will of the American people.

- Senator John Edwards

The vast majority of people don’t think the president should have vetoed this bill. The bill authorised 124.2 billion dollars of spending, provided the president begin pulling troops out of Iraq by October 1.

Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible.

- President Bush

It’s pretty much a delaying tactic. It’s inevitable that Congress get their way: they don’t like being vetoed. In fact:

A bipartisan majority of Congress sent the president a bill to fully fund our troops and change the mission in Iraq. The president refused to sign this bill. That’s his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war. … But if the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he’ll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken.

- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev

There are signs, however, that the president’s belated surge tactics are working. Reinforcements have been sent to the most violence-ridden areas in Iraq, and already there has been a drop in one of the brands of violence.

The less crazed killers – Shia and Sunni militias fighting over power and turf – have greatly reduced their kill rate. But the al-Qaeda types, who want to spill as much blood as possible in pursuit of impossible goals, are proving impossible to deter. They are the ones who carry out the sensational suicide attacks, General David Petraeus told Congress last week.

- The Economist

Congress would do well to listen to General Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq.

So what do the two sides think? The Democrats want the bill that originally authorised the war to be revoked. Both Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, presidential aspirants, want this. Another idea is to only fund Mr Bush a few months at a time, keeping him on a proverbial leash. The two top candidates (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) support a more gradual process.

The Economist believes that a sudden withdrawal from Iraq could be disastrous.

If the Democrats simply cut off funding for the war, they could be blamed for whatever follows a sudden American withdrawal. That would include, at best, a huge loss of face for America and at worst, genocide in Iraq and a spreading of jihad beyond its borders.

The Democrat front-runners suggest a different course of action.

A better plan, the party’s leaders are suggesting, would be to give the money he needs but demand that the Iraqi government meets “benchmarks” on the road to a political settlement. If the Shia-dominated Iraqi government can agree on a formula for sharing power and oil revenues with the country’s angry Sunni Arab minority, that might forestall civil war and allow America to withdraw with honour. If they fail to meet the benchmarks Congress sets, they might be deprived of non-military aid.

- The Economist

Would it work, though? Many think the Sunnis and Shias aren’t fond enough of each other for such a scheme to work.

The plot is thickening. The latest skirmish in Washington has yielded few results, but perhaps people are learning. Time will tell.