The Veto Solution....Short term funding....

[Polemicist]

The solution to overcoming the Bush veto is very simple. Remove all the language that Bush calls "objectionable" from the Supplemental Iraq war funding bill. Eliminate his objections and give him his "clean bill". Keep reading, anti-war activists, there's benefits here for us.

Only fund the war for three months. Or four months. Or at a maximum for 6 months, or until September, when the status report is due from General Patraeus on the success or failure of "The Surge" is due. Going this route offers several advantages to Democrats.

First, we will be offering a funding bill without deadlines, which eliminating all of Bush's objections. Giving him little ammo to contest our alternative. However, the short term nature of the funding, creates de facto deadlines, as Bush must come back to Congress for additional funding. Congress will then be able to require a full accountability inventory for the second round of funding, rejecting it if sufficient progress isn't made based upon Bush's stated goals for the Iraq Government and "The Surge". Or Congress can issue a separate resolution with their goals for Iraq and the Bush Administration to be evaluated when additional funding is debated.

The short term funding eliminates Bush's potential "work around" on the current deadlines and milestones in the current and just vetoed bill. As the current bill's deadlines allowed Bush to certify compliance. Who here doesn't believe Bush wouldn't just invent compliance and give Congress the finger if they disagreed? If the funds have been allocated, it's a "Constitutional" fight and Bush will be able to draw Treasury funds in the absence of definitive "teeth" in a 12 month funding bill. In other words, he will BS right through the present bill he vetoed. So it's better to keep him on a short leash. With short term funding, Congress retains complete control of determining if Iraq or the Bush Administration has made sufficient progress.

Short term funding empowers Congress in the event a full scale meltdown and a hotter civil war erupts in Iraq. Congress can consider new facts on the ground before authorizing an additional three months or six months funding, or requiring the troops be withdrawn. If we fund for 12 months, Bush has total control of these unknown situations.

Setting a target date of September, '07 for funding to expire on a short term allocation, will allow sufficient time for "The Surge" to have worked or not. I'm confident it won't work. Lacking evidence of success, Republicans in Congress will bolt from Bush and provide a veto proof majority for actual troop withdrawal beginning in October, '07 and all troops out by March '08. Which is what our plan has been all along. The Republicans in Congress will splinter from the President's position, the closer it gets to the '08 elections. In September, it will be a little over a year until the elections. That's the beginning of hot seat time for GOP Congressmen facing tough reelection races and still supporting Bush's failed war. Self-survival will prevail and they will run from Bush.

If we respond with a short term funding plan, Bush will rue the day he vetoed our original bill. As that was a heck of a lot better deal for him, than a short term funding plan will be.

[Eagle_Eye]

1. The solution I would like to see is to impeach Bush; then he can't veto SH!7

[Ganja Ninja]

2. If I were in congress I would refuse to vote for any bill that doesn't

have a timetable for withdrawal. The Dem's may not have a super majority but they do have a majority and nothing gets to Bush without them approving it. If he wants any money at all he needs to satisfy them not the other way around. No more money without a withdrawal plan. No more blank checks and no money for mercenaries period.

[The Magistrate]

3. There Is Something To That Approach, Sir

It would create routine political theater, and build support for outright halt to funding at all. Monthly, or even weekly, funding periods are possible, as well....

[primative1]

4. Sounds good but ...

As I have been following the show, and I admit I have lost interest in many of the details .... hasnt Bush been in the ROUTINE of submitting "emergency supplementals" every few months?
My thinking is that since this supplemental has, for once, been held up for a while ... if Bush were to get this money he would simply submit a new supplemental for additional funds within days as he has likely already spent the money that they are still debating.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. It hasn't been "held up."

It took us, what, 75 days to send him the bill? The Republicans last year took 161 days.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Three months? Try one month.

We have the funds right now to operate in Iraq through July. Vote him enough for August, then make him come back next month for funds for September. And so on.

Then, every month, put the withdrawal language back in, make him veto it, and come back.