Center for American Progress Action Fund: Reject the Toothless (Iraq) Supplemental

[marmar]

Reject The Toothless Supplemental

After weeks of negotiations with the White House in the wake of President Bush's veto of the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill, congressional leaders relented yesterday by removing a timetable for withdrawal from the legislation, the first time this session that withdrawal proponents "had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal." By acquiescing on their top goal, congressional leaders backed away from the views of a strong majority of Americans who believe a timetable for withdrawal is necessary to end the war. While the compromise legislation Bush will likely sign is a step forward, it includes language that would continue to grant the President the brunt of power for managing the war. The legislation is "expected to come before the House and the Senate tomorrow and to be sent to Bush no later than Friday." "I'm not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable or a goal," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said yesterday. Members of Congress who believe in holding the President fully accountable and providing a visible end to the war should follow Pelosi's lead and vote against the supplemental this week.

THREATENING UNITY OF WAR CRITICS: In developing the original war supplemental bill which included a timeline for withdrawal, Congressional leaders successfully bridged previous ideological divisions, unifying members behind a plan to fund our troops while withdrawing them from the civil war in Iraq. Anti-war members in the Progressive and Out of Iraq caucuses announced in March that they would be "letting go" of their opposition to the war supplemental, giving the House enough votes to pass withdrawal legislation. This unity was heralded as "the biggest test to date of leadership." But the coalition is threatened after yesterday's compromise, as liberal members "who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership's decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation." The exclusion of a timeline threatens to "split the Democratic caucus in half, with as many as 120 Democrats voting no." To pass the supplemental, many members favoring withdrawal may ally with conservatives who favor an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus and critic of the lack of timetables in the legislation, said yesterday, "The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point."

NO IMMINENT WITHDRAWAL: The new bill will likely "incorporate the benchmarks-based provision authored by Sen. John Warner (R-VA)," which would "establish 18 political and legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government, with periodic reports from Bush on its progress, starting in late July," forfeiting U.S. reconstruction aid if Iraqis fall short. But unlike the original war supplemental, Congress has less control of funding if those benchmarks are not met, as "Bush would have the authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad" performed. "Bush could waive these requirements if he submits a report to Congress on why he is doing so." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) stated, "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history." Despite much of the military being "rated as unready to deploy," the final bill is also likely to be "stripped of other features that Mr. Bush had previously resisted, including readiness standards that would have prevented troops from being returned to Iraq within one year of serving there or without adequate training and equipment." While the Warner language requires Bush to report to Congress on progress in September, 67 percent of congressional Republicans say that even if conditions in Iraq have not improved significantly by September, Congress will still not pass legislation withdrawing U.S. forces out of Iraq.

WHAT NEXT: Congressional leaders have vowed to continue to press Bush on a timeline for withdrawal. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) insisted that "we intend to continue that fight" for an Iraq timeline "on every vehicle available to us," adding that the "first two vehicles that we expect to join the issue on are the defense appropriations bill in July and the defense supplemental appropriations bill in September." "Eventually, there will be a date certain," Rep. Joe Sestak (D-CA) said yesterday. The Center for American Progress has outlined four post-veto strategies for Congress to continue to ratchet up pressure and hold Bush accountable on Iraq. The scenarios include: 1) limiting the funding to shorter intervals; 2) setting standards for military readiness; 3) holding the Iraqi government and the Bush administration accountable for progress on enforceable benchmarks in Iraq's political transition; 4) and setting timetables for redeployment. "How Congress puts these tools to use will determine whether it can put our country's national security priorities back in order despite President Bush's obstinacy."

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/