OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
BBC NEWS | Americas | US political war of attrition on Iraq
Thoughts?
So, what will be the next move in the political chess game currently being played in Washington over military funding - a game that has become a test of wills and of strength between a Republican president and a Democratically-controlled Congress?
Congress has spoken.
The Senate has - as expected - followed the House of Representatives, in passing a compromise spending bill that links the release of billions of dollars for military operations to a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.
And we know how the White House intends to speak.
Spokeswoman Dana Perino has described the bill as "defeatist legislation" and wasted no time confirming that President George W Bush would issue only the second veto of his presidency, when it reaches his desk.
That could be next Tuesday - the fourth anniversary of the president's infamous photo opportunity on the USS Lincoln, when he said that major combat operations in Iraq were over, standing in front of a banner which read "Mission accomplished".
'PR stunt'
The White House is saying there is no coincidence to this.
PRESIDENTIAL VETOES
George W Bush: 1
Bill Clinton: 38
George Bush Snr: 44
Ronald Reagan: 78
FD Roosevelt: 635
Thomas Jefferson: 0
It calls the timing of the veto "a ridiculous PR stunt" by Democrats who - it alleges - have deliberately dragged out the legislative process to achieve full symbolic effect.
The Democrats deny this.
But, deliberate or not, this particular skirmish - in what is shaping up to be a political war of attrition - illustrates how much energy both sides are pouring into winning over the public.
Just like the fighting on the ground - the tussle between Congress and the White House ebbs and flows in intensity.
But - in the run up to this vote - it seems to have become very personal, very bitter - and one in which positions seem, if anything, to be hardening.
'Bloody nose'
If there are grounds for a truce, perhaps they can be found in the words of the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
He is known for his PR skills as well as for his military leadership.
Gen Petraeus' public comments in Washington this week have stressed his apolitical credentials, but left no doubt that he wants the current policy to be given a chance to succeed, without the sort of restrictions contained in the bill passed by Congress.
The betting has to be that congress will eventually pass a bill that the president feels he can sign.
Democrats still sense that cutting off funding for the troops would be political suicide.
But - by following through with this legislation, in the face of a concerted campaign from the White House - they will feel they have given the president a bloody nose. What is not yet clear, though, is whether they will be able to do much more damage to him than that.
Thoughts?
