How much is it going to cost?

Anatomy of a veto

Bush bristles at the idea that Congress might be able to put some limits on his authority. He's not having any of that he vetoed the Emergency Funding Act for Iraq in resistance to their attempt to apply conditions.

Is this an attempt to gain a political advantage? Is this a serious policy disagreement? Or is it just childish acting out but with serious consequences?

Oklahoma seems to be solidly behind Bushes idea of an indefinite war. Inhofe, Sullivan, and Boren all have spoken out clearly supportive of the veto. I feel very much like a voice in the wilderness writing this.

But all this worry about deadlines begs the question. Why do we even need an “emergency war spending bill” as Bush called it in the TV speech he gave to explain his veto? Did something unanticipated occur that created an emergency? No of course not. There's no new situation. The situation is the same it's always been. Our President simply doesn't want to ask for the resources needed to fight the war. The reason isn't clear, it's either because he doesn't know or he doesn't want the public to know what it's going to cost.

In 2002 the White House estimate of the total cost of the Iraq invasion a that the maximum cost would be less than 200 billion dollar. That's according to Lawrence Lindsey, Director of the White House National Economic Council at the time (September 2002). Even that estimate was four times the original Pentagon estimate of 50 billion dollars.

Last summer the Congressional Budget Office but the estimate in the range of between 500 and 700 billion dollars, 3 to 4 times the previous White House maximum

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes

That's the title of the Iraq fundng bill that Bush vetoed.

He gave a TV speech last night explaining his reasons for the veto. Of course it has nothing to do with irrational stubborness.

I posted yesterday about what I think the Congress should do in response to the veto. I'll talk more about it after breakfast.

Veto

Bush says he's going to veto any bill for war funding that has even a hint of a timetable for a withdrawal of our troops. And he points out that Congress doesn't have enough votes to override a veto.

Okay. So what?

He's the one who wants to continue the war. He can't do that without funding approval from Congress. They don't need to override a veto in order to deny him funds for the war. His veto already does that; if he doesn't want the money with the conditions then the withdrawal becomes a done deal -- ahead of schedule as far as the majority of Congress goes.

Bush -- and it appears, most of the press -- seems to assume that a veto will automatically get him the funding bill he wants, without any demands that he make a plan to end the war eventually. But it doesn't do that at all. There's no reason for Congress to give Bush the unrestricted funding bill he seems to think they have an obligation to give him. They have no such obligation. Not a legal obligation, not a moral one, no obligation at all.

No, I think it's likely that the Democratic leadership of Congress will cave and give Bush what he wants, but they might not. I don't think they have the balls to do the right thing, but they might fool me, and fool Bush.

Bush is counting on these legislators to be afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops if they don't give him a funding bill he wants. And I'm sure that if they just send the bill right back to him after he vetoes it that he will accuse them of just that, and so will the entire Republican Smear Machine. But so what?

Recently Nancy Pelosi got wide criticism for her trip to Syria; from Cheney, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, even generally liberal Matt Lauer jumped on the bandwagon to trash Pelosi. But how did the public react?

Comparing public approval ratings between January, and right after Pelosi's trip, one poll found that although Pelosi's approval took a dip from the high point right after her swearing in as speaker, the public's attitude about Bush's foreign policy performance was flat, and the public's attitude about the foreign policy performance of Congress improved.

Not exactly strong evidence that the public will turn against Congress just because Bush calls them names.

It's really time for the U.S. Congress to stand up. If Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, just re-vote and send it right back to him. Let him veto it again, and again if he wants to.

Bush wants to be the decider. Well, Congress needs to let him decide. He can fund the current activities in Iraq or not. But what he can't do is have an indefinite war.