Bush was FOR timetables before he was AGIN' them

By Joel Wendland

Defying President Bush's stubborn refusal to change course in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Congress would provide no "blank check" for a failed Iraq policy without "benchmarks, guidelines, or standards."
Pelosi added, "If the president thinks what is going on in Iraq is progress, it is easy to see why we have a disagreement with his policy."

Pelosi also reminded reporters that, despite his claim that his opposition to timetables is a matter of principle, when President Bush was Texas governor he supported Republican efforts to pressure President Clinton to accept a timetable for withdrawing US troops from the former Yugoslavia.

Pelosi quoted Bush: "I think it's important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn."

In his remarks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "[I]f 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."

Reid also demanded the president explain to the American people his plan "to responsibly end this war."

The remarks of the congressional leadership came following President Bush's televised announcement that he vetoed a spending supplemental that provided funding for the war and set a date to begin ending US military involvement in Iraq.

Bush's televised announcement of the veto deviated from what White House spokesperson Dana Perino last week said should take place. At a press conference on April 25, Perino told reporters that Bush's veto was so crucial that "I think that it's important that the American people see him doing it."

Well no one saw Bush veto the bill on live television. That little bit of "deciding" took place behind closed doors.

But we were forced to sit through a series of half-heartedly delivered talking points after the secret veto ceremony claiming progress in Iraq without any specific details.

We heard the same old claims that setting a date to end the war would hurl Iraq, already mired in civil war, into "chaos." A timeline, Bush insisted, would cause terrorists to bide their time and wait for the US military to leave and overthrow the government. Implicit were the accusations that authors of timelines are traitors.

Bush's repetitive and myopic claims disastrously ignore the reality most people already understand. In April, after weeks of a 30,000-troop "surge" to crackdown on sectarian violence, more than 100 US troops and over 1,600 Iraqis lost their lives in car bombings, suicide bombings, IED bombings, and gun battles.

This is a typical month. To put this level of "success" and "progress" into some perspective, imagine that the Virginia Tech shooting took place between once or twice a day – every day for more than 4 years. Or, imagine if the disaster after Hurricane Katrina happened once a month, or if 9/11 happened every other month or so. For four years. But imagine, because the US population is about 12 times that of Iraq, that the scale of violence would be 12 times greater.

Most of us would consider this chaotic. I can't imagine what Bush considers to be truly chaotic.

The fact is Bush confided his "veto ceremony" to brief remarks because he knows that he is losing the battle to convince the people that he is right. Contrary to Perino's earlier statement that Americans need to see him vetoing a plan to bring the war to an end, he couldn't afford to have anyone see that, let alone with a crowd of smiling Republican candidates for the 2008 election behind him.

Americans are increasingly tired of this war. Bush's approval rating has sunk in some polls below 30 percent. Close to 7-in-10 voters disagree with the president's policy in Iraq and want to bring the war to an end.

According to an NBC/Wall street Journal poll released on May 1st, more than 6-in10 Americans view the president as too stubbornly stuck to his views on the war and negatively view his refusal to change course in Iraq. About the same number more positively view Congress' efforts to change course. Only 24% of adults, according to a CBS poll done late last week, approve of Bush's handling of the war.

Additionally, Bush's secret veto ceremony came on the fourth anniversary of his own declaration of "mission accomplished" and victory in Iraq on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Four years from that day, 3,212 US troops have been killed and more than 25,000 have been wounded. Hundreds of Iraqis are killed each month in violence that by all accounts requires political and diplomatic solutions.

In typical form, the media has pounced on the Democrats. Most pundits seem to be demanding to know what they will do next instead of demanding that Bush defend his definition of terms like "progress" and "chaos" mean.

Still, the Democrats' next move is important. Some peace activists are insisting that Congress pass a much stronger bill that funds only the safe withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

"Unless Congress enacts the strong curbs that are necessary, Americans and Iraqis will be held hostage to a failed policy,” said Carolyn Eisenberg in a press statement. Eisenberg spoke on behalf of United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest antiwar coalition.

The religious-based peace lobbying organization, Friends Committee on National Legislation, echoed the call to resist supporting new funding bills. But the organization predicted Congress would put war funding on a short leash, requiring President Bush to return to Congress every two months or so to make his case for refusing to change course in Iraq.

Nationwide, antiwar protests are focusing attention on Bush's veto of this bill as a refusal to change course in Iraq. MoveOn.org is organizing hundreds of local meetings in people's homes and other venues to discuss the veto and to plan a course that will bring the war to an end.

In a statement after Bush's announcement of his veto, presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said, "With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has stubbornly ignored the will of the American people, the majority of Congress and, most disturbingly, the realities on the ground in Iraq."

Obama went on to urge Republican members of Congress to help override the veto.

Obama further pointed out that only the Iraqis themselves can win progress and peace in Iraq. He said, "It is time to end this war so we can bring our troops home and redeploy our forces to help fight the broader struggle against terrorism and other threats of this new century."

In his statement on Bush's veto, Sen. John Edwards urged Congress to continue passing funding bills with timetables. "Today, all the photo ops in the world can't hide the truth – the war is still raging, and the president's mismanagement of Iraq is still dead wrong," he said.

In her response to the veto, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said, "to stop disregarding the will of the American people and to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin redeploying our troops."

But in a statement posted to her website earlier in the day, Clinton appeared to concede that the efforts to bring the war to an end would not succeed until a new president is elected, saying, "America is ready to end this war and when I am President, that's exactly what I'll do."

I don't think we should adopt Sen. Clinton's apparent attitude that the war will inevitably continue until Bush leaves office. Republican members of Congress have to be targeted for pressure to help change course. For too long they sat by and served as a rubber stamp for a policy that has cost far too many lives and far too much treasure.

They have to be told that if they want to keep their jobs, they too are going to stand with most of Congress and the vast majority of the people against Bush and his failed policy. They are going to have to vote to override the veto.

They too will have to vote to put funding on a tight leash until President Bush accepts a timeline for bringing the war to an end.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs

http://www.politicalaffairs.net