Yesterday I wrote that Democrats in Congress had decided to capitulate on Iraq funding, and kick the can down the road until next year. Yet just minutes after I published that, the media was awash with headlines about how Democrats had decided to dig in and hold the president's feet to the fire: 'House Dems Ready to Fight Bush on War Funding' Approps Chair Obey Says He'll Block Funding For War Without Withdrawal Date Obey: No Iraq supplemental until course change I was certain I'd receive a flood of E-mails telling me how wrong I was. Have Congressional Democrats really drawn a line in the sand? Are they committed to forcing an end to the war--no matter the outcome? Let's look at the statement of Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey--which was the basis for these stories:
I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President's request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things. Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009. Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments. Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.
So the only dramatic policy reform is a goal to change the mission by January, 2009. There's a very good chance the president will implement such a move, anyway. And Obey's promise is furthered watered down if you look at Roll Call's coverage of his press conference:
"The president isn't going to get a supplemental this year," Obey said. "The president sooner or later is going to need that supplemental," Obey said, adding that Bush will have to change course before Obey will let it move out of his committee. In addition to a January 2009 goal for ending combat operations, Obey put two other conditions on moving a war bill - a plan to make sure that troops get adequate time off between deployments and demonstration that the Bush administration will engage in a broad diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the Middle East. But Obey later said he was flexible on the particulars. "We want any kind of movement at this point from existing policy," Obey said. "The White House needs to recognize that we've had it being maneuvered and jerked around on this issue."
So while Chairman Obey is promising not to produce an Iraq funding bill that does not have a policy change as a goal, he's open to negotiation.
But while he is a powerful committee chairman, Obey doesn't have the final say on this. Even assuming that the funding bill sent to the president reflects his views, what will happen if he vetoes it? Obey seems to be saying he won't give the president the proverbial 'blank check.' Does that mean he will cut funding for the troops? Or will he offer short-term measures that continue the mission, while negotiating over the terms of a broader funding measure? If Obey (with the requisite support of House leadership) decided to offer no funding, it might well cause a rump group of Blue Dog Democrats to join with Republicans and force Congress to pass an appropriation. This is the same dilemma Congressional Democrats faced in the spring of this year. They ultimately decided they could not take the political risk, and gave the president the bill he asked for. Can Obey really promise that Congress will do any different in five months? Further, what will the situation be on the ground in Iraq? If US and Iraqi casualties continue to decline, will Congress have the stomach for a fight at all? What if there is progress on political reconciliation? What if the president has recommended further troop reductions? I don't doubt Chairman Obey. He is a smart, veteran legislator. Recall that it was he who explained to antiwar activists that they did not understand the legislative process and that Congress was not prepared at that time to cut off funds for the war. If he now suggests that he is ready to cut off funds, he must be taken seriously. But while Obey can speak for himself, he can't speak for the institution and he can't predict the future. The delay in consideration of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is just kicking the can down the road, to a time when Democrats hope the public mood will have changed. If Iraq takes a turn for the worse, they might muster the votes for a drawdown. If the situation improves, then it will pass with relatively little controversy.