After The Veto

When the people voted last November, they voted for change. The biggest change they were looking for concerned Iraq. They threw out the Republican majority because they wanted someone to bring the Iraq war to an end. The problem is, they weren't able to get rid of the head of state, the commander-in-chief, the man with the veto power.

The veto is no reason for Congress not to act. Just because a President threatens a veto that can't be overridden doesn't mean Congress shouldn't send him a bill anyway. The Republican minority says it is a waste of time to send a funding bill to the President whom he will veto, but the people elected a new Congress to stand up for the President, even if they lose at the end.

I have little doubt that the Democrats will cave in the end and allowing war funding without a withdrawal timetable, but they stood up to the President the best way they can. The President is still the head of an equal branch of government and his veto power can only be overridden if enough Republicans join with the Democrats, which is clearly not going to happen. Still, the fact the Democrats are willing to lose this fight; the fact they had the balls to stand up to the President and say "No, you will not get a free pass anymore" shows that they are, at the very least, holding this administration accountable, which the previous Congress did not do.

The President claims he is listening to his generals, but in January, General George Casey said this;

"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security; it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems. It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term."

The next month, he was replaced by David Petraeus, who, well, sees it as the President does…so he does listen to his generals, but sends them packing when they don't agree with what he says.

The big question is going to be; what happens when the President does veto the bill and Congress cannot override the veto? My option would be to keep sending him the same bill, over and over again, until he either cracks or the war has to end. Another option would be the send the President no funding, which is probably the least likely and least popular choice; no funding doesn't necessarily mean the troops come home, it just means they don't get funded. A final option and what to me is the most likely one, is to send the President the clean bill he wants and make it imperative that this will be for the last time. It might very well be the last time. Come the end of the year, with another, more important, election looming, vulnerable Republicans may feel enough pressure to crack and buck the President on the war.

For the people who will inevitably be angry that Congress blinked and gave in to the President, it is important to remember, the Democrats and anti-war candidates won, but not big enough. 51 Senators cannot stop a veto, neither can 230-240 Representatives. The fact that Congress even passed a bill essentially ordering the President to end this now means they heard the voice of the American people last November. There's only so much they can do. In my opinion, this war is very unlikely to end before the next election