What's next in the Iraq chessgame? Send up a stonger funding bill? Send up one without any strings? Send up the same bill?
Well, at this point, it's worth remembering that Congress doesn't have to do anything. Only Congress can initiate spending bills, and if they don't... the money starts to run out.
In fact, doing nothing kicks off a timetable that's much more definitive than the one just vetoed. Still, the assumption is that Congress just won't go there.
Why? Because everyone's afraid of blowback in 2008.
Forget for a moment that there's a good chance that all those one-time independent and crossover '06 voters will walk away by 2008 if the Democrats don't change the course of the war. Let's look instead at this fear of a fallout.
How likely is it that there'll be any political fallout from "de-funding" an unpopular conflict? Step into the Wayback machine for a look at what happened the last time that happened...
Really, it's not a given there will be a fallout from not funding the war.
First... we need to set the scene:
It's August, 1994.
18 months after US Marines landed in Somalia.
10 months after "Blackhawk Down."
9 months after the resignation of the Secretary of Defense for mismanaging the mission.
3 months before an election.
Republican Senator Ted Stevens, on behalf of Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho introduces an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill. It is co-sponsored by Republican Senator John Warner and Republican Senator Larry Craig.
The amendment proposes to end funding for the American military deployment in Somalia in six weeks:
"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used for the continuous presence in Somalia of United States military personnel after September 30, 1994."
with an assist from Glenn Greenwald, here are some of the notable quotes from the floor debate:
...the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.- Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson, R-Texas
The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war... if [they] are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.- Sen Dirk Kempthorne, R-Idaho
The Kempthorne Amendment passed, 55-44. Three months later, the Republicans took control of Congress.
Some fallout.