President Bush, on the Iraq War debate and his promised veto:
Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business.
Hmm. Kind of the same choice President Bush had in early 2003, no? That "unnecessary confrontation" (read: the Iraq Debacle) has prevented our government from doing the people's business for some four years now.
But no, this time around, the confrontation is not an unnecessary one. It is a confrontation mandated by conscience and common sense. The House, in passing legislation with a firm deadline for withdrawal, has drawn the first line in the sand. Tomorrow, the Senate will consider its own battle lines:
March 25, 2007 — Heated debate is expected in the Senate beginning Monday, as senators take up their version of an emergency war funding bill, which requires most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April of next year.
This follows the House's passage of a bill that authorizes the money, but requires that combat troops come home before September 2008 or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements.
Republicans say they will try to strip language from the bill mandating troop withdrawals. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., believes they have the votes to do it.
I don't know what will happen in the Senate. I don't know if a bill with a timetable will be presented to the president. I don't know what will happen after he vetoes such a bill.
But I do know that these Senate and House bills are just the opening salvos, for what has transpired is just the beginning of the end of the Iraq war. Now, count me among the pessimists(or realists) who simply do not see an end to this war before 2008. Not with this president. Not with this Congress. Yet the next year or so will provide ample opportunity to affect this war, to save our troops, and to change the political climate so that the next (Democratic) president can end this folly once and for all.
And who will that president be? Frankly, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have particularly disappointed me. As Senators, they are in unique position to truly lead on this issue and rally the Democratic Party. And sure, they have both introduced bills regarding some type of withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. But they have introduced those bills as if they were putting cheese in a mousetrap--delicately putting them in place and quickly drawing their hands away. Have they attempted to rally the Senate around their bills? Not that I'm aware of. And while both frequently mention Iraq on the campaign trail, I haven't seen them take any definitive action off of the campaign trail aimed at ending this war.
I doubt I am the only one who has noticed that the actions of these Senators don't really match their rhetoric. Hillary in particular made a splash when she introduced her bill to withdraw troops within 90 days (90 days!):
"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
Obama as well says he is for a swift redeployment: his legislation "commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations."
Both of these candidates have, on paper, taken a stand on this war. Now, they have a chance to take a stand in person.
As this war between the branches gathers steam, the executive branch will attempt to beat the legislative branch back into submission. Dick Cheney's lies will grow bolder and Tony Snow's not-so-thinly veiled accusations of treason will grow louder. For every step forward we take on Iraq, whether it be deadlines for withdrawal or troop readiness requirements, the right-wing noise machine will try to make us stumble two steps back. Members of our party may waiver. And against the backdrop of all this sound and fury, we will require a steady and prominent voice of change. A leader who relentlessly fire off this simple, logical truth: this misbegotten and mismanaged war must end.
I believe Obama can be that leader. I believe Hillary can as well (and while I'm only focusing on the Senators here, as they are the ones who will actually be voting on legislation, I have no doubt any of the other candidates are quite up to the challenge).
Too often, though, we hold the best of us for a time that may never come. Too often we shrink from showing the full breadth of our abilities because this moment, this here, seems thrust upon us and we're just not ready, not quite prepared, for this moment or its consequences. Afraid we will fall short, and choosing the safer path of benign acquiescence, we avoid true confrontation and save the best of ourselves for some future perfect moment, for that "then" where we'll shine and prove to world that we are everything we promised on the campaign trail and more.
But no moment--especially in politics---is perfect. This debate in Iraq will be complicated, frustrating, and unpredictable.
And yet we're here, at this messy moment in American history, at the precipice of a constitutional clash. We are here, at this moment, with a Commander-in-Chief who commands no confidence, and a Congress awakening from its self-induced slumber. We are here, now, with a war begging for an end. With a nation aching for change.
So come on, candidates, give us a preview. Show us what type of president you will be. Prove to us your words are more than just words. Demonstrate that you have both the courage and the stamina required to end this war. Jump into the debate this week and in the weeks to come with a full-throated defense of our party and our purpose. In doing so, you can prove that you are the one presidential candidate we can trust to bring this war to its long-overdue end.