Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  

A Consequential Game of Chicken

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; 3:46 PM

Yesterday's Senate vote has put President Bush in a real bind.

The combination of veto power and a sizeable Republican minority means the president can reliably block any Democratic legislation he dislikes from becoming law.

But in this case, Bush affirmatively needs Congress to send him a war funding bill so he can keep fighting the war in Iraq. Now that the Democrats have succeeded in attaching a timetable for troop withdrawal to the funding bill, he is left with two basic options: negotiate with the Democrats -- or play a hugely consequential game of chicken.

So far signs are that Bush is going with the latter option.

"Some Democrats believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely," Bush said in a belligerent speech to a boisterous bunch of beef barons this morning. "That's not going to happen. . . .

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he added. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

The Coverage

Shailagh Murray writes in The Washington Post: "Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation. . . .

"Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto."

Noam N. Levey writes in the Los Angeles Times: "With the House having approved its own timelines last week, congressional Democrats are close to presenting the president with a stark choice: Veto the essential war funding or negotiate directly with war critics in a way he has never done.

"'He doesn't get everything he wants now, so I think it's time that he started working with us,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a chief architect of the Democratic campaign to pressure Bush to alter his war policy. 'The president must change course.'"

Levey notes: "By allowing the bill to pass, Senate Republicans have effectively left the White House to confront congressional Democrats alone."

Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times opinion column about the apparent stalemate: "Bush has the authority to engineer a change of direction in the war. But he lacks the credibility with the public to reestablish consent for his course.


CONTINUED     1                 >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive