4-24-07, 2:40 pm

“No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about Congress' decision this week to stand by its March vote to impose a timetable for bringing US military involvement in Iraq to an end.

Congressional leaders from both houses met in conference to negotiate the final version of a $124 billion spending supplemental package passed in late March that includes a timetable for withdrawal and requires that President Bush be accountable to Congress for progress (or lack of it) in Iraq.

“On Iraq, the American people want a new direction, and we are providing it,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who led Senate Democrats during the conference, was quoted as saying.

In addition to a timetable that requires redeployment of troops out of Iraq by October 1, the supplemental provides funds for conducting the war, increased spending for veterans' benefits and health care, additional funds for the Gulf Coast recovery, and other items typically found in spending supplementals.

Congressional Republicans refused to fight the timetable provision during the conference because fewer and fewer Republicans are willing to stand so staunchly with President Bush's stay-the-course Iraq policy.

In fact, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain has seen his support erode over the past couple of weeks as he has been among the few to assert strong support for the war.

McCain's problems started when he claimed that violence in Iraq has been mostly subdued and that anyone could stroll safely down most Baghdad streets. Several days later, McCain was photographed in a Baghdad market wearing a bulletproof vest, surrounded by about one hundred heavily armed military guards with helicopter gunships hovering overhead. One day later, several workers at the market were killed in a car bombing that many saw as a retaliation for McCain's unrealistic claim and irresponsible actions.

Meanwhile, in Washington, some recent media accounts of off-the-record comments by several Republican Senators suggest that if the President's escalation and troop surge continue to fail to halt ongoing violence in Iraq's civil war, they are likely to publicly abandon the President's cause.

Anti-war coalitions like Americans Against Escalation in Iraq reported that hundreds of thousands of voters contacted their representatives during the congressional recess last week to insist that Congress stand by its vote to change course in Iraq and that Republicans back off from the President's position.

In addition to this, 21 Republican Senators are up for reelection in 2008, and with popular sentiments against the war by 2-to-1, many are seeing that their ability to keep their jobs may be tied to their position on this war.

Groups like Americans United for Change and are targeting some Senate Republicans as well as several House Republicans for a TV and radio ad campaign highlighting their refusal to side with the vast majority of Americans who want to bring the war to an end. VoteVets.org has even teamed up with MoveOn.org to create a television ad campaign produced by filmmaker Oliver Stone to increase pressure on congressional Republicans.

President Bush says he will veto the supplemental spending bill when it comes to his desk, rejecting what he called in a recent statement 'timetables of withdrawal.' Bush insisted yesterday that 'timetables of withdrawal' tell the Iraqi leadership that the US isn't fully behind it and discourage it from taking the steps needed for progress. Bush did not specify what kind of benchmarks would signal progress.

The President's comments appeared to contradict the sentiments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' who last week told reporters in Amman, Jordan that the congressional debate with Bush is 'helpful' because it pressures Iraqi's leadership to make progress.

Democratic presidential candidates and have urged Congress to stand its ground in this confrontation with the President.

In several public statements, Edwards has said that a Bush veto would block funds for the troops and has recommended that if Bush vetoes the bill, Congress should send him another like it, again and again until he is forced to change his policy.

Obama also warned against a veto of the supplemental in a candidates forum held by MoveOn.org earlier this month. If Bush decides to go against the will of the vast majority of Americans, Obama argued, Congress should put funding on a shorter leash and force the president to request new funds every three months or so until enough Republicans decide to stand up and refuse to support this failed policy in Iraq.

In a major foreign policy speech in Chicago this week, Sen. Obama accused President Bush of abandoning the global leadership afforded by his office. Bush squandered the goodwill and unity the world offered the US after the attacks on the US in September 2001, he said.

Obama pointed out that the war in Iraq was an 'unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th.' It was an attempt to engage a 21st century conflict with 20th century ideology, Obama added.

Obama expressed a concern that Bush's incompetence would lead many Americans to stop viewing their own security and well-being as connected with that of the rest of the world. Obama called for a multifaceted foreign policy that combined aid programs, multilateral unity and strength, adherence to international law, and diplomacy.

'This will require a new spirit,' Obama said.'Not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.'

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

| | |