4-11-07, 8:49 am

In her daily briefing, Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino yesterday (April 10) admitted to being confused. After four years of a war that has cost the lives of more than 3,290 US service members, 40 in the first ten days of this month alone, Perino and the Bush administration can't understand why the American people are fed up and are demanding a new direction on Iraq policy.
Indeed, about 2 out of 3 Americans want the war to end and to bring the troops home. They handed Congress a mandate last November to take action to accomplish that task.

But Perino stubbornly insisted that Bush's escalation of the war, which, predictably, has not curbed the violence of the civil war in Iraq, was the change voters wanted.

In the process of uttering this wild proposition, Perino reiterated Bush's threat to veto a congressional defense funding bill that also establishes a timetable for withdrawal. Perino basically rejected the validity of public sentiments against the war as well as Congress' role in representing those sentiments in the formation of national policy.

Bush's threat to veto the funding bill and his refusal to accept the call to bring the war to an end was one of the main topics of discussion during a presidential candidates forum held Tuesday (April 10). The 'virtual town hall' was organized by . Candidates responded to questions from MoveOn.org members via streaming technology to an online nationwide audience of tens of thousands. Republican candidates were also invited, but refused to participate.

Speaking first, accused Bush of using 'his bully pulpit to try to intimidate Congress' into accepting a failed Iraq policy. Edwards described Bush's veto threat as a 'ploy' to use 'our troops as pawns' in his political calculations.

Edwards urged Congress to refuse to back down. If Bush vetoes, Edwards stated, Congress should send him another funding bill 'with a binding plan to bring the troops home.' Edwards also called on voters to continue to press their representatives to commit to bringing the war to an end.

(D-OH) argued that all appropriations for war should be cut off, except to support a complete withdrawal.

(D-NM) pointed out that Congress had legal authority to authorize and de-authorize war. Expressing his support for a withdrawal plan with a clear timetable and benchmarks for accountability, Richardson said, 'I would be for a cut off of appropriations.' He also accused Bush of ignoring the will of the people.

'I admire what Congress is doing,' he added. 'They need to be stronger.'

Referring to her campaign's online petition on President Bush's veto threat, (D-NY) said, 'I've challenged the president to withdraw his veto threat.'

'It's time once and for all to end our involvement in Iraq,' Sen. Clinton affirmed.

Sen. Clinton resisted outlining a specific plan for a congressional response to Bush's veto threats. But she pointed out that with a veto, it would be Bush that is rejecting funding for the troops. She also called for public pressure on Republicans seeking reelection in 2008 to to change course on the war policy.

'(We should) challenge the president not to veto the will of Congress and not to veto the will of the American people,' she concluded. 'I'm not willing to throw in the towel on this.'

(D-CT) stated his support for the Feingold-Reid bill, a measure which would cut off funding for war except for troop redeployment after one year. Dodd called for a 'surge in diplomacy and a surge in politics in Iraq.' (D-IL) said, 'I opposed the war from the start.' Open-ended authority in 2002 has led to the president's current policy of open-ended occupation, he explained.

If Bush vetoes the appropriations bill with a timetable for withdrawal, 'we're going to have to continue to ratchet up the pressure.' Obama said that he would work to win the 67 votes in the Senate needed to override the veto.

Failing that, Congress should send the next appropriations bill with a timetable for withdrawal, making the time periods that are funded smaller and smaller and forcing the president to return to Congress more frequently with funding requests. Obama suggested that opposition to the president's policy would continue to grow among Republicans.

'The first step is to make Bush respond to the American people and the young men and women who are being sent to Iraq,' said Obama. 'If this president thinks he can continue to ignore the will of the American people and Congress, I think he's badly mistaken.'

(D-DE) also spoke at the forum, but was not directly asked about the veto threat. Biden did, however, project a specific plan for withdrawing US troops, engaging diplomatically with regional powers, and finding political solutions to the 'self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence' in Iraq.

Pressure on the Bush administration to set a new course has intensified over the last few weeks as a growing list of congressional Republicans, including Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Ben Nelson (R-NE), John Warner (R-VA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Rep. Tom Gilchrest (R-MD), and others are calling for the president to change course in Iraq. (Read some of their statements as compiled here.)

While there are differing opinions on the specifics, the Democratic candidates are projecting a unified, coherent message on the failure of Bush's war and the need to bring it to an end. Meanwhile, the White House falls back on political posturing, rejecting reality and public opinion, and grows increasingly isolated, and, by its own admission, confused.

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

| | |