Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
April 20, 2008
Pg. 10
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
After years of seeing the House pushed around by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has learned to say no.
The California Democrat's refusal last month to schedule a vote on a warrantless surveillance bill that the president favors, followed by her decision this month to scuttle a fast-track vote on a U.S.-Colombia trade agreement have shifted some power to the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
But those tough stands also have raised expectations among antiwar activists and some lawmakers on the larger issue coming in the next two weeks: funding for the war in Iraq.
"What she's done is show people you can stand up to Bush and it's not the end of the world," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. "She reminded the rank-and-file here not only do we matter, but we're an equal branch of government, and she reminded the president we're no longer a cheap date."
Added Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for war funding: "She's got a hot hand right now. We want to make sure she keeps that momentum going."
For many Democrats, the standoffs on terrorist surveillance and the Colombia trade deal have been eye-opening for their lack of political fallout.
Republicans continue to say that Democratic opposition to the surveillance bill has jeopardized national security and strengthened al-Qaeda, and that failure to pass the U.S.-Colombia agreement has bolstered Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Raúl Castro in Cuba. But national security arguments that in the past have buckled Democratic opposition have had little impact this time.
"I think that the president has finally realized that the leverage has changed," Pelosi said. "That is the question: Who has the leverage? I think the president realizes now that we do."
In large part, Pelosi's new resolve comes from a changing political environment, according to Democratic aides. With the economy slowing, the war dragging on and Bush's popularity ratings as low as ever, swing-state Democrats are finding their reelection prospects improving steadily. That has given Pelosi more latitude in her confrontations with Republicans.
The economic downturn also has put the war funding fight in a new light, with domestic concerns now weighed against foreign policy ventures. Record gasoline prices have made assistance to oil-rich Iraq more difficult for lawmakers of both parties to accept.
"The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we have given them," grumbled Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
Pelosi's allies also say the speaker's allegiance to the House and its prerogatives should not be discounted. "Many in this town continue to underestimate her commitment to this institution and her toughness," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), one of Pelosi's closest lieutenants.
Republican leaders still say Pelosi's stands on warrantless surveillance and Colombia have put her on the wrong side of public opinion and are doing real damage to the economy and national security.
"If they're feeling their oats, I wish they'd feel them in areas that are less dangerous to the country," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
There is no question, however, that Pelosi's battles with Bush have buoyed House Democratic spirits. In the next two weeks her resolve will be put to the test.
By month's end, House Democrats plan to produce a major supplemental spending bill -- totaling as much as $170 billion -- to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the next presidency, channel more federal money to the ailing domestic economy and set policies that they hope will begin to move U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
"I think it's important for the government of Iraq to know that they're going to have to take responsibility for the security of their own country, and soon," Pelosi said. "And that's why the message in a supplemental or something else about redeployment is essential to this, or else they will never move."
Democratic leaders have repeatedly said that, in the end, U.S. troops in the field will be funded. But expectations are high that finally Congress will be able to extract a significant policy concession for that money.
Win Without War, a coalition of 42 groups, is circulating a letter declaring that "it is past time to bring the Iraq war to an end" and that "the best course of action in the upcoming defense supplemental appropriations bill is to provide funding only for the safe and timely redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq."
Antiwar Democrats are girding for a two-front battle. First, they want to beat back efforts to add popular domestic spending to any war funding, which would bolster support for the underlying bill. Then they want to stop any funding for the continuation of combat in Iraq.
"We have two examples of what can happen when the caucus is unified enough to say no," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
Democrats -- and many Republicans -- have made clear in recent days that Bush cannot expect to get what he has demanded: a $108 billion war funding bill that hews to the letter of his request -- no added domestic spending, no curtailment of his war-making authority.
Members of both parties in the House and Senate introduced legislation this week to give Iraq additional reconstruction aid in loans, not grants, and to force an Iraqi government flush with petrodollars to assume more of the cost of training and equipping its own forces.
"The time has come to end this blank-check policy and require the Iraqis to invest in their own future," Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) wrote Thursday in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senate leaders.
At a contentious Senate hearing Wednesday, White House budget director Jim Nussle warned that Bush "will veto any attempt to hijack this much-needed troop funding bill" with domestic spending.
To that, incredulous senators from both parties had a similar response: Tough.
"I will recommend adding significant funds for infrastructure to create jobs in the short term and promote a growing economy in the long term," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
House leadership is likely to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq, torture by any government agency, and the deployment of troops into combat before they have rested at least as long as their previous combat tour. Senate Democrats will try to add billions of dollars of education benefits for returning troops.
But Pelosi aides and allies have been quick to say that antiwar activists should not believe that because of the two earlier victories, Pelosi will stop a vote on war funding.
"It's an entirely different issue," Miller said.
Republicans relish yet another instance of Democrats trying and failing to affect war policy, only to end up fighting bitterly among themselves.
"The war spending bill will go just exactly the way they have gone before," Blunt predicted. "The Democrats will fund the troops. We're not going to do any additional spending as long as the president holds the line, and they will be right back where they were."
April 20, 2008
Pg. 10
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
After years of seeing the House pushed around by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has learned to say no.
The California Democrat's refusal last month to schedule a vote on a warrantless surveillance bill that the president favors, followed by her decision this month to scuttle a fast-track vote on a U.S.-Colombia trade agreement have shifted some power to the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
But those tough stands also have raised expectations among antiwar activists and some lawmakers on the larger issue coming in the next two weeks: funding for the war in Iraq.
"What she's done is show people you can stand up to Bush and it's not the end of the world," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. "She reminded the rank-and-file here not only do we matter, but we're an equal branch of government, and she reminded the president we're no longer a cheap date."
Added Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for war funding: "She's got a hot hand right now. We want to make sure she keeps that momentum going."
For many Democrats, the standoffs on terrorist surveillance and the Colombia trade deal have been eye-opening for their lack of political fallout.
Republicans continue to say that Democratic opposition to the surveillance bill has jeopardized national security and strengthened al-Qaeda, and that failure to pass the U.S.-Colombia agreement has bolstered Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Raúl Castro in Cuba. But national security arguments that in the past have buckled Democratic opposition have had little impact this time.
"I think that the president has finally realized that the leverage has changed," Pelosi said. "That is the question: Who has the leverage? I think the president realizes now that we do."
In large part, Pelosi's new resolve comes from a changing political environment, according to Democratic aides. With the economy slowing, the war dragging on and Bush's popularity ratings as low as ever, swing-state Democrats are finding their reelection prospects improving steadily. That has given Pelosi more latitude in her confrontations with Republicans.
The economic downturn also has put the war funding fight in a new light, with domestic concerns now weighed against foreign policy ventures. Record gasoline prices have made assistance to oil-rich Iraq more difficult for lawmakers of both parties to accept.
"The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we have given them," grumbled Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
Pelosi's allies also say the speaker's allegiance to the House and its prerogatives should not be discounted. "Many in this town continue to underestimate her commitment to this institution and her toughness," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), one of Pelosi's closest lieutenants.
Republican leaders still say Pelosi's stands on warrantless surveillance and Colombia have put her on the wrong side of public opinion and are doing real damage to the economy and national security.
"If they're feeling their oats, I wish they'd feel them in areas that are less dangerous to the country," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
There is no question, however, that Pelosi's battles with Bush have buoyed House Democratic spirits. In the next two weeks her resolve will be put to the test.
By month's end, House Democrats plan to produce a major supplemental spending bill -- totaling as much as $170 billion -- to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the next presidency, channel more federal money to the ailing domestic economy and set policies that they hope will begin to move U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
"I think it's important for the government of Iraq to know that they're going to have to take responsibility for the security of their own country, and soon," Pelosi said. "And that's why the message in a supplemental or something else about redeployment is essential to this, or else they will never move."
Democratic leaders have repeatedly said that, in the end, U.S. troops in the field will be funded. But expectations are high that finally Congress will be able to extract a significant policy concession for that money.
Win Without War, a coalition of 42 groups, is circulating a letter declaring that "it is past time to bring the Iraq war to an end" and that "the best course of action in the upcoming defense supplemental appropriations bill is to provide funding only for the safe and timely redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq."
Antiwar Democrats are girding for a two-front battle. First, they want to beat back efforts to add popular domestic spending to any war funding, which would bolster support for the underlying bill. Then they want to stop any funding for the continuation of combat in Iraq.
"We have two examples of what can happen when the caucus is unified enough to say no," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
Democrats -- and many Republicans -- have made clear in recent days that Bush cannot expect to get what he has demanded: a $108 billion war funding bill that hews to the letter of his request -- no added domestic spending, no curtailment of his war-making authority.
Members of both parties in the House and Senate introduced legislation this week to give Iraq additional reconstruction aid in loans, not grants, and to force an Iraqi government flush with petrodollars to assume more of the cost of training and equipping its own forces.
"The time has come to end this blank-check policy and require the Iraqis to invest in their own future," Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) wrote Thursday in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senate leaders.
At a contentious Senate hearing Wednesday, White House budget director Jim Nussle warned that Bush "will veto any attempt to hijack this much-needed troop funding bill" with domestic spending.
To that, incredulous senators from both parties had a similar response: Tough.
"I will recommend adding significant funds for infrastructure to create jobs in the short term and promote a growing economy in the long term," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
House leadership is likely to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq, torture by any government agency, and the deployment of troops into combat before they have rested at least as long as their previous combat tour. Senate Democrats will try to add billions of dollars of education benefits for returning troops.
But Pelosi aides and allies have been quick to say that antiwar activists should not believe that because of the two earlier victories, Pelosi will stop a vote on war funding.
"It's an entirely different issue," Miller said.
Republicans relish yet another instance of Democrats trying and failing to affect war policy, only to end up fighting bitterly among themselves.
"The war spending bill will go just exactly the way they have gone before," Blunt predicted. "The Democrats will fund the troops. We're not going to do any additional spending as long as the president holds the line, and they will be right back where they were."