Override Fails

Well the vote to override the veto failed as all expected. The purpose of the vote was only to put Republicans on the record on this issue. I was hardly going to comment on the vote, however one sentence in the WaPo article stood out for me.

The bill he refused to sign yesterday would have required the administration to begin the "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops out of Iraq no later than Oct. 1, with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except those carrying out security, training and counterterrorism missions.

The highlighted part of the paragraph is what struck me. Now this has nothing to do with the appropriations bill itself, or Democratic strategy or the Iraq War. For that read Kos, or Digby or MyDD. The thing about that highlighted part is what it says about ability of today's press to actually report anything. A journalist reporting on the fate of a bill passed by the United States Congress ought to have at least a basic understanding of the American legislative process. The issue was not that Bush refused to sign it. If he had only refused to sign it, it would have become law on May 8. The President's signature is not needed for a bill to become law. It just isn't. The President did not refuse to sign the bill, he vetoed it. He sent it back to the Chamber in which it originated with his objections to the bill for it to be debated again and voted on again. That is different from refusing to sign. It may seem a minor point, but we should expect that reporters for the major daily newspaper of the nation's capital will at least get the minor points right. What I am describing is not a new feature of the Constitution. Our reporters should be familiar with the document.

Bush Cuts Funding for Troops in Field

Today George Bush, the President of the United States, cut funding for our troops in the field in Iraq. The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress, had previously authorized further funding to support those troops in the field, provide them with equipment supplies and support, and to aid their safe return to their homes. Out of his petulant insistence in having his own way in all things, George Bush vetoed that funding and put the safety and security of those brave men and women at risk. This is a sad day for our country.

What is wrong with these people?

I mean Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Why in the name of all that's holy is he offering to cave on the Iraq war supplemental. Bush has not yet vetoed the bill. Do not offer Bush something better before he vetoes the bill. Even if you are going to cave, which the Democrats really should not (see Talk Left on this) at least make the President veto the bill. Everyone in the country wants the Democrats to hold firm and everyone in the country will see Bush's veto of the bill as Bush refusing to support the troops. Do not give the man an out. There is absolutely no reason at this point to be offering anything to George Bush on this issue. Harry Reid has it right (via Greg Sergent)

Harry Reid is now on C-Span responding to the President's speech today demanding that Congress defy the American people and give him a bill funding his war with no withdrawal timelines. Asked by a reporter if Congress would be making some kind of offer to Bush in the quest for a compromise, Reid said:

"The offer is that the President sign our bill."

That is absolutely the only offer that should be made at this point.

Bush Weakening

It is my conviction that the only strength Bush has ever had was his unwavering insistence in his own near absolute authority. A refusal to ever doubt that one is correct and in charge can carry one very far. However, unless this conviction in one's own abilities is backed by actual abilities, disaster and failure eventually follow. Bush's assertions of competence and authority have always been fantasies. We are seeing that collapsing now.

Consider Bush's threatened veto of the recently passed spending bill for Iraq. Gene Lyons has raised an interesting point, why is Bush threatening a veto rather than use his long standing signing statement. For all of Bush's bluster and confidence over the past several years, he has never had the authority he claims. He was able to assert it and use it only because of a completely servile Republican majority in Congress and a Democratic minority unwilling and/or unable to put forth effective resistance. With the Democrats in Congress not rolling over and offering a fight, Bush's bluster is coming apart. With the Democrats unwilling to roll over he must fall back on the authority he actually has, the veto, not the fake authority he has been claiming, the signing statement.

This brings me to something I've been wondering about for a while now. Why signing statements? That is, why not not-signing statements? Consider what the US Constitution has to say about bills becoming law in Article I, section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Note the part I highlighted. If the President doesn't sign the bill it becomes law anyway. So the President could just as well not sign the bill, state why he thinks it should not be signed and let it become law that way. Such a move would be more consistent with the constitution and more honest. I believe that Bush has chosen instead to use signing statements in order to maintain the fantasy that his signature is needed for the bill to become law (it is not) and to assert an equal or even superior status to Congress in making law. It is this fantasy authority of his that is coming down now that the Democrats are asserting themselves in Congress.

Understand that I am not claiming that Bush's power and authority are going to immediately vanish. His fantastic claims to authority are falling away, his actual authority, as President, will remain and be effective. Also, he will continue to fight for his war, he will not be giving up. He will continue to fight because that is all he has, his unwillingness to ever change his mind. That may seem an odd claim, but there appears to be about 20-30% of the population that admires that steadfastness above all else, and at this point, that steadfastness is all Bush has. If he gives it up, he is nothing to everybody.