Iraq Deadline Battle Begins

Now that the House and Senate have passed Iraq Supplemental Appropriations bills with theoretical deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Democratic leaders are gearing up for some tough negotiations with Bush. The Pentagon Post sizes up the situation:

Top Democrats in the House and the Senate had been uncertain about the outcome of the vote when they convened for a joint leadership meeting yesterday morning. They were convinced that defeat of the Senate's proposed timeline would force negotiators to soften the House language, which sets a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the removal of U.S. combat forces. But they concluded that a Democratic victory would give them no reason to compromise, according to House Democratic leadership aides.

Speaking to reporters, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was conciliatory, but only to a point: "We ought to reach out to the president and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States . . . has taken some action. You obviously disagree with that. Where are the areas of compromise?' "

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he was skeptical about proceeding too quickly. "Of course, we should reach out to the White House, and I'm happy to do that," he said. But, he added: "They have been very uncooperative to this point. Hopefully, they will cooperate with us." Referring to the president, he said, "I would like to have a bill that he wouldn't veto."

Senate GOP leaders remain confident that Bush will ultimately prevail. "I expect the president to get the money for the troops, to get this bill in large measure like he wants it," predicted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "It may take two tries to get there, but I think that's very likely going to be the final outcome."

But Democrats are just as convinced that they have the momentum on the issue. "This is not one battle. It's a long-term campaign," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). "Every time we have a vote like this, it ratchets up the pressure on the president and on many of those of his party."

Bush's negotiating position will be clear: no deadlines, regardless of whether they are enforceable.

Democrats are signaling one possible compromise: a secret deadline.

Clyburn says he could personally support some sort of confidential timeline, which would be known only to the Bush administration, the Iraqi government, and selected members of Congress, which is among options raised in discussions on Capitol Hill.

But I can't imagine that idea will work for anyone, because (a) a secret deadline will inevitably leak and (b) neither Bush nor Democrats trust each other to honor a secret agreement.

The Busheviks aren't looking for a compromise. Instead they are putting intense pressure on Democrats to surrender by claiming the money must be available on April 15 or the Pentagon will run out of funds to train new soldiers.

Of course that's horseshit because it costs the Pentagon pennies to train new troops and they can easily find those pennies in their humongous budget. It also contradicts what the Pentagon has officially told Congress - that they have enough money to get to May 1. But these facts won't stop the Busheviks from lying to the media, and it won't stop the Corporate Media from insisting those lies are facts.

Will Democratic leaders hold up under the pressure? Will they insist on the deadlines that passed both chambers? They have hung tough until now - but the true test of their character lies ahead.