IMPEACH BUSH

Much of the this morning's coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan war spending bill focuses on who won and who lost the showdown. Some reports conclude that Republicans may have won this round even if their victory is not complete and may be short-lived. The AP says "Democrats may have lost their fight with President Bush over a timetable for ending the war in Iraq," but "they won billions of dollars for farm aid, hurricane victims, veterans and health care for poor children." President Bush "vetoed a $124 billion war funding bill containing $21 billion in unrequested funds," but the White House negotiators "signed off on a $120 billion measure containing four-fifths of the additional money." Indeed, although one reason President Bush cited for his veto of the first Iraq war spending bill was the inclusion of "extraneous" funds by congressional Democrats, the compromise he is expected to sign includes billions of dollars of non-Iraq related funding. The Wall Street Journal says the "nearly $120 billion Iraq-war spending bill headed toward the House floor after chemical and airline industries won concessions and Democrats divided up billions of dollars in added funding for domestic programs." The White House "has blessed the overall structure, which promises President Bush $94.7 billion in defense money and a relatively free hand in directing the war through Sept. 30." The Washington Times notes the domestic spending "includes about $9 billion for veterans affairs and defense measures and about $8 billion for Hurricane Katrina recovery, health care for poor children and agricultural programs."

The Christian Science Monitor sees another silver lining for Democratic leaders, who "will have met their own Memorial Day deadline for funding the troops, without requiring their members to take a high-profile vote on the combined war-funding package."

But Democrats, who can cite the historical precedent of Vietnam to suggest their strategy to force an exit of US troops from Iraq will gradually gain strength in the future, face a liberal base angered at the opening round loss. Yesterday, they were struggling to explain their strategy to their allies in the anti-war movement and to liberal lawmakers who are expected to vote against the bill raising the specter of a fracture in the Democratic coalition. The New York Times reports "the idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file." The Chicago Tribune says Rep. Maxine Waters, "a leader of the Democratic anti-war effort, warned that Democrats who vote in favor of the measure are sure to face political peril." The Washington Times says the bill "represents a painful defeat for Democratic leaders, who took control of Congress while promising to end the unpopular war in Iraq." The Politico notes "anti-war activists vowed they will have long memories about the deal Democratic leaders struck with the Bush administration this week on Iraq war funding, warning that they will exact retribution from lawmakers in both parties in 2008." The Washington Post, in fact, reports MoveOn.org "rallied its 3.2 million members in an e-mail alert yesterday morning that declared that 'every single Democrat must oppose this bill.'" Roll Call notes Rep. Jim McGovern criticized the spending agreement and said, "Maybe we can pull off a miracle and defeat the goddamn thing."

Democratic lawmakers yesterday took to the airwaves to make the case for the compromise bill. Rep. Rahm Emanuel said on MSNBC's Hardball, "The President said no to timelines and we said no to a blank check. ... It doesn't have the timeline, something we wanted. But it has benchmarks, something he didn't want." Sen. Joseph Biden said on MSNBC's Hardball, "We need 17 Republicans to change their mind [to have a veto-proof majority in the Senate]." Rep. Jim Moran, on MSNBC's Tucker, said, "This is a Pyrrhic victory for the Republican Party and the President. They want to make it clear to the world that they own this war, and if that's what they want, they've achieved it."

John Edwards, on the other hand, assailed the legislation. He said on CNN's The Situation Room that what congressional Democrats "should do is continue to submit funding bills supporting the troops to the President with a timetable for withdrawal. And if the President...continues to veto those bills, it's the President who's deciding he's not going to fund the troops."