On Iraq, a showdown is all but inevitable

With the Senate poised today to vote to restrict President Bush’s ability to conduct the war in Iraq, the White House and Congress are careening toward their biggest policy confrontation in more than a decade.

The last such head-on collision between the branches of government was in 1994, when a newly elected Republican Congress took aim at a Democratic president and eventually forced the shutdown of the federal government.

This time, a newly elected Democratic Congress is taking on a Republican president in an effort to force a drawdown in an increasingly unpopular war.

At the moment, neither side has much incentive to compromise, because the war is a signature issue for both. The president has wagered his legacy on the outcome of his decision to invade Iraq, and Democrats owe their control of Congress largely to voters angered by the war’s deepening losses.

“I don’t think either one can afford to back down, and that leads to the inevitable,” said David Gergen, a veteran political strategist who has served as a top advisor to presidents of both parties.

The inevitable is a long-threatened presidential veto of a bill that would provide funds for the war but would lay out a timetable for withdrawal.

When it comes, Bush’s veto is expected to leave each side accusing the other of perfidy: The president will accuse Congress of cutting off funds for troops in the middle of the battlefield, and Democratic leaders will accuse Bush of stubbornly ignoring the will of the American people, the true needs of the troops and the raw power of common sense.

Also likely is a scenario that drags the confrontation out for months, probably through the summer, with each side trying to fix blame for the stalemate on the other.

The two sides are drawing those battle lines now, and it was evident in their rhetoric Wednesday.

Speaking to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn., Bush called on members of Congress to “stop making political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops.”

“Some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That’s not going to happen,” Bush said.

“If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.”

Blaming Bush

For their part, Democratic leaders sent a letter to Bush suggesting that he is the one being unreasonable.

“Mr. President, this is the time to sit down and work together on behalf of the American people and our troops,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote. “We stand ready to work with you, but your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us. We hope that is not the case.”

If neither side seems in a hurry to reach a resolution, one reason is that both have more time on their side than their rhetoric would suggest. Although Pentagon officials have said funds for the troops will start running out in mid-April, they have also acknowledged that troops in the field will not be affected for several more months.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said that a cutoff in funding would mostly affect replacement brigades, and most of them are not scheduled to be deployed until next fall.

Months of conflict

Norman J. Ornstein, who studies relations between Congress and the White House at the American Enterprise Institute, said the confrontation would “play out over months, no matter what,” and that the “crunch probably won’t come until August.”

“If you get a confrontation over an emergency [spending bill], presidents almost always win those. He has the bully pulpit of saying, ‘They’re trying to tie my hands, blackmail me and cut off funds.’ He can prevail for a while,” Ornstein said.

Moreover, refusing to compromise also would buy the president more time for his “surge” strategy to show benefits on the ground in Iraq.

“The odds of that are very slim, but they are not zero,” Ornstein said.

If the scenario plays out as expected, the Senate will vote today to adopt an emergency war spending bill that sets a nonbinding timetable for withdrawal. Then, Senate and House negotiators will draw up a compromise version of the legislation -- the House’s timetable was binding -- and send it to the White House.

When that compromise arrives, probably shortly after Congress returns from its spring recess in mid-April, Bush is expected to veto it.

At that point, each will try to lay the blame at the other’s feet. How successful they are may largely depend on how the confrontation was framed in the public mind.

“Both sides have an interest in gaining the upper rhetorical hand with the public,” Gergen said. “Bush wants to paint [the Senate bill] as an avenue to defeat, and the Democrats say the opposite.” The Democrats argue that Bush “is not accepting any limitations or boundaries on the war.”

One tool the Democrats could use would be to pass temporary spending extensions, known as continuing resolutions, for 30 days or so at a time. That would enable them to avoid the charge that they have cut off funding for the troops while keeping the heat on the White House to compromise.

Holding their ground

But in the end, the confrontation may well wind up as a test of wills.

Bush cherishes his reputation as a resolute leader willing to buck public opinion when principle is at stake.

Congress is led by Democrats who chafed for years in the minority under what they saw as a highly partisan and heavy-handed Republican majority serving a recalcitrant president.

If the confrontation continues through the year, Bush may take more of the blame, Ornstein said. But with his public standing already so low, the president may be willing to take that risk, because he has less to lose with the public than congressional leaders do.

“In the long run, we’ve had four years of the war,” Ornstein said, noting recent polls that show two out of three Americans favor setting a timetable for withdrawal. “With a super-majority sentiment that this was a disaster, Bush is going to suffer for it.”

*

maura.reynolds@latimes.com