Thursday was the closest Capitol Hill will ever get to exciting.
On C-SPAN 3 (saved for committee hearings and late-night airings of X-treme senate proceedings), the Senate Judiciary Committee swung bats at D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff and counselor to U.S. attorney General Alberto Gonzales, hoping he'd eventually crack and spill bunches of sweet, sweet political candy.
He did, but the excited, bipartisan frenzy was interrupted several times for more pressing business - passing a version of the Iraq spending bill approved by the House the previous week.
Bush has vowed to veto the bill for two reasons: non-related spending was attached, and it contains several deadlines that Bush must meet. Though the Democrats haven't garnered enough votes to override the veto, the deadlines still are warranted given the circumstances.
There are several arguments against the deadlines, but none of them hold any water.
The first is the tired old catch-phrase of "support the troops." Though it was always a vague, empty phrase, the Bush administration has gone through additional back flips to get it to apply in this case. The administration asserts the Democrats are pushing a bill through they know Bush will veto, resulting in delayed funding that won't "support the troops."
Not only could the same argument be pressed against Bush's veto, but the deadline for funding running out has been misstated purposely. The last $70 billion provided by Congress will run out April 15, but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that the army could shift around enough funding to pay for Iraq operations well into this summer.
Critics of a deadline also point to the near inevitability of Iraq slipping deeper into chaos if our troops leave. But the trend seems to be downward despite troops' presence.
Those championing the current surge, Bush and GOP presidential candidate John McCain, have proven to be out of touch with the situation in Iraq, making easily disproved claims that the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, driving around Baghdad without an armed escort.
Keeping our troops in Iraq is merely prolonging the inevitable, delaying the dying spasms of a failed effort and preventing us from more fruitfully applying our military power elsewhere. After all, funding is largely a zero-sum gain; money or troops applied to Iraq could be used for other causes.
Domestically, this could boil down to more funding for things like college scholarships (in a blatant grab by this editorialist for your approval). Even if we kept it in the military, the freed-up force could have been applied to secure Afghanistan and not rely so much on the Pakistan's military assistance.
The most common argument against deadlines, however, is that they're too static and inflexible, that they constitute "micromanaging" the war effort and unduly tie Bush's authority to wage a war. Though the constitutionality of this is far beyond the scope of this little editorial to discuss, the argument doesn't count for much in terms of policy.
Many of the tiered deadlines merely require Bush to aim for certain withdrawal goals or certify things like cooperation with the Iraqi government for proper training and equipment for the troops.
Furthermore, Congress can pass additional legislation to shift the deadlines based on the occupation's continued progress later; if the "surge" gains ground, Congress can push the deadline back. Iraqi militias can't just count on the U.S. withdrawal at a set date.
Despite all the evidence against him, all signs point to Bush vetoing the bill. In the meantime, 57 percent of the general population supports deadlines, according to a recent MSNBC/Newsweek poll.
It's best to give that majority a voice through this legislation, even if the President is deaf to them.
Greg Brown is a junior in philosophy. Please send your comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
