Think Progress has the story of how George W. Bush and John McCain, both outspoken opponents of Sen. Jim Webb's "new G.I. Bill," which was signed into law in the new Iraq war supplemental (BTW, did you notice that that passed? $160 billion in no-restrictions war money?), are now slapping each other on the back and taking credit for it:

The bill is a result of close collaboration between my administration and members of both parties on Capitol Hill. ... I want to thank members who worked hard for the GI Bill expansion, especially Senators Webb and Warner, Graham, Burr, McCain. This bill shows that even in an election year, Democrats and Republicans can come together to stand behind our troops.

Horseshit, of course. Hell, McCain didn't even show up for the vote on the damn thing.

But isn't it curious that we could see this happen (repeatedly, no less) right before our very eyes, and yet top Democratic strategists can simultaneously believe that voting for Republican FISA and other "national security" bills will actually "neutralize the issues" and shield Dems from attacks?

I guess anything can happen in a world where nobody blinks when the President of the United States and the man he hopes will be his successor both flip-flop that shamelessly. But it makes you wonder why anybody thinks of Republicans as bound by logic.

While the Republicans are busy figuring out whether they can just attack Democratic FISA supporters on FISA anyway, they're wasting no time attacking them on everything else:

Freedom's Watch, a conservative-aligned independent group, is sponsoring radio ads in 16 congressional districts -- bashing Democratic incumbents for their alleged culpability for sky-high gas prices.

"These Members, who claim to be leaders, have gone on vacation and failed to do anything to address the pain people are feeling at the pump and in their wallets," said Carl Forti, director of issue advocacy for the group. "They have done Nancy Pelosi's bidding and repeatedly stood in the way of increasing domestic oil production and exploration, when they should be listening to their constituents."

The targeted Dems?

LA-06 - Rep. Don Cazayoux
MS-01 - Rep. Travis Childers
TX-22 - Rep. Nick Lampson
KS-02 - Rep. Nancy Boyda
WI-08 - Rep. Steve Kagen
TX-23 - Rep. Ciro Rodriguez
OH-18 - Rep. Zack Space
NH-01 - Rep. Carol Shea-Porter
AZ-05 - Rep. Harry mitchell
CA-11 - Rep.Jerry McNerney
GA-08 - Rep. Jim Marshall
FL-16 - Rep. Tim Mahoney
NY-20 - Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand
AZ-08 - Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
PA-10 - Rep. Chris Carney
PA-11 - Rep. Paul Kanjorski

All but Shea-Porter [CORRECTION: and Kagan!] voted "yea" on the FISA bill. Enjoy the rewards!

Hey, at least it's not a FISA attack. Yet.

Another week that starts with a parade of suspension bills. This is not unusual, by the way. The schedule starts to get a little heavy with them towards the end of a session, though, and we're getting to that point with the August recess just weeks away, and the campaign trail looming.

So Monday starts with an exciting array of suspensions, kicking the work day off at 12:30 -- also not unusual for the House. Remember, everybody's flying in from their home districts after the weekend, so starting work at 12:30 isn't the lackadaisical schedule it appears to be. Unlimited one minutes and other morning business (i.e., talking about anything you want to) takes up the early afternoon, then debate -- such as it is -- begins on 12 suspension bills at 2:00, with votes on those bills postponed (pursuant to clause 8 of Rule XX) until 6:30.

Tuesday's still got 22 more suspensions on the slate.

From late Tuesday, when they've dispensed with the suspensions, work begins on bills subject to rules:

• H.R. 5876 - Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens
• H.R. 6275 - The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
• H.R. 3195 - ADA Restoration Act
• Two Native American land claims bills -- H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176 -- dealing with claims of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay Mills Indian Community, respectively
• H.R. 6052 - The Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008

On the Senate side, work begins at 3:00 today, with no votes expected. Work continues on H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, last punted back to the Senate in mid-May.

No floor action is scheduled yet on the supplemental or on FISA, but it's expected early this week, with Congress set to recess after Friday's session for a one-week district work period for the July 4th holiday.

Shame on Congress, especially shame on Democrats.......You sound like a bunch of Republican chicken hawks!
Republican Chicken hawk: "I support the war, I support the war....but I’m not going to fight on the frontlines, my contribution to Victory (or defeat) will be an occasional vote and lip service"

Democratic Chicken hawk:  I am against war funding without a timetable for withdrawal, I am against retroactive immunity for telecoms......but I am not going to fight on the front lines, with every legislative tools I have to stop them.......I am just going to keep saying I am against it, vote against it when I am sure my vote is in vain, and do nothing more to Stop what I profess to be so completely against having happen.

Despite Democrats voting nearly two-to-one against a blank check for the Iraq war, oh, and also despite their holding the majority in the United States House of Representatives, another $150 billion-plus has been appropriated for the war that would pay for itself, and give us 50 cents-a-gallon gas.

UPDATE: Dems go 230-3 for the domestic spending portion of the bill. And happily, the passage of the bill honoring Chi Chi Rodriguez went smoothly, as did yesterday's bill designating April 2008 National Public Radio Appreciation Month. Not a typo. April 2008.

UPDATE 2: War funding roll call vote here.

The House currently stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair. That means nothing's going on on the House floor right now, and that's the case because the Rules committee is meeting to work out the procedure under which the Iraq war supplemental will come to the floor later this afternoon.

It's already late afternoon on Thursday, with just one more week in session for the Congress before it breaks for its July 4th recess. Still pending are the supplemental and the FISA bill, two enormously important pieces of legislation that the Congress definitely wants to dispense with before it breaks.

That puts us in a similar position to last December, when Senator Chris Dodd's filibuster of the FISA bill backed the Senate up against the recess wall, and the bill was eventually pulled so that they could finish up other pressing business before their recess.

Under ordinary circumstances, the deals that have been cut on these two bills would pretty much make them a done deal, especially in the House where there's very little capacity to significantly delay a bill for which there is the support of a determined majority. In the Senate, of course, a 60-vote majority can overcome even the famed filibuster power.

But sometimes, all you really need is a delay, and that is something that an equally determined minority -- even a very small one -- can almost always provide, if they're willing to endure varying degrees of the scorn of their colleagues.

In the House, the ground rules of the debate will be set by the Rules committee, as usual. But within the usual procedure used by the chair to put the Rules committee dictates in place are often numerous opportunities to cause delay, none of which are enough by themselves to significantly slow down important legislation, but which together can buy an hour here, an hour there, and pretty soon, you're talking about real time.

For instance, the House is asked for unanimous consent for various procedural and ministerial functions dozens of times during any given day. Most of them are merely requests routinely granted out of courtesy to colleagues, such as unanimous consent requests to insert written material in the record. But others, though equally routine, are requests for things like dispensing with the reading of bills, which can sometimes take hours all by itself. That's a huge waste of time (even though most Members haven't read the bills), and it's routinely dispensed with... unless somebody's pissed off. And then they utter the magic words, "I object." And then we either sit through hours of bill reading, or have to call everyone out of their meetings and onto the floor for a vote authorizing the dispensation of the reading, or whatever it is that's been objected to.

With two highly controversial bills coming down the pike in two days in the House, and the Senate poised to take them up immediately after, the serial objections of Members who want to slow things down can really add a significant burden to the work of passing them. What's more, you don't even really have to object in the end (though you might force a vote if you do, and that's 15 minutes by itself right there). Instead, you can rise and "reserve the right to object," and sometimes go on at some length about why you're thinking of objecting, casting about for some sort of concession or accommodation from the other side before withdrawing or finally asserting your objection. And if you're not the only one with potential objections, well, this can go on for some time.

But in end, House rules make it nearly impossible to hold matters up for much more than a few hours or a day. Twice that, though, if you've got two bills facing the same threat.

And that brings us to the Senate, where the power of a very small minority to delay is considerably greater, though also limited. But if the supplemental were delayed for a day in the House, thus delaying the FISA bill for another day in the House, you'd find FISA not reaching the Senate until early next week -- unless the Senators gave up their weekend to get to it, which is a distinct possibility.

But if FISA and/or the supplemental didn't get to the Senate until next week, and one Senator attempted to "hold" the bill, the bill's supporters would make a motion to proceed, which can overcome the "hold" (which is itself just another form of objecting to unanimous consent). The motion to proceed, however, is itself subject to a filibuster. And if a Senator did in fact begin a filibuster of the motion to proceed, although a cloturemotion could shut him or her down, the Senate by rule must wait two days before voting on cloture, and even if cloture is invoked, it still allows for 30 additional hours of debate before calling things to an end. That's more than three days that it would take just to get to a vote on the motion to proceed.

And if that weren't enough, the underlying bill may be subject to a filibuster as well, though it's possible that the particular procedures used to move these bill could conceivably preclude it. But if not, you'd be looking at another three days. That puts them right up against their recess.

Now, if that were to happen with both the supplemental and FISA (and no, I haven't heard of any combination of Senators who were willing to do that to either one, let alone both), then you could find yourself approaching the end of next week with neither bill complete, and that recess looming. Could they just wait until after the recess and take it up then? Sure. So what's the value of that?

The only value there is that from early July through early August is the last five legislative weeks before the Congress breaks for the national party conventions. The last chance for the parties to frame their issues going into the big show. And the last chance for Barack Obama to be a Senator.

At this point, Barack Obama is the nominal leader of the Democratic Party. He's opposed to retroactive immunity for the telecoms, and everyone who was opposed to it before this so-called "deal" was struck is, you'll notice, still opposed to it, though some have opted to throw up their hands and pretend they're being forced to vote on it.

But a word from Barack Obama at this point would have the potential to change everything. A word from him saying that this "deal" stands in direct contradiction to the agenda he's bringing to the presidential race would weigh heavily on Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's really only getting heavy pressure from Intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller on this, and thus is likely to be inclined (despite his own opposition to immunity) to grease that particular squeaky wheel. There could be a counterbalance from Judiciary chairman Pat Leahy, but so far, we haven't heard that squeak. He's issued a statement saying he opposes the "deal," but he's not pushing the way Rockefeller is pushing. And though Reid is the Majority Leader, that's as much a service position as it is a leadership position. His membership just isn't telling him no. The voices that are speaking with conviction are the voices saying yes.

Barack Obama, though, is the heavyweight in the arena right now, and his voice, properly applied, could be worth a dozen chairmen. But he's not using it, and in fact, there's no guarantee he ever will.

But get us into next week, pitch a fight in the Senate, back the Congress up against the recess wall, and call in the biggest gun we have, and we just might have that snowflake's chance in the hot place.

UPDATE: And here comes the rule for the supplemental, on the floor now.

The first report was from the AP, but since they don't like bloggers to use them or link to them, we'll just talk about the facts of their story without burdening them with the traffic. We'll send it to other, friendlier and more web-savvy sources instead.

The news: A deal has been struck on the House side to move an Iraq funding bill.

Details are still emerging, but initial reports (from that news source that doesn't like links) said only that an agreement had been reached, and that the package would include approximately $165 billion in funding for military operations, plus the Webb "GI bill" provisions, Midwest flood relief, and an unemployment benefits extension.

As time -- here measured in mere minutes -- passed, new details emerged. A second AP report that they also don't want links to hinted that Bush was backing away from his earlier threats to veto war funding that was accompanied by significant restrictions on its use, and unemployment benefits that went to people who had worked less than 20 weeks out of the previous year. Bush had also ruled out a provision Blue Dogs had insisted on to pay for the GI bill, that being a 1/2% surtax on top-earning taxpayers.

That seemed rather curious, until a report in The Hill cleared it up:

The compromise bill will include about $165 billion in funding for the Iraq war with no conditions, such as banning torture or blocking a "status of forces agreement" between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

It will include a new program, called the "new GI Bill," to pay the college tuition of Iraq and Afghan war veterans, which will be transferable to family members. The cost of the program will be added to the federal deficit, because there will be no offsetting tax increase.

It will extend unemployment benefits by three months, but will require recipients to have worked at least 20 weeks, a requirement Democrats had sought to shorten.

Mmmm, yeah. That smells like a deal to me! In exchange for agreeing to accept $57 billion more for the Iraq war, Bush was willing to allow Democrats to drop their demands for a ban on permanent bases, torture and the SOFA and their demands on expanding eligibility for unemployment benefits. It really must be said that he's truly a generous man.

Should be an interesting vote, if both the Blue Dogs who said they wouldn't vote for GI bill provisions that weren't budget neutral and the 70 other Members who said they wouldn't vote for war funding that didn't have withdrawal language all stick to their guns.<sup>*


*</sup> Note to McCain campaign: This is not a statement on firearms policy.

UPDATE: The text of the rule they're going to use isn't available yet, but here's how that "interesting vote" is going to be managed. First, the House will have to pass H. Res. 1281, reported from the Rules committee yesterday, which:

Waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee) against any resolution reported from the Rules Committee on the legislative day of June 19, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008

Then they're going to have to cobble together a procedure that waives PAYGO rules so they can shoehorn in the GI bill provisions, and allows for separate votes on the various provisions -- the war money, the GI bill, the unemployment benefits, etc. -- and then have a final vote on a package that includes whatever provisions get a majority along the way.

The end result will be that the progressives can vote against the war money but for the rest of the stuff, the Blue Dogs can vote against the GI bill but for the rest of the stuff, thereby producing a different majority for each of the provisions, and then everybody can throw up their hands and vote for the final package, which will represent "the best we could do despite my opposition to provision X, Y or Z."

Happy C-SPAN viewing, everybody!

The House is out of session on Monday (not an unusual schedule during non-peak work periods), but scheduled to convene on Tuesday.

Like last week, sitting atop the schedule are a number of suspension bills -- 26 in all, scheduled for consideration on Tuesday and Wednesday, giving Members time to return from their districts, attend their various committee meetings, and generally get themselves set for the work week.

Substantive bills slated for consideration this week are:

H.R. 6063 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Rep. Udall (CO) – Science)

H.R. 5781 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008 (Rep. Maloney – Government and Oversight Reform)

H.R. 5876 - Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008 (Rep. George Miller - Education and Labor)

And, just maybe...

Possible Consideration of H.R. 2642 - Iraq/Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations bill (Rep. Obey - Appropriations)

Note: These bill listings are provided by the Majority Leader's office and represent the proposed schedule for the week. But anything can happen, and scheduling these bills by no means guarantees their consideration.

Further note: The parenthetical information following the title of each bill is the name of each bill's sponsor, and the committee of jurisdiction that reported the bill out for floor consideration.

Twenty-six suspensions this week. I'd take that as an indication that the Members will be working hard behind the scenes to hash out a game plan on the war funding. Almost nobody needs to be on the floor during consideration of suspension bills, and that leaves the House virtually on autopilot and everyone free for working whatever deals need doing. The bulk of the Membership, of course, will be engaged in anything but Iraq dealmaking -- instead focusing on their own committee meetings, deals on a million other bills, etc. But Caucus meetings will doubtless focus on the issue, and it will be causing (very routine, even outside of the Iraq issue) tensions between the various voting blocs and positions, and the time that 26 suspensions buys on the floor will be used to smooth those tensions out to the extent possible. Or at least give Members time to settle comfortably into positions of disagreement.

So far absent from the schedule: FISA. But we hear that "deal" is in the works. And there are rumors beginning to circulate that the "deal" may be tacked on to the Iraq supplemental, which is considered a "must pass," but could potentially end up endangering the bill, or at least crushing the souls of Democrats forced by Hoyer to vote for Iraq funding and telecom immunity in the same bill!

But if it doesn't make it to the floor this week, that leaves just one more week before the House breaks for the July 4th district work period. "District work period," by the way, is what you and I rather misleadingly call "recess." But seriously, they really are working. We sometimes laugh at how much time Congress spends in "recess," but what they're doing in that time is, you know, the stuff you elected them to do: coming home and talking to people in the district about what's up in DC, and what they should be doing about it.

If continuing disagreements between the parties, the houses of Congress, and even inside the parties can keep the FISA ball up in the air for one more week, that pushes us into early July. From there, we're looking at a five week run to the next recess, and it's the big one: the summer district work period, tentatively scheduled for August 11, and running through the convention season, not bringing the Congress back to DC until September 8th or so.

That, then -- from July 7th through August 8th -- is your critical period for finding out which way the FISA issue breaks. Bet on heavy fear-mongering from the "administration" and its Republican enablers in Congress, with frequent hints from Blue Dogs and the like that their fear of GOP attack ads will have them lining up to vote for the worst elements of the White House package, in the vain hopes that it'll actually buy them some peace come election time. Why they believe they'll get a pass so long as they're wearing that D after their name, I have no idea. But that's the game they think they're playing.

Time will tell for sure, though it's a fair guess to say right here and now that they're fooling themselves.

But let's just take things a week at a time and see where we get.

The House has another snoozer of a week coming up, with a whopping 37 suspensions on the calendar, to be followed by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008.

Hoo-wee!

But hey, that's the reality of life in Congress. It's not all the glamorous stuff that makes people send you hate mail, you know.

There is one bill of general interest looming, however, and that's the latest Iraq war funding bill, which could reach the floor this week depending on how final negotiations go. The funding comes once again in the form of an "emergency" supplemental -- the eighth such "emergency" bill of the Bush "administration" (not counting two additional "bridge funding" Iraq appropriations bills, which we're supposed to think are some other species of "Oh crap, we need more money again" bills).

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says he'd like to see the bill get to the floor "earlier rather than later" in the week, which would likely mean Wednesday or Thursday rather than sticking around for big votes on Friday. Yes, most people would consider Monday or Tuesday "earlier," but 37 suspensions is quite a load. And frankly, they'll need it, since it's not at all clear that negotiations have progressed with regard to what should be in this bill.

What's to negotiate? Well, there's the question of whether or not to keep provisions extending unemployment benefits? And how about Senator Webb's "new GI bill?" Together, they add some $60 billion or so on top of the $108 billion that Bush says is the cap beyond which he'd veto the bill. But federal unemployment stats show the biggest monthly spike in the unemployment rate in over 20 years. And the GI bill is a no-brainer. Still, Blue Dogs in the House are balking at the lack of offsets to pay for these measures, and the Senate has already rejected tax increases on the top income brackets the Blue Dogs proposed as an answer.

To top it all off, we're back where we were last year on this issue, with the "Commander in Chief" threatening to hold the troops hostage if Congress doesn't rubber stamp his funding request. And that doesn't just mean giving him every dollar he asks for. It also means not giving him a penny more. Because he's "fiscally responsible!" This is something of a repeat of last year's battle, but with a new twist. In addition to his annual threat to veto any bill exceeding his request,

Bush said that if Congress does not act promptly, "critical accounts at the Department of Defense will soon run dry." He added that civilian employees may face "temporary layoffs," and the Pentagon would be forced to "close down a vital program that is getting potential insurgents off the streets and into jobs." If the supplemental spending bill is not enacted after July, Bush said, the department would "no longer be able to pay our troops," including ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's let VetVoice's Brandon Friedman tell you about that one:

I just want to be clear about two points:

1.  Insurgents kill Americans.  So when the President says that the Pentagon would be forced to "close down" a program that gets "potential insurgents off the streets," he's really saying that he'll deliberately allow the threat to American troops in Iraq increase if he doesn't get his money.  He's playing chicken with Congress at the expense of American lives in Iraq.  Make no mistake about it: More insurgents on the streets would lead to more American deaths.

Perhaps someone knows more about this than I do, but I suspect Bush might be setting a precedent here.  I'm not sure this has ever happened before.

2.  Bush is also threatening to stop paying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is funny, because I don't hear him threatening to cut the contracts of Halliburton, Blackwater, SAIC, and DynCorp--and thus cutting their employees' inflated salaries.  

This is a clear indication that the Bush administration is more loyal to contractors than to soldiers.  When forced to cut spending, Bush would rather starve members of the Armed Forces than cut the exorbitant pay checks given to those who work for privatized military companies.

That's some Commander Guy we've got there, ain't it?

So what will the Congress be doing this week? Falling all over itself in the rush to knuckle under, of course. But not before taking a few minutes to posthumously award a Congressional gold medal to Constantino Brumidi. Which is nice. Don't get me wrong.

Bawk! Bawk!

By a vote of 149-141, the Democrat-controlled House rejected a measure that would have given the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running through next summer, slightly below President George W. Bush's request.

A large group of anti-war House Democrats voted against the funds. That, coupled with 132 Republicans voting "present," meaning neither "yes" nor "no," killed the measure for now.

Yes, our brave, brave House Republicans have taken the president's valiant example ("Fore!" "Incoming!") to heart and have given up voting while our troops are at war.

You may recall that at about this time last year, Chickenhawk Republicans were demanding that Democrats who wanted to bring the war in Iraq to a close had to have "the courage of their convictions" and vote their conscience on the funding. But today, those same Republicans chose to abandon their posts -- and they're some cushy posts, at that -- and vote "present" instead of having the courage to vote "no" on a bill they disapproved of.

And why? So they wouldn't fall into their own stupid trap. The one that says if you vote against a war appropriations bill, you're not "supporting the troops."

You think maybe some of those troops would like to have the option of answering "present" instead of "Yes, sir!" when they're ordered out on patrol? Not saying they'd exercise that option, of course. They, after all, have a sense of duty about their jobs.

But not our brave Republicans of the "Present" 110th!

Voting's scary!

ABC:

Bush details $70 billion war funding request for 2009
Bush sends Congress details of $70 billion war request for 2009
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.

Friday's request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

$70 billion? What happened to the $108 billion figure from the other day?

Confused? Here's the scoop:

The $108 billion is the figure Bush demands for supplemental spending. That is, spending on top of what was budgeted for fiscal year 2008 (FY08).

The $70 billion is the figure Bush demands be put in the fiscal year 2009 budget. FY09, as the article mentions, begins on October 1, 2008 -- 112 days before Bush's term ends.

And as we discussed the other day, it looks like Congressional Democrats would like to add extra money -- probably that $70 billion or so -- to the supplemental. Why?

Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections.

Dems don't want to be facing, well, you, just as they're voting on another $70 billion (on top of the $108 Bush is going to force out of them) for the war they're campaigning on ending. And they don't want the next president, assuming it's a Democrat, to have to do the same in his or her first months in office.

And so George W. Bush will put on his oversized foam rubber "fiscal conservative" cowboy hat for a while, and pretend it makes sense to draw the line on the supplemental at $108 billion and not a penny more (or he'll veto it, he says), even though he's about to ask for another $70 billion a few weeks later.

Take a good look at that situation, though.

What's more absurd, Democrats who want to end the war voting to front him (and the next president) an extra $70 billion more than he wants? Or Bush's ridiculous notion that it's somehow fiscally conservative to "budget" $70 billion for the war in FY09, when he's right now demanding nearly 55% more than that in supplemental FY08 spending.

What a friggin' crock.

Yup. It's that time again.

Bush wants another $108 billion for Iraq, and he's threatening to veto any bill that either comes in higher than that amount, or attempts to impose any restrictions on how the occupation is conducted.

Why would he threaten to veto any bill with more than $108 billion in it?

Well, that depends on why it's there. For instance, if it's money that's added on to pay the educational benefits we promised the volunteers who joined our Armed Forces and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, well then, it's gonna get vetoed.

When asked about the popular plan to increase education benefits for troops returning from Iraq, however, Bush held firm.

"I made my position very clear to Congress and I will not accept a supplemental over $108 billion or a supplemental that micromanages the war, ties the hands of our commanders," Bush said. "We will work with Congress on these veterans' benefits .... But the $108 billion is $108 billion."

F you, soldier!

And why would those troop "supportin'" Republicans stand for that? Because Republicans hate pork! Unless you prevent them from adding it, that is.

Republicans are howling over what appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s plan to bypass the House Appropriations Committee on the upcoming Iraq war supplemental, complaining that the move will be the beginning of the end of the usual appropriations process and will further consolidate power in the hands of a speaker who already has a lot of it.

Oh noes! The Speaker has power! Well, elections have consequences, as Republicans used to say.

Yes, the Democratic leadership is considering moving the Iraq appropriations bill directly to the House floor rather than sending it through the committee process. That could short circuit a lot of nonsense, like Jerry Lewis's crybaby antics over the inclusion by Democrats of provisions requiring the president to sign waivers when he rotates untrained, unrested, and unarmored troops back into combat. Or responsible grown-up Bill Young's shenanigans in offering a fake withdrawal amendment, which I'm sure was oh-so-hilarious to the troops he can't stop saying he supports.

But the fact is, they haven't decided yet whether they're going to use this procedure or not. Neither do we know for sure whether it's an effort to clamp down on earmarks, or an effort to give shelter to preferred earmarks.

Either way, though, this was kind of hilarious in a "What planet have you been on?" kind of way:

Adds Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), an Appropriations Committee member: "For anyone who cares about the institution, this goes against the democratic process. Someone who is confident of her position would have no problem going through regular order."

Poor Mikey! You'd almost think he cared about the institution. Not that he  cared when Bush took a giant crap on it and instructed "Attorney General" Michael Mukasey to blow off the institution's subpoenas and contempt of Congress citations. Nope. Couldn't be bothered!

Loser.

But there's still one more possible motivating factor, and that's getting this damned bill rammed through with as few stops -- and therefore as few opportunities for examination and/or protest -- as possible.

Why do that? Here's one sentence with two possible reasons. Here's number one:

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet...

Oof!

Here's the second:

...a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

Yeah, that kinda sucks, huh? Largest Iraq war spending bill yet. From the Democrats elected in 2006 to end the war. D'oh!

And knowing that there's a decent chance of electing a Democratic president in 2008 to end the war (because logic hasn't ever applied to American elections, and we're not about to start now), Congressional Democrats don't want him or her to have to sully up the honeymoon with any untoward requests. Like, say, billions more dollars for the war everyone says they're ending.

So Bush wants his $108 billion, and he wants it to the penny. If Dems try to smooth the next president's transition into dealing with Iraq, he'll veto the bill -- yet another way to hold the troops hostage to his insane agenda, even while he's out of office. How's that for "reaching across the aisle?" He's reaching across to smack the next president in the face... from beyond the political grave.

This is the president who insists that Congress is not permitted to tie his hands in dealing with Iraq, but who now reserves the right to tie the hands of the next president and the next Congress. And not even to tie them to his Iraq policy. Just to the headaches that come with cleaning up his mess, no matter what that may mean.

George W. Bush truly does hate America.

Andgarden notes Rahm Emanuel's appearance on Real Time this weekend, wherein he's called upon to address the question of "defunding" the "war" in "Iraq."

I note this:

MAHER: Now, President Bush has asked for another, I think, around $200 billion to keep the war going. Okay, and I hear all the time-

EMANUEL: This would be - make it $680 billion.

MAHER: Okay.

Reports are that the supplemental may be put off for a while, which is sort of good news. Of course, it might be getting backed up so that it's not on the record of any presidential candidates before the first flurry of primaries, which at this point in the ever-quickening schedule, may have decided the whole mess before anyone has to stake out a position on the Iraq money, which is not such good news if you're scoring accountability at home rather than political expediency.

But hey, the world's political.

Meanwhile, back to our show:

EMANUEL: This would be - make it $680 billion.

Just for the record, this next $200 billion goes with the $90 or so in the infamous May '06 supplemental, meaning nearly $300 billion of the $680 or so comes on the Democratic watch. One year under Dems, $300 billion. Four years under Republicans, $480 billion $380 billion. [Sorry. Government Math malfunction. Makes story worse than expected.]

$180 billion $80 billion is nothing to sneeze at, of course. But that's the thin line separating the Republican's controlling interest in funding this nonsense versus the Democratic share.

That's one half a supplemental bill's difference, the way things are going.

Please make a note of it.

House Fails to Override Bush Veto on Iraq

But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader, urged members to sustain the president’s veto by voting against the bill. "Why is winning in Iraq so important?" Mr. Boehner asked. "In my view and others, al Qaeda has made Iraq the central front in their war with us."

Voting for the bill today were 220 Democrats and only 2 Republicans, Representatives Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones Jr. of North Carolina, who were also the only Republicans to vote for the bill on April 25. Seven Democrats joined 196 Republicans in voting against the bill today.

The House’s failure to thwart Mr. Bush eliminated any need for the Senate to vote, since a two-thirds majority in each chamber is required to defeat a veto. So the focus turned to the White House, where the president and legislators were to meet in midafternoon.

Mr. Boehner said that he hoped his "Democrat colleagues" would be cooperative. "Republicans are here to work with them," Mr. Boehner said.

Despite their inability to overcome the veto, Congressional Democrats are determined to use the financing measure to force the White House to shift course in Iraq.

Next comes the real test: Whether the Democratic leadership can maintain the thin margins of the vetoed legislation in order to pass a new and tougher bill.