Tuesday, April 24, 2007 | 7:10 a.m.
For the first time since he ordered the invasion of Iraq more than four years ago, President Bush is facing determined congressional pressure to develop a war plan with deadlines rather than let the bloodshed continue ad infinitum while he talks of open-ended goals.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, mindful of the message that voters sent Congress in November, is leading the way in applying the pressure. He and other Democratic leaders have been forced into this position, as Bush refuses to acknowledge that a bipartisan strategy for Iraq is long overdue.
Congressional leaders agreed Monday on war-funding legislation expected to be finalized by Friday - legislation that sets deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals and contains repercussions for the Iraqi government if it does not take firm steps toward ending the country's civil war.
Reid believes the voters who turned control of Congress back to the Democrats want the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government to know that it must act soon - or else - on the issues dividing the country, such as how to share oil money and how to give Sunnis more representation.
Although it is Bush who is weak, allowing the Iraqi government to walk all over him while U.S. forces take ever more casualties defending it, the president likes to give the opposite impression, that he, like President Abraham Lincoln, is strong and resolute.
On Monday he again vowed to veto the Democrats' legislation, adding that he will "strongly reject ... Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job."
Tough talk, but completely nonsensical when analyzed. Congress is not addressing itself to the military, which it praises. It is addressing itself to Bush, pressuring him to provide the coherent and capable leadership the military deserves.
Bush has the power to defy the Democrats' pressure. But at what cost to Iraq? And at what cost to the United States? The past four years have given an inkling.
archive
