The Growing Disquiet

In the end, George W. Bush got Congress to approve the $87 billion he insisted on for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But the fact that 137 members of Congress--twelve in the Senate and 125 in the House--voted against the appropriation suggests a growing disquiet about the folly of the Administration's pre-emptive war and the dangerous failings of its postwar planning.

In the Senate, where a majority including eight Republicans demanded, over the President's objections, that part of the money be designated as a loan rather than a gift (in effect a warning against further massive expenditures), Ted Kennedy spoke for those who rejected the notion that voting for the bill equated with patriotism. "A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops," he said. "It is a vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy--[a] policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making." In the House, John Conyers, who as a freshman in 1965 was one of seven members to vote against President Johnson's request for more money for Vietnam, noted that the $87 billion is "on top of the $67 billion already spent, and there is no end in sight."

Although Bush's threat to use his veto if the House goes along with the Senate's loan provision virtually guarantees it won't be included in the bill's final version, the House's overwhelming (but nonbinding) endorsement of the idea reflects the worries of legislators who, amid a struggling economy and rising US casualties, are being asked hard questions by their constituents. GOP Representative Frank LoBiondo told the Washington Post that among voters in his New Jersey district, "there's no question about supporting the troops, but I do get questions about the money on top of that." The Post noted that a growing number of Republican officeholders are trying to distance themselves from the President, afraid he might harm their re-election chances next year.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.