On Tuesday, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill providing continued funding for the Iraq War. Erroneously terming the bill a "withdrawal bill," President Bush issued only the second veto of his presidency. The Bush administration has played up the angle that the bill would threaten troops currently deployed in Iraq, emphasizing this by choosing to sign the veto with a pen given to him by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. In a brief address last night, President Bush rejected the bill for making suggested withdrawal dates, imposing restrictions on how the remaining troops could be used, and being "loaded" with so-called pork spending. President Bush asserted that the Democrats have "sent their message" of opposition to the war and that it is now time "to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need." Bush further claimed that his recent "surge" is achieving success, while making new mention of the fact that April has had some of the highest death tolls for US soldiers and Iraqis this year.

Grand Rapids area representative Vern Ehlers has made no statement on President Bush's veto, but Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have issued statements. Senator Carl Levin essentially repeated previous assertions (part 2) that the Iraqis must meeting a series of United States-imposed benchmarks, stating "the president's veto today sends the wrong message to the Iraqis. It tells them that our military presence is open-ended and their continuing lack of progress toward a political settlement has no consequences." Levin's statement, coupled with recent statements that echoed the Bush administration's arguments against cutting funding for the war, suggest that Senator Levin lacks the courage necessary to bring the war to an end for any reason other than tactical concerns.

In a lengthier statement, Senator Debbie Stabenow argued that President Bush's veto contradicted his talk of a "real solution" in Iraq two weeks ago when he spoke in East Grand Rapids. Stabenow said that the veto means a continuation of the administration's strategy, which she asserted has "dragged our troops into the middle of a bloody civil war" and is "clearly not working." She further argued that "truly supporting our troops means having a plan for success that will allow them to come home safely." Stabenow did adopt the idea that the United States has the legitimacy to impose "benchmarks" on the Iraqis and placed most of the responsibility for the situation on Iraqi political leaders who allegedly are failing in the task of "securing their own nation and making the very tough decisions that a country needs to make when they want to have a democracy" while charging that there is a lack of "Iraqi resolve." Her statement on the veto is consistent with previous statements in positioning her as a moderate critic of the war.

Unlike Michigan's two Senators and the rest of the Democratic members of Congress, the antiwar movement has been quick to issue strong criticisms of President Bush's veto and the way it has been passed off as a "withdrawal" bill both by the political establishment and in the media. In an analysis of the bill, Phyllis Bennis has pointed out what the corporate media has failed to acknowledge, that it is simply not "a withdrawal bill" The bill would have provided the $100 billion requested by the Bush administration, set a non-binding "goal" of removing some troops by March of 2008, allowed 60,000-80,000 troops to remain indefinitely, failed to restrict an attack on Iran, allowed 100,000+ US mercenaries to remain in Iraq, required Iraq to pass a new oil bill, allowed President Bush to ignore suggested requirements for troop training, equipment, and rest. In response, the antiwar movement has called for continued lobbying and demonstrations to encourage the Democratic Party to send a bill to President Bush that calls for an end to funding for the war. The group Military Families Speak Out issued a statement highlighting the fact that President Bush's veto occurred on the same day as the 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech that declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," with the ongoing occupation resulting in the deaths of "over 3,200... U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, women and men."

However, unless there is significant grassroots pressure, it is unlikely that the Democrats will pass an actual withdrawal bill. In recent weeks, Democrats have been increasingly hostile to their antiwar base, including Representative David Obey who dismissed those calling for a stop in funding as "idiot liberals" who are hindering Democratic efforts to end the war. Already, many Senators and Representatives, including Michigan Senator Carl Levin have promised to fund the troops, essentially rejecting one of the ways in which Congress actually has power to end the occupation of Iraq. Instead, there is talk of a bill that would place "benchmarks" on the Iraqis, including adoption of an oil law friendly to multinational corporations, a reversal of the United States' "de-baathification" policies, and reform of the constitution. Congressional leaders are scheduled to begin meeting with Bush today to discuss compromise measures. A variety of proposals have been cited in the press including tying failures to meet US-imposed benchmarks to the withholding of monetary aid, removing any mention of troop removals, and redeploying troops from more violent areas. Republicans in the Congress and President Bush have stated that they will oppose any bill imposing a "timetable" or removing troops.