|
Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill
|
View this Thread in Original format
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill
Mr Bush said the US "surge" of troops needs time to work
US President George W Bush has vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Speaking in Washington after signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.
He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.
Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.
It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used the presidential veto.
Earlier on Tuesday, leaders of the Democrat-controlled US Congress signed the controversial bill agreeing to $100bn (£50bn) in further funding on condition US combat troops begin to withdraw this year.
The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him
Nancy Pelosi
Democratic House Speaker
Mr Bush criticised the bill, saying it "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgement of our military commanders.
"I believe setting a deadline for a withdrawal would demoralise the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," he said in a televised speech.
Compromise talks
The veto is the latest stage in Mr Bush's clash with Congress over the conduct of the Iraq war.
Reacting to the veto, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill reflected the wishes of Americans to have benchmarks for what is happening in Iraq.
"We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved.
"The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him," she said.
President Bush has poured extra US troops into Baghdad
The Senate last week voted 51 to 46 in favour of the legislation, which said the pull-out must start by 1 October and sets a target of completion by 31 March 2008.
Mr Bush will now meet congressional leaders on Wednesday to try to reach a compromise on a revised funding bill for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Democrats acknowledge they will eventually have to soften their bill as they cannot risk being accused of undercutting the troops during wartime, says the BBC's James Westhead in Washington.
Revised legislation would have to be agreed by both the House and the Senate before being presented to him again.
'Publicity stunt'
Tuesday was the fourth anniversary of a speech in which Mr Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over, standing beneath a banner proclaiming "mission accomplished".
Speaking before the signing of the bill, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of cynically delaying the move so it would coincide with the anniversary for political gain.
"It's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day," Ms Perino said.
Mr Bush is committed to his "surge" strategy, under which thousands of extra US troops are being poured into Baghdad.
The top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has said reducing forces could lead to increased violence. |
Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill
Bush is an Idiot. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
As promised. |
I think I heard of this like right when the feathers started to ruffle....... no new news here...move along, nothing to see..;) |
|
|
| erdega |
| This is just political manoevering, Bush wants to pass it to the next president and dems don't want to bear any responsibility for it but both are looking for ways to get out of it,blame someone else and find the next target |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
This is just political manoevering, Bush wants to pass it to the next president and dems don't want to bear any responsibility for it but both are looking for ways to get out of it,blame someone else and find the next target |
That made no sense at all.
Why would the Dems be actively pushing this bill then? |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
That made no sense at all.
Why would the Dems be actively pushing this bill then? |
Because, like he said, they don't want to have to take responsibility for Bush's mess when they inevitably take the executive branch. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Because, like he said, they don't want to have to take responsibility for Bush's mess when they inevitably take the executive branch. |
I can see this as a ploy to gather more anti war movement on Dem side for the next presidential election.
But it doesn't adds up to your statement that they don't want to take responsibility for Iraq war if they get elected because if they knew that the bill was going to get vetoed, and don't have enough votes to override it, they knew that it was going to fail.
What am I missing here? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I can see this as a ploy to gather more anti war movement on Dem side for the next presidential election.
But it doesn't adds up to your statement that they don't want to take responsibility for Iraq war if they get elected because if they knew that the bill was going to get vetoed, and don't have enough votes to override it, they knew that it was going to fail.
What am I missing here? |
I think what he's saying is that there's no way the Iraq dilemma will end well, and the sitting president is the one who will take the biggest blame for how it ends. The democrats would like for it to end now so the blame is entirely on Bush and the republicans (Bush included) would rather wait to pull out of Iraq until a democrat was in office so the new president would have to live with the aftermath. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
The other interesting aspect is the willingness of some of the Republicans to bend a little bit and at least start adding some benchmarks (i.e. much needed goals) so we can at least have some measuring points of progress rather than empty rhetoric. The problem with that, unfortunately, is that they don't seem to support timetables of any sort, even for those benchmarks. So really then, why bother even agreeing to benchmarks at all if there's nothing to uphold them at all? They'd be nothing but worthless paper.
The other aspect is that Bush could at any point cave in to the demands of the Democratic majority Congress, which has the support of the majority of Americans, and then willfully ignore those demands as he sees fit. This has been done with the quick, albeit unconstitutional swipe of his pen:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ndreds_of_laws/
And if you doubt that he might pull that signing statement bull again, let's double check with Condi back in February:
| quote: | | Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation. |
But I doubt he'll even cave that far in the first place.
And speaking of majority of Americans, latest Pew Poll:
| quote: | Roughly six-in-ten people in the Pew sample (59 percent) said they want their member of Congress to back an Iraq funding bill that includes a timeline for American troops to begin withdrawing. Of that 59 percent, more than half (54 percent) said Democrats should "insist" on a timeline's inclusion in the legislation while 42 percent backed the party working with Republicans and the Bush Administration on a solution.
By contrast, only 33 percent of the overall sample said they preferred that their lawmaker oppose a timeline as part of the Iraq funding bill. But by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin, this minority said President Bush should stick to his guns and not compromise with Democrats.
Is a stalemate inevitable? Maybe not.
An examination of other internal numbers from the Pew poll suggest that Republicans may well have more to lose by standing pat than Democrats.
Independents surveyed by Pew strongly favored a bill with a timeline included -- by a margin of 61 percent to 33 percent. Of that 61 percent, more than half believe Democrats should refuse any compromise with the White House.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thef...o_room_for.html |
My dear LatinLover seems to be in a shrinking minority group of "Independents" as well, though I still highly question any person who calls himself an "Independent" who thinks Newt is the best candidate on the block, but I digress. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| The Democrats knew it would get vetoed. It was largely a symbolic act, a way to reaffirm their opposition to the war and to put more responsibility on the Iraqi government for their own security. They may have some new legislation though, something without a withdraw but benchmarks for progress, and repercussions IF the Iraqi government doesn't make them. That's what should happen. Sure a withdraw is nice, but it wont happen until Bush is out of there. |
|
|
| Krypton |
"Anybody who recommends a timeline or a deadline in war doesn't understand war." Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't think we should be telling our enemies when we plan to pull out. All they'de have to do is wait it out and know the Americans are leaving soon. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| They're already doing that :stongue: |
|
|
|
|
