Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush to veto timetable bill, surpise!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush to veto timetable bill, surpise!

    WASHINGTON, May 1 — President Bush vetoed the Iraq-war spending bill this evening, calling it a blueprint for failure and defeat and intensifying a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

    Yuri Gripas/Reuters
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signed the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report and sent it to President Bush today.
    Mr. Bush said the bill was unacceptable because it set “a rigid and artificial deadline” for American forces to withdraw from Iraq, in that it demands that they begin leaving by Oct. 1.

    “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing,” Mr. Bush said at the White House, where he vetoed the bill after the signatures of Democratic legislative leaders were barely dry.

    The president said the bill would demoralize the Iraqis and send them and the world a terrible message: “America will not keep its commitments.”

    Mr. Bush invited lawmakers to negotiate with him, and he is scheduled to meet with Democratic leaders on Wednesday. Negotiations are essential, since the Democrats do not have strong enough majorities to muster the two-thirds needed in each chamber to override a veto.

    Democrats reacted with disappointment. “The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we are not, and neither are most Americans,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill that Mr. Bush rejected was “worthy of the sacrifices” of America’s military people. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the veto sends “the wrong message to the Iraqis” by telling them that the United States commitment is open-ended.

    Democrats sent the bill to the White House this afternoon after a ceremony at the Capitol. Throughout the day, Mr. Bush and Democrats painted sharply contrasting pictures of the war, with the president portraying it as an historic campaign to make the world safer, while Democrats painted it as an ill-conceived and badly executed adventure.

    Democrats spent hours trying to take advantage of the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech, a tactic the White House dismissed as shabby theatrics and a distortion of what the president really said in 2003.

    The White House had said that Mr. Bush would wield his veto pen shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time, following his return from Tampa, Fla., where he took part in a conference of the Central Command, which oversees United States military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “Everyone in this room knows the consequences of failure in Iraq,” Mr. Bush said at the conference, “and then we should also appreciate the consequences of success, because we’ve seen them before.” Look to Germany and Japan, once America’s mortal enemies but now its allies, he said.

    “These are difficult times,” Mr. Bush said. “These are tough times. These are the times that test the resolve of free people.”

    Democrats have been saying for months that the “free people” voted last November for a change of course in Iraq, and they pressed the attack today. “Today is the fourth anniversary of what I consider to be one of the most shameful episodes in American history,” said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a Democratic candidate for president. “Never before in our history has a president said ‘mission accomplished’ when the mission had barely begun.”

    Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said: “In the four years since the president claimed ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq, America has lost thousands of young lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars.”

    The White House quickly pointed out that Mr. Bush never spoke the words “mission accomplished” in his speech. Rather, they were displayed on a banner aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, where Mr. Bush landed shortly after the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled by the American-led invasion.

    Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, told reporters on Air Force One today that the speech Mr. Bush delivered as he stood on the carrier’s flight deck on May 1, 2003, “has been widely misconstrued.”

    “I encourage people to go back and read it,” Ms. Perino said on the way to Florida. “The president did say we had a long and difficult road ahead of us. We’re moving from a dictatorship to a democracy.”

    As for the $124 billion supplementary spending bill, which Mr. Bush dislikes because it also includes a timetable for American forces to begin withdrawing from Iraq, this afternoon’s announcement of the impending veto ended whatever suspense remained about the timing. This morning, Ms. Perino said coyly that it was “within the realm of possibility” that the president would wield his veto shortly after arriving back at the White House in the late afternoon or early evening.

    Democratic leaders held a ceremony at the Capitol this afternoon to formally sign the bill before it was dispatched to the White House by special courier. “This legislation respects the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war,” Ms. Pelosi said.

    Senator Reid said of the president, “The ball is in his court; it just left ours.”

    The veto was the second of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and the first since Democrats took over control of both houses of Congress in January. Last year, he vetoed a stem-cell research bill.

    Over the past several days, Mr. Bush and Democratic legislators have sounded conciliatory and hinted that they are ready for a serious exchange of views.

    The Democratic leaders are scheduled to meet with Mr. Bush at the White House on Wednesday. Asked if she thought the burden was now on Mr. Bush to offer a compromise, Ms. Pelosi said, “That would be the normal course of events, that the president would counter with something.”

    For today, Democrats made the most of the anniversary of the president’s speech on the aircraft carrier, in which he proclaimed the end of “major combat” in Iraq. A blown-up photograph of Mr. Bush on the carrier deck was displayed in the House chamber as Democratic House members lined up to speak. Similar denunciations by Democrats went on in the Senate.

    The White House did not suffer in silence. Taking advantage of the anniversary of the speech in which Mr. Bush did not say “mission accomplished” is “a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism,” Ms. Perino said today aboard Air Force One.

    Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting for this article from Washington.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

  • #2
    Is there a timetable to pull out of Japan and Germany yet?
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
      Is there a timetable to pull out of Japan and Germany yet?
      Probably population is much friendlier in Jappan and Germany? How many helicopters shot down in Germany last year?

      _______

      Seems like US is going to leave Iraq in a matter of couple of years.... Republicans have little chance to get President's chair this time while democrats will get troops out of Iraq after they got elected.

      And seems like US will leave quite a mess there.... bad news for neighbours and to many many others... This AQ guys will not retire after US leaves.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Garry View Post
        Probably population is much friendlier in Jappan and Germany? How many helicopters shot down in Germany last year?
        So there isn't one? Even after all the casualties fighting them? Interesting... How about Korea, what's the timetable like there?
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #5
          confed,

          So there isn't one? Even after all the casualties fighting them? Interesting... How about Korea, what's the timetable like there?
          neither of the situations, both then and now, are like the situation in iraq.

          and in the aftermath of those wars, the american public knew that they were going to be there for some time to come. it didn't help that before stability operations began in iraq, the bush administration had its own timetable...and publicized it heavily as part of the sell.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
            So there isn't one? Even after all the casualties fighting them? Interesting... How about Korea, what's the timetable like there?
            you know yourselves what is difference of Iraqi campaign with Jappan, Germany and S Korea. There are many....

            I just bring you one difference which many forget now - US had to intervene millitarily in Jappan, Germany and S.Korea.... with Iraq it did not HAVE TO.... to put it even more clearly - if US did not fight in Germany, Jappan and S Korea its positions would have became WEAKER/DETERIORATING.... this was not the case with Saddam's Iraq.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Garry View Post
              you know yourselves what is difference of Iraqi campaign with Jappan, Germany and S Korea. There are many....

              I just bring you one difference which many forget now - US had to intervene millitarily in Jappan, Germany and S.Korea.... with Iraq it did not HAVE TO.... to put it even more clearly - if US did not fight in Germany, Jappan and S Korea its positions would have became WEAKER/DETERIORATING.... this was not the case with Saddam's Iraq.
              Why did we "have to" intervene against Germany? Why did we "have to" intervene against North Korea?

              -dale

              Comment


              • #8
                The withdrawal timetable required a veto.

                And Bush did it!

                Good for Bush!

                Could have been disastrous otherwise.


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dalem View Post
                  Why did we "have to" intervene against Germany? Why did we "have to" intervene against North Korea?

                  -dale
                  Geostrategic reasons!


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Overly foolish of the Democrats to think for one instance that they can force his hand with timetables. The proponents of this latest feat havent yet realized that by attempting to do so left their ass to sway in the wind when it comes to their own agenda. Bubba's old lady dont stand a chance.

                    Plus Im sure in the future you will see actions like this appear from the republicans when and IF a demorcrat were to take office in the future.

                    Observe the following.
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 02 May 07,, 19:52.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush expressed optimism Wednesday about a possible deal with Democrats on the war funding bill, but neither side seemed closer to compromise.

                      "I'm confident, with goodwill on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements," Bush said, a day after his veto of a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.

                      Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted coolly to a GOP proposal to break the deadlock.

                      Republicans have expressed a willingness to put benchmarks for progress on Iraq's government, as long as there is no U.S. withdrawal time frame, Pelosi said. "Benchmarks without teeth are, what, a conversation?" Pelosi asked.

                      Bush has invited congressional leaders to a White House meeting Wednesday afternoon.

                      Shortly before the meeting, the House failed to override Bush's veto. The 222-203 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority it would take to override a presidential veto.

                      Earlier Wednesday, give and take on the House floor showed how far apart the two sides are.

                      "Now into the fifth year of a failed policy, this administration should get a clue," Pelosi said. "It's not working."

                      Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, replied, "You've made your point. You had your dog-and-pony show. You've posed for political holy pictures on TV. Now what is your plan to support the troops?"

                      Republicans insist time is running out before lack of funding begins to affect the troops. (Full story)

                      One House GOP leader said he hopes both sides can agree on a negotiation team that would begin around-the-clock talks.

                      Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House minority whip, said he hopes participants at the White House meeting can agree on a team "to get this settled."

                      Blunt accused Democrats of wasting time on a bill that would never become law.

                      Anticipating Bush's veto, Democrats began crafting a new bill, which strips the troop withdrawal language and adds a series of benchmarks that would measure the progress of the Iraqi government.

                      The big question facing lawmakers and the White House is whether to require consequences if the benchmarks aren't met. Democrats and some Republicans support consequences, while the White House fiercely opposes them.

                      Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said Wednesday that Bush vetoed "the will of the American people" expressed in November's elections.

                      "We've got to begin to reduce our troop presence because there's no military solution in Iraq," Levin said.

                      In a televised address Tuesday explaining the long-threatened veto, Bush said the measure "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military leaders."

                      In response, Democratic congressional leaders said Bush must explain how he will bring the four-year-old war to a close.

                      "A veto means denying our troops the resources and the strategy that they need. After more than four years of a failed policy, it's time for Iraq to take responsibility for its own future," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told CNN's "American Morning."

                      Senate GOP leader open to benchmarks
                      Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday that he would be open to including "properly crafted" benchmarks for Iraq's government to meet in a new bill.

                      "I do think there are some kinds of benchmarks that might well achieve bipartisan support and might actually even conceivably be helpful to the effort in Iraq," McConnell said. "And that's what we're going to be looking for."

                      But the White House has equated any kind of binding benchmarks for political progress with the kind of deadlines it has long opposed.

                      Benchmarks under discussion would include passing laws related to the sharing of oil revenue and national reconciliation and reducing sectarian violence -- measures that Bush has publicly pressed the Iraqis to meet.

                      A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge the gap -- calling for troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses.

                      Bush: Funds urgently needed
                      Bush said the money in his spending bill is urgently needed to fund U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the money would go to Iraq, where the combat operations now cost about $2 billion a week.

                      But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that the Pentagon could wage war through July without additional funding.

                      "Whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay," Bush said. (Watch military brass prepare for a possible money shortage )

                      The veto is only the second of Bush's presidency. The first, in July 2006, killed a bill that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

                      The latest came on the fourth anniversary of Bush's 2003 speech from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that "major combat" in Iraq was over.

                      More than 3,200 Americans have been killed in Iraq since then, and the war has become widely unpopular at home. (Watch how things have changed since that speech )

                      Sixty-six percent of Americans in a recent CNN poll said they opposed the conflict, and 60 percent said they backed Congress in its standoff with the White House.

                      White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused congressional Democrats of "a trumped-up political stunt" by sending the war funding bill to Bush's desk on the speech's anniversary.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        neither of the situations, both then and now, are like the situation in iraq.
                        None of the 4 situations are the same. Every single one different, except in one respect, they were all wars...

                        Originally posted by Garry View Post
                        I just bring you one difference which many forget now - US had to intervene millitarily in Jappan, Germany and S.Korea....
                        No, the US didn't have to.

                        Originally posted by dalem View Post
                        Why did we "have to" intervene against Germany? Why did we "have to" intervene against North Korea?
                        We could have given into Japan as well.

                        Originally posted by Ray View Post
                        The withdrawal timetable required a veto.

                        And Bush did it!

                        Good for Bush!

                        Could have been disastrous otherwise.
                        I agree, if for no other reason than it's blatantly stupid to tell the enemy your plans.

                        Originally posted by Ray View Post
                        Geostrategic reasons!
                        Same as Iraq. Sad it can't be for humanitarian reasons, but few people in this world care about that.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
                          We could have given into Japan as well.
                          Well, to be fair, Japan attacked us in a direct way that neither Germany nor NK did, so I left Japan out.

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dalem View Post
                            Well, to be fair, Japan attacked us in a direct way that neither Germany nor NK did, so I left Japan out.
                            We could have walked away from China, the Philippines, etc., just like we could have walked away from Europe. No attack on Pearl would have been needed.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Confed999 View Post
                              We could have walked away from China, the Philippines, etc., just like we could have walked away from Europe. No attack on Pearl would have been needed.
                              Oh sure, but I'm talking about after Pearl Harbor.

                              -dale

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X