Iraq Supplemental: Bush Vetoes

The Congress sent up the inadequate Iraq supplemental funding bill for the President's signature today. And he is signing, a veto message:

Democrats sent the Iraq war-spending bill to the White House this afternoon after a ceremony at the Capitol. Aides to President Bush said he was eager to veto it before nightfall. . . .The White House said that Mr. Bush would wield his veto pen shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time . . .

The Democrats are in luck. What a stupid move by Bush. The bill sent to him has no binding requirements on troop withdrawal. It has no binding benchmarks. It purports to require that withdrawal commence in 120 days but it has no requirement for when it should end. Bush could remove 1,000, or even 1, troop, and comply. And who is gonna call him on it anyway?

Bush blows it tonight. But will Dems blow it again? We'll see. I predict that even non--binding timelines will be stripped from the bill. Which, let me surprise you, is fine by me. Conditions and benchmarks and timelines and guidelines are so much nonsense with a person like Bush.

There is one way to end the war. Do not fund it. And no, it need not and will not happen today or tomorrow. But how about say, March 31, 2008? Tell the President and the country now that Mr. President, March 31, 2008, 11 months from now, is the last day of funding. Make sure the troops are out by then. The American People want this.

Does the Democratic Congress have the desire and courage to end the Iraq Debacle? This is what we will discover.

Update [2007-5-1 18:24:18 by Big Tent Democrat]: Bush explains . . . 'bill will mandate a rigid and artificial dealine for withdrawal.' [Actually it does not. But Bush is an idiot. Honestly, did he not read the bill?]

Aw heck, you know the drill from this clown. More of the same.

Update [2007-5-1 18:28:58 by Big Tent Democrat]: Wait wait wait. Now he says the Surge is working!! Yeehaaa! This is a disastrous appearance imo. Bush really can't sell this thing at all anymore. This is the same song and dance from the past 6 years. It really can't work politically anymore, unless the Dems let it succeed.

There is no excuse anymore. It is for the Democratic Congress to decide now.

Update [2007-5-1 18:41:21 by Big Tent Democrat]: Dem Leaders will respond to the President now. Tweety quotes a NBC poll - 31% the Congress will go too far, Bush will not make sufficient changes 61%.

Update [2007-5-1 18:45:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: Reid says a bipartisan majority of the Congress set the President a bill that fully funded our troops and laid out a plan to end our involvement in a Civil War.

Pelosi said we sent a bill that made strong commitment to our men in uniform and also honored our commitment to the American People. We had hoped the President had supported it. Says the President misrepresented the bill.

The President wants a blank check. The Congress will not give him one. She quotes Bush calling for a timeline on Bosnia. Calling for timelines for Clinton.

Pelosi is clearly playing the bad cop and Reid the sad but good cop here.

I am biased but I think they did it very well.

< DC Circuit Rules Against Rep. McDermott On Gingrich Ethics Agreement Breaking Tape | Did McCain Embolden Al Qaida? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I really, really wish Edwards would (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    listen to you.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    Ditto to the bottom of my heart ditto.

    I agree but (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    SSSH! don't tell Bush about his mistake!

    Telling Bush he's making a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:52:07 PM EST
    is like telling wingnut trolls here they're making a mistake. It's the most effective way of making sure they keep doing it.

    I told my husband about the ones (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    that hang out here, he said it is good for us....keeps us honest, up to date on the latest red sound bytes, and fact checking.  And what doesn't kill us makes us stronger give me another please sir

    Molly B (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    You know, that was my question.

    If this is such a big mistake for Bush, why tell him?


    Don't worry about it Jim (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    He doesn't read.  Just don't say it out loud okay?

    See? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    Sometimes I think Gabe and Jim (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:31:10 PM EST
    live together or something ;)

    They (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    FOMCLMAOROTF (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:19:23 PM EST
    Spitting on the screen.

    Easy... easy (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:25:35 PM EST
    I had to read that 3 times to figure it out. I must have some vestigial conservative genes in me.

    You are terribly funny when you aren't busy (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    spewing facts.

    Tracy (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    Back to pesudo sexual inuendo, eh?

    Jealous because you can't spank us??


    wow a two'fer (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:00:02 PM EST

    pseudo ....... inuendo


    two and a halfer (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:00:39 PM EST

    Now I'm really dying of laughter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    Are you asexual?  I was implying that one of you is a sockpuppet.  You may want to lay off the porn for awhile.  Everything I type is like the Where's Waldo of sexual innuendo for you.

    Love on the internet (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:22:52 AM EST
    Gee Tracy

    You burst on the scene here at the home of the edger and squeaky show stating that you wanted to spank me.

    Since spanking is a fetish of some females, and men, and since we are both adults, I just naturally assumed you had something on your mind.

    I mean, if you can't bite, don't growl... ;-)

    BTW - At the end of this thread I made a point that you really should consider.


    Why do I feel like I'm (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:42:38 AM EST
    conversing with someone who knows all about fetishes?

    Does he read (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Jen M on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    Talk Left?

    Doesn't everybody? (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    who's anybody? (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:00:23 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:13:38 PM EST
    And some who aren't . . .

    Well.... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:16:42 PM EST
    Ok. Yeah... heh.

    Done deal (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    Bush is certifiably insane.

    Time for an intervention! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by dutchfox on Wed May 02, 2007 at 04:02:14 AM EST
    Patraeus has (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    his finger in the dike.

    Condi? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    That's awful. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    Heh... :-) !!! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    Props to Squeaky! Awesome! (none / 0) (#64)
    by Freewill on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    Che thank you for setting that one up! Squeaky, very quick wit.

    :::Sweating::: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    You spell like I do;) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:37:47 PM EST
    I spell his name wrong at least 50% of the time but I'm among friends.

    Just curious (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by David at Kmareka on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:35:32 PM EST
    ...what you think of my idea--as written yesterday in this diary--that Congress should counter the veto by taking action "to remove the language that Mr. Bush finds so objectionable and instead insert language calling for (and funding) a national referendum on the war in Iraq"?  It's obvious a majority of the American people want the war to end.  If Bush and Congress cannot find agreement, perhaps the people should provide the tiebreaking vote.  If the Democrats would all support (and pass) such a measure, it would put Bush in the unenviable position of having to oppose not the Congress--whom he can more easily sully and manipulate with jabs about partisanship and a lack of patriotism--but the American people, who will be decidedly less tolerant of any such ploys and who might feel emboldened by the rare opportunity to assert their "supreme authority."

    Fine (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    as ling as they announce at the same time, a date certain when the Debacle will not fund the debacle.

    Al the rest of it I don;t care.


    referendum was Nov. 2006. Bush Lost (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by seabos84 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    and our sad sack Dems have been piddling around too much for too long.

    they've stuck their whetted fingers into the air so often and so long for the last 6 months

    they probably need bag balm to stop the chaffing.



    DaK (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    I would say that the Constitution does not permit national referendums, binding or otherwise, paid for  with taxpayer dollars.

    You see David, we live in a constitutional republic with elections at fixed intervals, and no provisions for popularity contests.


    I thought an election was a popularity contest? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    I'm so silly

    Does the (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:38:55 PM EST
    Democratic Congress have the desire and courage to end the Iraq Debacle? This is what we will discover.

    Or will we discover that they are as delusionally self serving (and self destructive) as we already know Bush is?

    If Bush does veto the bill tonight will Pelosi back Reid-Feingold or some other real method of defunding, or will she treat the public with the same insulting assumption of stupidity the republicans and Bush have for 7 years, and lie and say "we tried to end it" but Bush wouldn't play nice?

    And if she does... will people believe her?

    There are a few things we might discover that we'd rather not.

    I'm tired of not sleeping much (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    Alright Dems, let's see your stuff!  Are you going wuss out here leaving the American people and your deployed troops in turmoil and h*ll or are you all going to go down in history ending the bloody, gross, and inhumane...take your pick?  Will we need a draft next year that I don't know how you all won't be able to own in part or portion or are we going to be recovering from what this horrible man Bush did to us?  Is this really a democracy or are you all just a bunch of bought off narcissistic poster children in various shades of red and blue?

    This is the chance to bring Reid-Feingold (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    up for a vote. You're right, Bush just turned down 9/10 of what he wanted. Reid might sound like the good cop, but he's the legislative bad cop. Pelosi went on too long.

    Oh, and Pat Buchanan is 100% wrong about this.

    Odd huh? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:02:55 PM EST
    When there is no definition of what compliance with the redeployment wording is.  I had hoped that would scare him enough for him to veto, if it wouldn't have though................

    He dug his heels in (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    My feeling is that he'll declare victory no matter what the next bill says. That is, unless it funds for a short period.

    General Odom (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    did the Democratic Radio Address on Saturday. The audio is here. The transcript is here:
    "To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is 'absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

    "Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

    Almost two years ago he said:

    When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, `I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course...

    Veto, Big Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by naschkatze on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:48:58 PM EST
    Do we keep sending the same bill back to him over and over again, or do we just let it die?  Congress made an offer, Bush didn't accept it, so there's an end to it.  What I don't want to see is Congress making any concessions to the mad idiot--the country is on the side of Congress.

    Un-farkin-believeable. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    John King was on CNN just now saying that the Democrats are in a bind now because they need to fund the war.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:28:29 PM EST
    Those people do not matter. Tweety, none of them..

    The only people that matter now are the Democratic PArty and DEMOCRATS like us - do we pressure them to do the right and smart thing.

    The polls could not be clearer.


    Media spinning like tops for Bush (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    Within minutes of Mr. Bush's veto being announced, corporate press services nationwide began reporting the story. Overwhelmingly the headline phrase of choice appears to contain some reference to Bush vetoing the "Iraq Withdrawal" bill. In fact, there is no "Iraq Withdrawal" bill. What has been vetoed is the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. The White House has sought to spin the bill as a withdrawal bill because withdrawal from Iraq was added to the measure by Congress. The headline chosen by most US corporate news services appears to aid the White House's public relations effort.
    Marc Ash/truthout

    Reuters: "Bush vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would have required him to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops"

    WAPO: "Bush today vetoed a $124 billion emergency war-funding bill  that contains a timetable for the withdrawal  of U.S. forces from Iraq"

    Dana Perino's blatant lies (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    "Even though the Democrats won't say so on the record, it is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism, and 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," Perino said.
    Dana, listen carefully: "When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops." Don't tie your reputation to Bush by repeating his lies, Dana. If it's not already too late. Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops, You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War

    Larisa Alexandrovna (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    at-Largley today:
    "Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world," Bush said in remarks at Central Command headquarters, where the United States' coalition partners were meeting this week.

    You should have thought of that, Mr. Bush, before you lied us into an illegal war against a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.

    And with that, Bush used a veto (something he never does) to deny troops the funding he says they need urgently. Amazing that this man can dress himself in the morning, is it not?

    Well said, Larisa.

    IIRC (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:02:30 PM EST
    she's a cruddy source. I think she had something to do with those incessant "ROVE SENT TO GITMO" stories.  

    I was more interested in her content here (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:03:52 PM EST
    I find her pretty reliable most times.

    Slaps forehead. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:20:02 AM EST
    Fu*k. Of course. Heh!

    Your humor is clearer in the morning than after I've been up for 16 hours... Or my brain is.


    Well, at least Bush is consistently (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by mentaldebris on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    stupid. He's a stay the course idiot, lucky for the Dems. Now we get to see if the Dems are listening to the pundits...or the people.

    No pressure, just '08 and the future of the country is riding on their next move.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.



    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    911 was on a tuesday.

    btw (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    I was wrong. :-)

    I thought he was going to sign the bill. But I guess he's even stupider than I thought he was. And I thought that was mission impossible.

    Did I spell it wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:58:36 AM EST
    Shame on you Squeaky. LOL

    Who is doing the Dem. rebuttal? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:25:38 PM EST

    Will there be a rebuttal? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:58:53 PM EST
    My husband just ran in here and said (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:53:40 PM EST
    The Surging General Warns that Iraq can be hazardous to your health.  My husband is Czech, it is close to Poland.

    That wouldn't make you... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by desertswine on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    the Czech-mate, Would it?

    You two are not allowed to drink beer (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:59:44 PM EST

    And if weh tried to hide you (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Nowonmai on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:09:32 PM EST
    Would we be charged for illegally caching a Czech?

    He (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    just vetoed it.

    here is a (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:48:29 PM EST
    Pleeze Nancy (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    Can I have my allowance now?

    What? Oh, sorry, I must have dozed there for a minute... I had a dream.

    No money, no war, no profits...oops! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lora on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:49:13 PM EST
    Get rid of the war profiteering and then see how fast Congress can defund the war.

    No luck involved (none / 0) (#55)
    by chemoelectric on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    The Democrats had no luck today, because there was essentially zero chance that Bush would sign the bill. Anyone entertaining the possibility that Bush would sign was needlessly concerned. Let's all sit back, take a deep breath, look at the situation anew, and start worrying about what's actually there.

    It's up to the democratic leadership now. (none / 0) (#65)
    by robotalk on Wed May 02, 2007 at 12:08:56 AM EST
    They don't have to give GW a GD thing.  And they shouldn't.

    The future of the dems is riding on what happens in the next two or three weeks, IMHO.