Bush Promises Veto Of New Dem Iraq Proposal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:01:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday we were informed about a new Democratic plan for funding the Iraq Debacle:

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said on Tuesday that they will try to pass a new Iraq war-funding bill to keep combat operations running for the next two or three months while also forcing a troop withdrawal vote in July. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said a vote could come as early as Thursday on a new plan to provide more than $30 billion now for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan before existing war funds run out. Another $10 billion or so would beef up veterans health care and other military programs.

Today, President Bush promised to veto such legislation:

U.S. President George W. Bush would veto an emerging House of Representatives bill which would include limits on funding for the Iraq war, White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Wednesday.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew with Bush to visit parts of Kansas devastated by tornadoes last week.
Asked whether Bush would veto the bill in its current form, Snow said: "Yes."

Well now, how will Dems deal with Bush on Iraq now? Clearly he wants what he wants and will not budge on it. Senator Obama and some other folks look to September for a veto-proof majority to overcome Bush's intransigence. Let's hope they are right. I am confident they are wrong.

To me, everything points to one way to end the Debacle - announce a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will not be funded. Yes, the Reid-Feingold framework.

< A Job Well Done | CNN Conducts False Poll >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush Promises Veto Of New Dem Iraq Proposal | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why bother? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by roy on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:13:01 AM EST

BTD, if I've understood your analysis so far, these bills wouldn't be effective in ending the war anyway, for constitutional and practical reasons. Bush can just ignore micromanagement under his authority as commander in chief, and claim that subjective benchmarks have been met. Do I have that right?

If so, why does Bush bother with vetoes? He'd be better off letting the Dems pass their budgets with strings attached, then doing what he wants to with the money.

Signing the bill would be backing down (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:24:41 AM EST

on his "unitary executive" push to make congress subservient to the president: "Never give an inch".

For awhile I thought he might sign the supplemental out of self interest, but the man is clearly insaner than I thought (which is saying a lot). I have too much to do today to go into this further. I hope someone else will.

Someone, I don't recall who, made a comment the other day about Bush et al planning from the start (2000) to go full speed ahead, no compromises, all or nothing, toward that goal.


On the contrary (none / 0) (#4)
by roy on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:36:54 AM EST

Under "unitary executive", Bush can do what he wants despite Congress's actions to curtail him. So siging a budget with strings, then going against the intent of the legislation, would be more in the spirit of unitary executive theory.

Vetoes are very "checks and balances". By relying on the veto, Bush may be conceding that the restriction enacted by Congress really do matter.


He doesn't want (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:53:14 AM EST

to sign anything that agrees that the Democrats, or the Congress, can tell him what to do. He also has heavy opposition from within the GOP to using signing statements and to his attempts at permanent expansion of presidential power:

William Fisher: The Right Seeks To Rein In Presidential Power

Leading voices in the conservative movement are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress restore checks and balances within the government and rein in the power of President George W. Bush.
...
"We elect members of Congress to lead, not to follow. If they are going to lead, they need to understand the Constitution and the vision of its framers, and then have the backbone to insist that the executive branch stop usurping the responsibilities assigned to the legislative and judicial branches of our government."

Re: He doesn't want (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by fafnir on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:57:40 PM EST

I think you're right on the mark, Edgar. This fight is about establishing the primacy of the "unitary executive" over the legislative in matters of funding military operations around the globe; it trumps signing a bill just to get the money. They want Congress to hold the purse without the strings.

Thanks to the Democratic leadership, Congress and the Senate are being pimp-slapped by Rove for "taking impeachment off the table" and for buying into the GOP frame-trap to "never defund the troops." Unless the Dems find their voice, courage and resolve, they may as well stop wasting time and give Mr. 28% the "clean bill" he wants.


All I wanna know is (none / 0) (#26)
by scarshapedstar on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:26:39 PM EST

Where is the sage advice of the Medium Lobster when we need it most?


: Victory in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:42:01 PM EST

The real solution to iraq is a great big rock!
BTW, where is Giblets when you need him?

I have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:34:40 AM EST

Bush is screwing up on this politically imo.

He could demonstrate "flexibility" will giving up precisely nothing.

I can't explain it. But you know Bush is not a politcal God or anything. He can be as dimwitted politically as Dems seem to be.


Maybe Bush is screwing up, but... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Downtowner on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:31:42 PM EST

it is the Republicans who will gain if this goes down the way everyone from Obama to Boehner to the newly forming CW is predicting.

Bush stubbornly vetoes any and everything the Dems do until September.
In September or so, Republicans step in and "defiantly and heroically stand up to a president of their own party" and get us out of Iraq

If Bush backs down at all, at this point, score (politically) will be:

Dems - 1
Bush - 0
Republicans - 0

If it comes down the way everyone seems to be predicting in the fall, score will be:

Dems - 0
Bush - 0
Republicans - 1

Hard for me to believe that Bush cares that much about his party - but clearly, he has nothing to lose at this point (except that thin margin of right-wing nutbars still loyal to him), and may be hoping against hope for a miracle that will save his legacy. In the meantime, barring that, I can't see that he can do much of anything except give the win to his own party instead of the Dems. And that I do believe he would rather do.


No way, Dems are playing this right (none / 0) (#14)
by fairleft on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:26:26 PM EST

This 2-3 month supplemental with a vote on withdrawal is great. They put this on his desk and he vetoes, then give him the same bare of anything except a couple months of funding.

Accepting the terrible truth that the Dems have not challenged the 'to support the troops you must fund the quagmire' absurdity, the Dems must fund the quagmire. So, funding it in 2-month bits with another on-the-record vote every two or three months is the best they can do.

Until they challenge the absurdity and use the power of the purse.


While You (none / 0) (#17)
by talex on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:04:24 PM EST

continue to be a naysayer VoteVets.org is working toward moving repubs to our side.

From the VoteVets press release:

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The division was deployed to north-central Iraq from February 2004 until February 2005 and included 22,000 soldiers from active and reserve component units from throughout the United States. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican....
"For too long, the President has maintained that he's just listening to commanders on the ground, which is utterly false. These ads set the record straight, directly from the mouths of those men," said Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman and Co-Founder of VoteVets.org. "The President isn't listening, he hasn't listened, and he hasn't shown an interest in listening to commanders on the ground in Iraq. If the President won't listen to commanders, then Congress must. They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end."

From dkos:

The ads are intended to force Congress, and particularly GOP members who have continually rubberstamped this war, to do its job and end this war.
The ads will run on broadcast and cable in markets targeting Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu, John Warner, and Norm Coleman, and Representatives Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh, Heather Wilson, Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Johnson, Mike Rogers, Fred Upton, and Mike Castle in their home districts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/9/23433/90300

Clearly VetoProofVets.org (sic) are trying to force repubs to vote our way. And in doing so obviously form a veto proof majority.

VetoProofVets.org (sic) and the Generals doing these ads are to be congratulated in their efforts for tying to bring about one of the only viable solutions we have.

Add VoteVets.org to the growing list of people including Obama that are doing the responsible thing.


Why not (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by HeadScratcher on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:43:05 AM EST

Fund nothing in the government until the president and congress come to terms. If the majority of the people are against the war then this might work!

I don't know if you remember BTD ... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Meteor Blades on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:43:21 PM EST

...but way back in 2005 and early 2006, you and I were arm-wrestling over why it was important for the Democrats to have a plan for getting out of Iraq. It was, I believe, you who wrote that the summer of 2006 would be soon enough. I kept saying, not soon enough.

What neither of us wanted to deal with was the fact that the Democrats couldn't have a plan for Iraq because they just don't agree with each other. And now, more than a year after our debates on the subject, we have too many Democratic plans, seemingly with more every day, most of them with no chance of passing Congress, all of them with no chance of getting past Bush's veto.

The 50% solution is, as you note, no solution at all, If it were a 50-50 plan (50% of the money but a demand that 50% of the troops be brought home now), I could go along.

I'm afraid of exactly what I was afraid of 18 months ago, that it will be, as Downtowner suggests, the Republicans who get credit for getting us out of Iraq. That may not fully save them at the polls, but it will certainly undercut the Democrats' standing on the matter.

I think (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:10:21 PM EST

nobody is going to get credit as it stands now as nobody is gonna stand up to Bush.


How? (none / 0) (#16)
by talex on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:53:56 PM EST

How will the repubs get credit for getting us out when the majority of them for now are intent on keeping us there?

It Seems that for now they are content in playing the 'trong on security'card yet again even though the public wants out.


: talex (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:52:34 PM EST

You have been insisting that the DLC can build a veto proof majority by peeling off rethugs, so maybe you can take shot at your own question: "How will the [DLC, with peeled off] rethugs get credit for getting us out when the majority of [rethugs] for now are intent on keeping us there?"
And how do you propose peeling them off? And how successful have you been doing so, so far? Numbers?

Actually, I don't mind if the Republicans share (none / 0) (#20)
by Geekesque on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:35:31 PM EST

in the credit for ending the war.

That will mean the war is ended, which is the most important thing.
The war was, in some respects, a bi-partisan effort in 2002; and
It cuts off the old Dolschtosslegende argument.

: Ah, Siegfried. (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:07:02 PM EST

The never ending war (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Sailor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:02:28 PM EST

They're already planning to be there 'till Spring 2008.

I'm -still- not sure (none / 0) (#5)
by Naftali on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:41:18 AM EST

why you're so certain Reid-Feingold would end the Debacle.

I don't share your confidence that Bush will issue a withdrawal order simply because there is no money to feed, arm, pay, and treat the troops. As I understand, under Reid-Feingold, we cut off funding on a certain date, in the expectation that Bush will then do the responsible thing, and withdraw the troops. But Step One does not necessarily cause Step Two. This is like cutting off the allowance you're giving your adult son--your sullen, egocentric, deeply immature son--to support his family, telling him that he's gotta now come and take the job you have for him, and stop trying to make a living as a professional gambler. He should, for the sake of his family, take your offer, but has he ever done anything for others? Has he ever done anything for anyone but himself and his closest sycophants?

Though I do think Reid-Feingold is absolutely the way to go for both moral and political reasons. I just don't expect it to end the Debacle.

Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:10:24 PM EST

Gee, I don't recall Reid vowing to stop judicial filibusters back in 2005, just because his political opponents wanted him to. Why are you so mystified when your political opponents hold an opinion different from yours, and are unwilling to back down from it? Should Reid have buckled on justices, just because the (then majority) Republicans wanted him to?

I don't envy the Dems (none / 0) (#11)
by Che's Lounge on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:50:37 PM EST

Bush is a psychopathic killer holding our troops hostage for money. It's impssible to deal with a psychotic mind.

Why don't the Dems do it? (none / 0) (#15)
by Lora on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:46:37 PM EST

BTD, why do you think Reid-Feingold is not being supported?

I suspect that if by September the Republicans (none / 0) (#19)
by Geekesque on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:34:11 PM EST

don't decide to abandon the Commander Guy and Game Time, then the de facto Reid-Feingold plan will come into play (Reid Feingold itself not having any chance at passage).

: Doubt it (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:14:38 PM EST

The Democrats have to take action.

unitary executive (none / 0) (#25)
by naschkatze on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:58:54 PM EST

You're right, fafnir, about impeachment. It needs to be put on the table. I've always thought Cheney could be nabbed through financial records like Spiro Agnew. That way you don't have to go through a lot of philosophical discussion, but you can boot him out on facts. I love your name BTW.