Bush Vetos Troop Withdrawl Bill

[Texsox]

Just hitting the wires. He said he would and he did. I am uncomfortable with the bill the way it is written and wish a better compromise could have been worked out. Stick to your guns Mr. President.

 

 

This didn't take long

 

 

 

Dear Friend,

 

President Bush has hit a new low -- and I'm not talking about his 28% approval ratings.

 

Today, he ignored the majority of Americans and he defied the majority of Congress. And what's worst, he told our brave men and women in uniform that they will be the ones to pay the price.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a Democratic president wouldn't veto that bill. We put forward a thoughtful plan and the President rejected it.

 

Only a Democratic victory in 2008 will ensure that this war comes to a responsible end. To ensure a Democratic victory, we have to build our election operation now -- we just can't afford to wait until there's a nominee. Make a contribution and help take back the White House today:

 

http://www.democrats.org/EndTheWar

 

Here's what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had to say about the Democratic plan to start bringing our troops home:

 

"The debate in Congre

s

s

...ha

s

been helpful in demon

s

trating to the Iraqi

s

that American patience i

s

limited. The

s

trong feeling

s

expre

s

s

ed in the Congre

s

s

about the timetable ha

s

had a po

s

itive impact...in term

s

of communicating to the Iraqi

s

that thi

s

i

s

not an open-ended commitment."

 

But President Bush's veto sends the opposite message. It refuses to allow the Iraqi people to stand up for their own country. It blatantly disregards the need for a political solution. Worst of all, it puts the lives of our troops right in the middle of it.

 

That's not a road to victory. It's a road to nowhere.

 

The Democratic Party is working overtime to stop this madness. We're doing all we can to change course in Iraq and to elect leaders who are accountable to the American people.

 

Can you help support the Democratic Party's 2008 election operation? The stakes are so high, we can't afford to wait.

 

http://www.democrats.org/EndTheWar

 

When President Bush rejects a troop withdrawal plan supported by nearly two-thirds of the country, he's not working for the American people -- he's working for himself.

 

The wave of support to end this war won't stop. The Democratic Party is ramping up the pressure on President Bush every day, and we're working hard to make sure that none of his Republican allies will continue his legacy.

 

This country has suffered through President Bush's failed policies for long enough. Help us put an end to this terrible chapter in American history:

 

http://www.democrats.org/EndTheWar

 

One veto isn't enough to stop us. The Democratic Party brought change in 2006, and with your help we'll do it again in 2008.

 

Sincerely,

 

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

[Balta1701]

IMO, the appropriate response after the Congress fails to override the veto (and both houses should make sure to vote on that) is to come back and give Mr. Bush everything he wants...a totally unfettered bill that funds his war...

 

For 3 more months.

[NorthSideSox72]

What a bunch of cowards. All of them - Congress, BushCo, all of them. Congress doesn't have the guts to stand up and say no to further funding of the war, and Bush doesn't have the guts to admit when he's driving his truck on 3 flat tires and its time to change course. And this pork barrell crap, and the unrelated but important minimum wage bill being attached is just politcal B.S.

 

Everyone screwed the pooch on this one.

[Texsox]

Everyone screwed the pooch on this one.

 

And the one person that could stop it, did. This may be his best moment of 2007.

[NorthSideSox72]

And the one person that could stop it, did. This may be his best moment of 2007.

You can't be serious. In case you didn't notice, he's the one who bought the pooch in the first place.

[Texsox]

You can't be serious. In case you didn't notice, he's the one who bought the pooch in the first place.

 

Serious as can be. If drew a line in the sand and said he would veto the bill. As you mentioned, everyone screwed this up. The line of defense is a Presidential veto and he did. I love it when our system works.

 

And if Congress can muster the over ride, then so be it. That is exciting also.

 

But I applaud Bush for his back bone in the matter.

 

And again, that bill is almost a poster child for what is wrong in American politics. Take all the b.s., pork, and stuff that has nothing to do with the main bill out and start from there.

[NorthSideSox72]

Serious as can be. If drew a line in the sand and said he would veto the bill. As you mentioned, everyone screwed this up. The line of defense is a Presidential veto and he did. I love it when our system works.

 

And if Congress can muster the over ride, then so be it. That is exciting also.

 

But I applaud Bush for his back bone in the matter.

 

And again, that bill is almost a poster child for what is wrong in American politics. Take all the b.s., pork, and stuff that has nothing to do with the main bill out and start from there.

I agree the bill is crap. But you are saying the line of defense is the President, and he was a big part of the mess in the first place, so... he vetoed himself?!

[Texsox]

I agree the bill is crap. But you are saying the line of defense is the President, and he was a big part of the mess in the first place, so... he vetoed himself?!

 

In a sense, yes.

[Texsox]

I find the Dems PR campaign distasteful. I feel badly for the servicemen.

 

 

[/color]

 

Hi James,

 

When I first introduced legislation with Russ Feingold to set a deadline to end the open-ended policy of massive military presence in Iraq and bring our heroes home, I knew it would take a lot of work to get us to that point. And, as I've said to all of you before, we've made tremendous progress. Thanks to all of your work, we have a Democratic Congress that has passed legislation to challenge President Bush's failed policy in Iraq and put us on a new course.

 

But the Republicans are putting up a roadblock to our efforts, succumbing to White House pressure to back the President on this. And the President vetoed our efforts.

 

It's time for that to change. It's time to put the pressure on these Roadblock Republicans.

 

The Republicans are already showing signs of cracking. Many are running away from this President's disastrous policy. But that's not enough; we need to splinter the GOP on this one. To do that, we need to speak to them in a voice loud enough that they can't help but hear it, and we need to speak in the language any politician understands: grassroots pressure.

 

So we're launching a unique campaign to pressure the critical points in the GOP caucus. We are targeting a few key Senators for this message: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senators Sununu, Collins, and Coleman. The last three are already top races for 2008, and Senator McConnell is the bulwark of the GOP leadership on this.

 

So go here to contribute to a fund run by our friends at ActBlue that will go to the eventual Democratic nominee in those states and then write an email message to those Senators explaining why you did this.

 

This is an extraordinary campaign; to my knowledge, nothing quite like this has ever been done. But this money can make all the difference in each of these races, and these Senators will know it. Senator McConnell is secure in his belief that no one will be able to raise the money to challenge him. We can show that he's wrong. The other Senators are already top targets in 2008, but they hope the power of incumbency and fundraising can save them. We can show them that the power of Washington won't stand against the power of the people.

 

We can raise the stakes for them and make the pressure they feel from the people greater than the pressure they feel from the White House. And when that happens, they just might help tell this President that his policy is a disaster and we must change course.

 

Let's clear the way for a new direction in Iraq -- let's insist on a policy that lives up to the sacrifice of our incredible troops.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Kerry

[kapkomet]

I love the "new course" wording.

 

Why can't these assholes just say we're running away because we can't deal with it?

[Texsox]

I love the "new course" wording.

 

Why can't these assholes just say we're running away because we can't deal with it?

 

Stay the course, eventually this will work. It just takes time, money, lives . . .

[whitesoxfan101]

This Bill was absolute trash, and I'm glad it was vetoed. And for the first time in.....well a while, the Democrats look like the bad guys because they refused to give in AT ALL in terms of compromise and with their comments today look like they are throwing the troops under the bus.

 

Both parties are at fault to an extent, and Bush obviously started this bizarre and stupid war, but the Democrats are losing the PR battle today, and that is the only thing that matters in politics anymore since nothing of substance is ever actually done anymore.

[Balta1701]

This Bill was absolute trash, and I'm glad it was vetoed. And for the first time in.....well a while, the Democrats look like the bad guys because they refused to give in AT ALL in terms of compromise and with their comments today look like they are throwing the troops under the bus.

Not taking on any comments today yet, but do you seriously believe that the Dems refused to give in at all? Did you pay any attention at all to how this bill was constructed? This bill was compromised out the wazoo just to get it out of committee, and I'm not just talking about the pork. Dramatic weakening of the deadlines, complete removal of any sort of enforcement mechanism (if Bush had signed it, he basically could have just ignored the deadlines without penalty), and so forth. All that was done to get most of the centrist/blue dog Dems on board so that it could pass in the first place.

 

What exactly is there the Dems could have compromised on? The only things that would have made Mr. Bush happy would have been if anything and everything resembling a timetable was totally removed. The enforcement mechanisms were never in the bill in the first place, and the timetable was as watered down as Springfield Elementary's orange drink.

[Texsox]

BTW, I don't think it is fair to call this Bush's war. If we go into the way back machine, we'll find that most of America was behind the war.

 

Now we know some of the information wasn't accurate, so maybe we can pin a bit more but IIRC there was widespread support of the war.

[Balta1701]

BTW, I don't think it is fair to call this Bush's war. If we go into the way back machine, we'll find that most of America was behind the war.

 

Now we know some of the information wasn't accurate, so maybe we can pin a bit more but IIRC there was widespread support of the war.

So, are those of us who were right about this war being a terrible idea around 6 months before it started still allowed to call it Bush's war?

[BigSqwert]

So, are those of us who were right about this war being a terrible idea around 6 months before it started still allowed to call it Bush's war?

No kidding. I actually voted for this buffoon in 2000 and the minute I started hearing things about Saddam and links to Al Qaeda he lost me.

[Texsox]

So, are those of us who were right about this war being a terrible idea around 6 months before it started still allowed to call it Bush's war?

 

Sure, but let's not lose sight that plenty of elected officials on both sides of the aisle were on board. I just don't think it is totally accurate. And while we are calling it Bush's war, I don't see his friends and family hanging out in the desert.

[Balta1701]

Although the source (The Politico) is a vastly less than reliable rag, if by some chance they're right on this article, then the Dems are taking exactly the right approach if they push this bill IMO.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) outlined a new plan for an Iraq funding bill in private meetings Thursday afternoon, congressional aides said.

 

The plan would split the now vetoed supplemental spending bill into two bills, one that would provide two months of funding for the Iraq War and another that would fund the agricultural programs contained in the earlier bill, aides said.

 

In addition to the two months of Iraq funding, the bill would provide a $10 billion cushion to allow the military flexibility. It would also require the president to report back to Congress by July 13 on the extent to which the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks for progress.

 

The plan would "fence off" additional combat funds until Congress voted to "unfence" them. Such a vote would be held on July 24. A vote of the FY08 defense appropriations bill would be delayed until September, one aide said.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Although the source (The Politico) is a vastly less than reliable rag, if by some chance they're right on this article, then the Dems are taking exactly the right approach if they push this bill IMO.

 

This was mentioned on NPR this morning as well so I think it's credible.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, I don't see it mentioned yet... Hilary has apparently decided that she doesn't look good avoiding responsiblity for her vote on the Iraq war, and is trying to counter the bad press by stealing and idea from her fellow candidates and trying to revoke the Iraq War authorization.

 

I've heard at least two Prez candidates endorse this idea previously - Edwards and Richardson. Apparently she now wants to shift from being the tough, conservative candidate to be more with the popular anti-war trend.

 

Clinton continues to be my least favorite Dem candidate.

Edited May 4, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[Y2HH]

Arguing politics is a pointless endevor.

 

Those who believe need no explaination, those who disbelieve, no explaination will do. Period.

 

War is war. It's ugly, it's brutal, and it's reality. It's not pretty because it's not supposed to be. People die, and often for no reason. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it always will be.

 

The world is an unfair place, feel blessed you have it as easy as you do. You could be starving to death in an African jungle right now, or dodging bullets in Iraq or in many of the other wars that are going on (that our media doesn't report).

 

It's your right to disagree with the war.

 

Just like it's another mans right to agree with it, even if you don't like it.

 

My problem with both Dems and Reps (those who lean TOO far to the point they vote party and throw out all of their wisdom and knowledge), is both love the words "open minded", while neither are open minded at all -- unless you agree with everything they say.

 

[Balta1701]

So, it appears that the Dems in Congress have completely capitulated, and are going to fund the war with no additional requirements, benchmarks or questions asked all the way through the end of 2008.

 

Meanwhile, even though May has not yet been completed, this has already been the deadliest 6 month period in Iraq for U.S. soldiers to date. And it is entirely possible that April and May will become the first back to back 100+ casualty months since the start of the debacle.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Balta1701

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am thoroughly disgusted at the Dems for caving. Balta, you had it right a month ago - on the heels of the first veto they should have authorized funding through July only and then cut it off if it became evident no progress was being made.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow. After a solid start, this Congress has derailed horribly.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah. I'm not impressed with Harry Reid's handling of the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has done a decent job with the House, I think, she's tried to hold the line.

 

I think a big part of Harry Reid's problem is a lack of a functioning majority - and it's a fault of his own doing. He made a deal with Lieberman to get him to agree to stay on the Dem side of the aisle if he won, and let Lamont twist in the wind.

 

I think had that race been different in CT, you'd see a vastly tougher Senate.