Bush Vows Continued Vetoes On Funding Bill
Police keep watch as hundreds of lawyers march in the streets of Montreal to protest against Quebec's Bill 78 aimed at control student demonstrations Monday, May 28, 2012 in Montreal. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Paul Chiasson) / Paul Chiasson
President Bush warned Congress Friday that he will continue vetoing war spending bills as long as they contain a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Speaking a day after the Democratic-controlled Congress approved legislation that requires that a troop drawdown begin by Oct. 1, Mr. Bush said — as expected — he will veto it because of that demand.
But at a Camp David news conference with Japan's prime minister, Mr. Bush said he's optimistic a deal can be worked out to get funding for the U.S. troops in Iraq, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.
"I'm optimistic we can get a bill, a good bill and a bill that satisfies all our objectives," he said.
He invited congressional leaders to come to the White House to discuss a new piece of legislation that does not include a timetable. But he made clear that if Democrats insist on including timetables again, he will not hesitate to bring out his veto pen.
"If they want to try again that which I've said is unacceptable, of course I won't accept it," the president said during the news conference with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "I hope it won't come to that."
Passage of the Iraq spending legislation in both houses was not by big enough margins to override a presidential veto. So lawmakers and the White House immediately began talking about negotiations for a follow-up bill.
Democratic leaders said they hoped to have a new bill ready by June 1. Several Democratic officials have said the next measure likely will jettison the withdrawal timetable, but may include consequences if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks, such as expanding democratic participation and allocating oil resources.
Mr. Bush has set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but has opposed attaching any timeframe to them or any actions if they are not met.
Senate leaders said Friday that the bill should go to Mr. Bush early next week. The White House has not said whether Mr. Bush plans a quiet veto or a public ceremony.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged Mr. Bush on Friday to "carefully read this bill."
"He will see it fully provides for our troops and gives them a strategy worthy of their sacrifices," Reid said. "Failing to sign this bill would deny our troops the resources and strategy they need."
The bill would provide $124.2 billion, more than $90 billion of which would go for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats added billions more for domestic programs, and while most of the debate focused on the troop withdrawal issue, some of the extra spending also has drawn Mr. Bush's ire.
The legislation requires a troop withdrawal to begin July 1 if Mr. Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political agreements; otherwise, it calls for the withdrawal to start by Oct. 1.
While the beginning of a withdrawal is mandated, the balance of the pullback is merely advisory, to take place by April 1, 2008.
Troops could remain after that date to conduct counterterrorism missions, protect U.S. facilities and personnel and train Iraqi security forces.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Speaking a day after the Democratic-controlled Congress approved legislation that requires that a troop drawdown begin by Oct. 1, Mr. Bush said — as expected — he will veto it because of that demand.
But at a Camp David news conference with Japan's prime minister, Mr. Bush said he's optimistic a deal can be worked out to get funding for the U.S. troops in Iraq, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.
"I'm optimistic we can get a bill, a good bill and a bill that satisfies all our objectives," he said.
He invited congressional leaders to come to the White House to discuss a new piece of legislation that does not include a timetable. But he made clear that if Democrats insist on including timetables again, he will not hesitate to bring out his veto pen.
"If they want to try again that which I've said is unacceptable, of course I won't accept it," the president said during the news conference with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "I hope it won't come to that."
Passage of the Iraq spending legislation in both houses was not by big enough margins to override a presidential veto. So lawmakers and the White House immediately began talking about negotiations for a follow-up bill.
Democratic leaders said they hoped to have a new bill ready by June 1. Several Democratic officials have said the next measure likely will jettison the withdrawal timetable, but may include consequences if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks, such as expanding democratic participation and allocating oil resources.
Mr. Bush has set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but has opposed attaching any timeframe to them or any actions if they are not met.
Senate leaders said Friday that the bill should go to Mr. Bush early next week. The White House has not said whether Mr. Bush plans a quiet veto or a public ceremony.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged Mr. Bush on Friday to "carefully read this bill."
"He will see it fully provides for our troops and gives them a strategy worthy of their sacrifices," Reid said. "Failing to sign this bill would deny our troops the resources and strategy they need."
The bill would provide $124.2 billion, more than $90 billion of which would go for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats added billions more for domestic programs, and while most of the debate focused on the troop withdrawal issue, some of the extra spending also has drawn Mr. Bush's ire.
The legislation requires a troop withdrawal to begin July 1 if Mr. Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political agreements; otherwise, it calls for the withdrawal to start by Oct. 1.
While the beginning of a withdrawal is mandated, the balance of the pullback is merely advisory, to take place by April 1, 2008.
Troops could remain after that date to conduct counterterrorism missions, protect U.S. facilities and personnel and train Iraqi security forces.
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 251 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 125 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 361 Comments
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 422 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups 72 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 357 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
If Bush and Gonzales can't seem to let go of the office--the American voters just might make a laughing stock of the AG and make both wish they had taken the dignified way out.
Stubborness and stupidity are the only true traits bush has.The so called surge is not working, our Soldiers and their families have sacrificed enough. How much more blood does this man want on his hands?
After all, he can ask the money to Halliburton and their kind, which have got a lot of undue taxpayer money already.
However, he'll probably screw our people and theirs again and veto the bill and have a temper tantrum. I wonder if Barb thought it was cute when he had the tantrums as a child, cause it's fordamnedsure not even vaguely amusing, now.
Posted by waynabq at 01:30 PM : Apr 28, 2007
Their supporters, esp the ones here are just as bad or worse. They cheer on the idea of this war and sending more troops no differently then they would moving up a level in a video game. I honestly don't think that they seriously grasp the REAL men and women are dying! That this is not a Saturady cheering on thier team at a game of football or baseball. A few weeks ago one of the idiots here was crowing that Bush was 2 and 0! Like that's all it meant to him, like it was just a fuc*king score! None of them here have the guts to actually go and fight, so they hide their cowardly as*ses behind their keyboards and do their best to send OTHERS off to die for their GAME. They are as mentally sick as their idols in the White House.
Whenever they got into a bad predicament, Hardy would say to Laurel "This is another fine mess you've gotten us into".
Abott and Costello, Lewis and Martin, Laurel and Hardy, now we've got another legendary team that's making everyone laugh until they cry, Bush/Cheney.
Cheney applied for five deferments and Bush used his father's influence to get ahead of better qualified people to join the Air National Guard to avoid combat duty.
Now they both don't have the slightest problem about sending young men and women in harm's way in Iraq to do their political bidding.
Now I understand why Bush and Cheney are held in such high esteem by their supporters.
This sob has shown what stuff he's made of and I don't want another drop of American blood on Iraqi soil.