WASHINGTON, April 29, 2007

Rice: Bush Will Not Give In On Iraq Bill

Secretary Of State Says U.S. Officials Already Have Their Plan For Iraq

  • Play CBS Video Video Rice On Iraq, Tenet

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tells Bob Schieffer the President will not compromise on the Iraq funding bill and that she doesn't recall George Tenet pitching a preemptive strike on Afghanistan.

  • Video Murtha: Start Withdrawal Now

    Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., tells Bob Schieffer that he wants the U.S. military to start planning a withdrawal from Iraq now, even after the President vetoes the war funding bill.

  • Video Simon On The Iraq Showdown

    The Politico's Roger Simon joins Bob Schieffer to discuss Iraq, Congress, and Tenet's new book.

  • Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, arrives at the CBS studio, Sunday, April 29, 2007, in Washington. Photo

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, arrives at the CBS studio, Sunday, April 29, 2007, in Washington.  (AP)

  • Interactive Iraq: 4 Years Later

    The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.

  • Interactive American Heroes

    Profiles of U.S. soldiers who've died in Iraq, a look at the war's toll and pictures of mourning.

(CBS/AP)  President George W. Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks for progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on Face The Nation.

Rice's comments cast fresh doubt on a potential compromise between the Democratic-led Congress and the White House in getting money to U.S. troops.

Also, with a regional conference on Iraq set to begin Thursday in Egypt, Rice raised the possibility of a rare direct encounter between high-level U.S. and Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is expected to lead his country's delegation.

"I would not rule it out," Rice told Bob Schieffer. "We will be there not to talk about U.S.-Iranian issues, but to talk about Iraq, and how Iraq's neighbors can help to stabilize Iraq, and I won't rule it out."

In Washington this week, Bush plans to veto a $124.2 billion war spending bill that includes a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. In a second version, Democratic leaders may scrap the timetable but work with Republican lawmakers on benchmarks: ordering the Iraqi government to fulfill promises on allocating oil resources, amending its constitution and expanding democratic participation.

Rice said the president would not agree to a plan that penalizes Baghdad if the Iraqi government fall shorts. To do so, she said, would restrain the abilities of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."

Rice said that the Iraqi government is not moving forward fast enough, but "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have a plan and a way forward."

Benchmarks have emerged as a possible rallying point as U.S. leaders seek to show they are holding the Iraq government accountable. But establishing goals without consequences may seem pointless to many Democratic lawmakers, who want an aggressive change in policy.

"The benchmarks — the Iraqis agreed to it, the president agreed it," said Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who also appeared on Face The Nation. "We're saying to them, well, let's put some teeth into the benchmarks."

Rice said it makes sense to give Iraq's leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.

In their push to link U.S. money or troop support to Iraqi performance, however, Democrats must negotiate with Republicans. On their own, Democratic lawmakers do not have the votes to override Bush's veto.

Bush is expected the veto the existing war bill by Tuesday, then meet Wednesday with congressional leaders on the next steps.

"If he vetoes this bill, he's cut off the money, but obviously, we're going to pass another bill," Murtha said. "I'd like to see two months ... Fund it for two months instead of a year. And then look at it again."

Meanwhile, Rice said will not appear in person before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration's prewar intelligence. Rice said she already has addressed claims that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger.

The committee voted 21-10 last week to issue a subpoena to compel her testimony.

Asked about the possibility of being held in contempt by the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Rice said, "That's the chairman's prerogative. I respect the oversight — the oversight responsibilities of Congress — but I frankly think this one has been looked at and looked at and looked at."

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from Face The Nation

Add a Comment See all 241 Comments
by truth832-2009 April 29, 2007 1:15 PM PDT
Unfortunately, Condi is in the unfortunate position of having to defend a catastrophe; but, there is no need for her to lie! Did the UN force the US to invade Iraq?

This administration is determined to stay the course in Iraq! How else to describe no benchmarks for judging the progress of the Iraq government and its people!

The polls have shown that both the Iraq people and the american people want the US to pull out. Interesting that Cheney has that much authority that he can persuade the President to continue on this stay the course path!

Perhaps martial law is next? This administration is maintained through power. Let's pray that the transition to the next government administration in 2008 is peaceful!
Reply to this comment
by truth832-2009 April 29, 2007 1:20 PM PDT
"The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies." Army Lt. Gen. William Odom Retired.

So now the administration wants to get it right and allow the nurturing of a successful Iraqi policy through time and military means without measuring progress for fear of "punishing" the curremt Iraqi government.

The murders at Virginia Tech were the work of a madman, just as are the killings in Iraq.
Reply to this comment
by fascistusa April 29, 2007 1:52 PM PDT
truth832-

I pray for REVOLUTION. Bloody, healthy REVOLUTION.

The American Elite and AIPAC/ISRAEL RULE America.

FREE AMERICA FROM THIS FASCIST REGIME!!!

Reply to this comment
by joanpz April 29, 2007 1:56 PM PDT
Am afraid MALIKI is as INEFFECTIVE as President of Iraq as GW BUSH IS IN U.S. In the "good old days" it was called BUCK PASSING, and in this 110th CONGRESS MAYBE HARRY REID can be like H.S. TRUMAN AND SAY THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU TWO!
RICE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF GW'S PALS - doesn't answer questions BECAUSE THESE PALS NEVER MADE ANY PLANS or FOLLOWED ANY WARNINGS PERTAINING TO IRAQ! SORRY FOR THE IRAQI FAMILIES THAT HAVE SO MANY DEAD, MAIMED AS A 5-WEEK OLD WITH EYE BLOWN OUT, LAND "MINED" BY U.S. SO THAT EVERY STEP IS A "THREAT" - God & Allah, help these PEOPLE - GW Bush is TOO NAIVE TO REALIZE WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 April 29, 2007 2:04 PM PDT
"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."

The only thing rice is not saying is that their hands have been UNTIED for four years now he wants a free rein for two more years. Presidents ho to the rescue. Iraq will not stand up until they know that we will not be there.
Reply to this comment
by dallison7 April 29, 2007 2:09 PM PDT
Rice said the president would not agree to a plan that penalizes Baghdad if the Iraqi government fall shorts. To do so, she said, would restrain the abilities of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."


THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 April 29, 2007 2:12 PM PDT
Reminds me of SONNY AND CHER thieves thieves tramps and thieves
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 2:25 PM PDT
Dragon Lady, you and your Master have zero credibility. The ONLY thing that the world views you good for is to provide fodder for the bad jokes you are...
Reply to this comment
by clemenhagen1 April 29, 2007 2:31 PM PDT
Bush will not "give in" to what? He will get the money to carry of this debacle. The time-tables do not mandate anything, as they serve merely as targets but are non-binding. The targets themselves consist of benchmarks the administration set. So the truth is that Rove sees this whole charade as nothing more than a political opportunity. Once again, Condi serving as shill for a corrupt and incompetent regime that relishes nothing as much as using the troops as pawns (and in this case hostages) in a game of political gotcha.
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 2:44 PM PDT
It only be construed as pathetic when Bush's own father (bush 41) tells the nation via Larry King/CNN on April 23rd that we are ALL suffering from "Bush fatigue". This malady is a result of 6 years of lies, incompetence, theft and stupidity that his son inflicted upon us..
You know the old man is lamenting that they did not push for the smart, competent one (Jeb) instead of the retarded, substandard IQ, twerp that they laid on us.
So, Condi if his own father no longer takes this demented clown seriously, why should anyone else?
Reply to this comment
by bm6005 April 29, 2007 2:47 PM PDT
All right!! Let's hear it for Kindasleezy Rice. Another disgraced member of the current admin of thieves & liars!!
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 2:55 PM PDT
Lets not forget that Condi's right hand man RESIGNED just last Friday after being exposed in the DC *** scandal. Just how much more vile is it going to get?
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 3:12 PM PDT
"Why tie our own hands in using the means that we have to help get the right outcomes in Iraq?" Rice said. "That's the problem with having so-called consequences for missing the benchmarks."

Rice said it makes sense to give Iraq's leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.


What good is a goal that does not have a specific time to be accomplished? If I assign a individual a task to be performed and do not allocate a specific amount of time for the task what is going to be accomplished? Might as well send the ex wife(not a congenial divorce) into the mall with my credit card with no spending limits.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:26 PM PDT
singinrick,,, Wouldn't it be great if Bush actually got it right after ignoring all warnings ???? Bush has increased terrorist threats against our country & throughout Europe...

Unfortunatly another 600,000 troops coundn't bring safety & democracy to Iraq -- It's 4 years too late
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:29 PM PDT
singinrick,,, Wouldn't be great to have a President who believed that a man is only as good as his word ????? -
- How about one who actually supports our troops instead of playing politics with them ????? -
- How about one who recoginizes his failures & dishonor he caused our nation ????
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:33 PM PDT
singinrick,,, In answer to your question, I do believe a pullout will result in more violence... But that's not what the bill in front of Bush says, is it ???? You should be angry this GOP lies to your face...

I also believe that Bush has no concept of how to end the violence.... His resent response was an artilliary attack.... On populated areas.
Reply to this comment
by omega39-2009 April 29, 2007 3:33 PM PDT
I am grateful that we currently have a president with the gonads to do what's right to protect the American people.

Sure Rick, things are getting better and better.

Updated: 4:31 p.m. PT Sept 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become a %u201Ccause cilhbre%u201D for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush%u2019s contention of a world growing safer.

In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush%u2019s orders, the nation%u2019s most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:36 PM PDT
singinrick,,,, You obviously aren't paying attention --
- The UAE King says Bush is wrong, his occupation of Iraq is illegle..
.. Our Generals say Bush is wrong & even General Petreaus has doubts any surge will work.
Reply to this comment
by wayfedup April 29, 2007 3:37 PM PDT
Rice said that the Iraqi government is not moving forward fast enough, but "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have a plan and a way forward."
Oh, GOODY!!! A NEW PLAN!!! How many times are we going to hear about the "NEW PLAN" from the NEOCONS?
Reply to this comment
by sandy19731 April 29, 2007 3:38 PM PDT
And, when I want my teen-ager to respond to my wants I never offer consequences or a timetable, either. Works every time.....hahahahahaha
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 3:40 PM PDT
Something to consider, Iraqis for years under Saddam lived side by side with no sectarian war.Now that they have been "liberated" the daily sectarian violence grows. The "government" of Iraqis either unable, unwilling or lacks the fortitude to reign in the violence.So what will become of Iraq? A nation divided into three seperate nations or will they have another dictator replace the previous one? is this what it requires to "govern" Iraq?
Either way the outcome is not going to be beneficial to the US.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:42 PM PDT
singinrick,,,
, Just who did Bush pull off the battle field to exploit in the media for a week ??? General Petreaus, the man running the war -- It's not his job to convence America or congress,,, It's Bush's job.... What happened to his War Czar ??

Bush/Cheny open thier yaps every time they speak "Democrats this, democrats that" "Democrats will cause an attack, democrats will surrender" ---- You say that's not playing politics with our troops ????????????
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:46 PM PDT
singinrick,,,, Pacify ????? Stop insulting us with your politics & ideaology Rick ---- The GOP is flatass lying to your face ----
---- America voted for a new direction,,, Our troops want to fight in a country that needs them, with achievable missions, training & funding Bush won't give them.
---- Bush has only increased terrorism in the world, ask England & other nations -- In America terrrorist threats are up 16% from last year alone.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:50 PM PDT
singinrick,,, Your so wrapped up in this pro-Isreal zionist media,, you don't even ask what the Jews in Iran have to say, do you ????

Iranian Jews say they live in relative freedom in the Islamic Republic, remain loyal to the land of their birth, and are striving to separate politics from religion.

They caution against comparing Iran's official and visceral opposition to the creation of Israel and Zionism with the regime's acceptance of Jews and Judaism itself.

Reply to this comment
by sandy19731 April 29, 2007 3:51 PM PDT
Ok,
Here's what I think will happen if we pull out of Iraq tomorrow.

Utter chaos. But not very many more people will die tomorrow than died today. Many will leave the country because of fear. Many will come into the country to exploit it. Within a few months, the dust will settle.


Then the rest of the world can look around and decide what to do, if anything.

Probably there will be more than a few Iraqis who will wish they would have defended their new government with every thing they had, they didn't.

Maybe the United Nations will decide to get involved.

Maybe we will be asked. Maybe there will be an incentive this time. We sure could use some oil.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:55 PM PDT
singinrick,,, "Hey j, it's kind of hard for Bush to convince anyone of the war progress" ----- Duhhhh,,,, Could it be possible all other media in America is right & your's isn't ?????? ------- THERE HASN'T BEEN PROGRESS IN 4 GD YEARS
IRAQ HAS NOT HAD A DEMOCRACY AT ANY TIME & THEY STILL DON'T --------

DEMOCRACY THERE IS A FAILURE,, THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION & OUR TROOPS ARE NEEDED ELSEWHERE
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 3:58 PM PDT
Scenario (1) We pull our troops out and civil war breaks out in full force causing Iraq to splinter into three seperate nations who are perpetually at war and provide a training ground for Al Queda.

Scenario (2) We pull our troops out and the Iraqis reconcile their differences and are grateful to the US.

Scenario (3) We remain in Iraq with no time constraits placed upon the Iraqi goverment.Violence goes unabbetted, more soldiers lose their lives and more Iraqis.

Scenario (4) We remain in Iraq and the government of Iraq restores order and peace.


Scenario (5) We remain in Iraq and the government is unable to restore order for 5 years meanwhile death tolls mount civilian and military.

Scenario (6) A leader similiar to Saddam in rule emerges and takes control of Iraq.




Which scenario will be the final outcome?
Reply to this comment
by a8m3h April 29, 2007 3:59 PM PDT
I DOUBT ANY ANSWER, IT BUGS ME TO THINK WE (not me) FIND IT EASIER TO HAVE OUR MILITARY KILLED, THAN TO OKAY DILLING IN THE ACRTIC/ALASKA, FOR THE OIL WE NEED. CAN'T KILL THOSE POOR ANIMALS, OR HAVE THEM MOVED.....THIS IS HUMANITY???

WIDOW LADY
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 3:59 PM PDT
singinrick,,,,, America voted for a CHANGE OF DIRECTION --- You don't know jack about our Marines
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 4:03 PM PDT
WIDOW LADY
Posted by a8m3h

To obtain 20 years worth of oil? Hopefully before then we have learned the lessons of the last 30 years and created alternative fuels.
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 4:05 PM PDT
RE: 'Singinrick'
Why waste time responding to this moronic nut job? It is obvious that he is prodigy of the shallow end of the gene pool (see movie "Deliverance"). He has a deep seated psych disorder as born out by his irrational paranoi of anything Muslim/Islam.

It is obvious that he takes Jewish mythology/fairy tales seriously. (Another sign of delusional psychosis.)

Let the boy put his cape on and clutch his GI Joe as he runs around the family room screaming "Die, Muslims Die!"

By responding to this fool, you are only keeping him away from his milk and cookies and sleepy nap time.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 4:06 PM PDT
Some kind words from the Iranian president.


One of its stated objectives is, quite explicitly, to destroy us. At a large %u201CWorld Without Zionism%u201D conference recently in Tehran President Ahmadinejad stated that %u201Ca world without Zionism and America . . . . surely can be achieved.%u201D President Ahmadinejad%u2019s expressed view is that it is his mission to help bring about, by mass killings, conditions for the return of the Mahdi and thereafter the end of the world. The chief of strategy for Ahmadinejad, Hassan Abbassi, has said: %u201CWe have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization . . . we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them. . . . Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.%u201D
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1770&wit_id=5227


Such a nice man like Augusta Krieves.
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 4:12 PM PDT
singinrick- It is obvious you are a ***. You response proves my point. I rest my case.
Reply to this comment
by johnshaft4 April 29, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
These posts have degenerated into mindless drivel. I'm outta' here.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:20 PM PDT
Singinrick,,,, Iraq Democracy is a failure, complete & total failure... Your President & your dishonorable GOP lied to you, they never had a democracy.
Reply to this comment
by a8m3h April 29, 2007 4:20 PM PDT

wHO WANTS TO JOIN THE CONTEST???? WHAT WILL THE NEW OR NEXT NAME BE FOR OUR COUNTRY?
UNITED ? WHAT? HANDOUT COUNTRY...STUPIDS, INC..
GREAT BEANS,NO LIMITS (to anything)COUNTRY...
COME-ON YOU SMARTIES, GIVE US A FEW.. SOME CAN'T BE PUBLISHED, YOU KNOW... lol
WIDOW LADY
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 4:22 PM PDT
The truth is the truth regardless. Now which scenario is going to play out? More like a combination of the ones listed? It does give one pause to consider that under Saddam Iraqis lived side by side and now they cannot. Will Iraq splinter into seperate nations or another dictator emerge?Neither outcome is beneficial to the US. Now think about US policy in Iraq?
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:22 PM PDT
Singinrick,,,, Appeal for courage ???? Indeed, courage to accept your failures, how about an appeal for TRUTH & HONOR ,,, How about Bush's courage when he ran from active duty ????

Your appeal is from only a small group, many or our troops want results..... Yes Bush did cut training & equipment repair & replacement, No he didn't ask Congress.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:33 PM PDT
singinrick,,,, Start reading my posts... Your appeal is from only a small group, many or our troops want results..
... Yes Bush did cut training & equipment repair & replacement, No he didn't ask Congress. He did it before the GOP lost control..
.. They have the right to petition, but not in uninform... They do not represent the majority of our troops,, just as you don't represent the rest of America.... Do I call them liars ???? NO - that's a GOP Swiftboat campaign that does that & your White House.

Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:36 PM PDT
Singinrick,,,,, The truth is in your face, open your eyes --- Start blaming your messenger instead of ours for missleading you....

STOP PLAYING POLITICS & IDEAOLOGY WITH OUR TROOPS,, THEY NEED REAL SUPPORT - NOT GOP RHETORIC
Reply to this comment
by misha131 April 29, 2007 4:36 PM PDT

Once again the post-veto meeting appears to be a complete repeat of the pre-authorization vote meeting. The President wants to talk but there are no negotiable items. They might have well repeated the "send me a clean bill" chant. We cannot afford for our leaders to be so close minded that "my way or the highway" is their only statement.

Reply to this comment
by misha131 April 29, 2007 4:36 PM PDT

Once again the post-veto meeting appears to be a complete repeat of the pre-authorization vote meeting. The President wants to talk but there are no negotiable items. They might have well repeated the "send me a clean bill" chant. We cannot afford for our leaders to be so close minded that "my way or the highway" is their only statement.

Reply to this comment
by gkc99 April 29, 2007 4:43 PM PDT
Bushit won't give in for the simple reason is that the U.S. Fascist Party's plan is to permanently occupy the oil fields of Iraq, especially now that that extra 100 billion barrels just happened to turn up.

Teenagers, get ready for your tour of murdering Iraqis for Global Energy Domination by the people who own Pres. George W. (Bonzo) Bushit and his direct supervisor, Chickenshithawk Cheney. Learn to serve the new masters of totalitarian America. War is peace. Slavery is Freedom. Bushit is President.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:45 PM PDT
singinrick,,, Even Bush's Defense Secretary Gates says deadlins for Iraq government is a good Idea & needed,, General Petreaus has also acknowledged it also ----- This bill gives them deadlines that are flexible & alot more money than Bush asked for -- It restores thier training & equipment.

CHECK ON IT -- YOUR DISHONORABLE & INCOMPETENT BUSH REPUBLICANS HAVE LOYALTIES ONLY TO BUSH & NOT OUR TROOPS OR AMERICAN VOTERS
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 4:46 PM PDT
Once again the post-veto meeting appears to be a complete repeat of the pre-authorization vote meeting. The President wants to talk but there are no negotiable items. They might have well repeated the "send me a clean bill" chant. We cannot afford for our leaders to be so close minded that "my way or the highway" is their only statement.


From the time period when the current congress started debating the funding of the Iraq war until now how many more congress persons has sign onto this bill?
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw April 29, 2007 4:48 PM PDT
In other words, the president is refusing to "support the troops" he ordered into harm's way.

It can't be because of "pork" since Bush has only vetoed one bill since becoming president. And, that was related to stem cell research, not pork.

Dr. Condo "Chevron Oil Tanker" Rice claiming 9/11/01 has been "investigated" is disingenuous. The GOP led dog and pony show "investigations" were not "investigations," they were coverups.

Hopefully, the Democrats will find the backbone to actually investigate all those involved in the planning and execution of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Which would implicate Ms. "Chevron Oil Tanker" Rice in the conspiracy and coverup. And, the entire Bush administration.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 April 29, 2007 4:50 PM PDT
The answer is zero knowing full well that a veto was imminent.Everyone is playing politics with our troops.
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw April 29, 2007 4:51 PM PDT
Congress not only has the constitutional authority to limit the president's "war time authority (powers)," it is constitutionally bound to do so.

As are the courts.

It is called "oversight" and is part of the system we used to call "checks and balances" before the GOP mafia gained control of the government and mainstream media.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman April 29, 2007 4:54 PM PDT
singinrick,,, Republicans are siding with democrats on Iraq now... This is a good bill Bush has in front of him,, The next one will be harder for Bush to pass... It's not going to make his day.
Reply to this comment
by norcalruss April 29, 2007 4:55 PM PDT
It sounds like, according to Rice anyway, that the Bush administration doesn%u2019t want itself, or the Iraqi government to be held accountable in any way, shape, or form. Just hand us the 124 billion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund our ill-conceived, and ill-executed blunder with no strings attached, thank you. If this is a thinly veiled threat that the CHIMP will veto ANY bill that makes him or the Iraqis accountable, I say scr*w him. Let him veto the bill with time limits, let him veto a bill that makes Iraqis accountable. If he does, he%u2019ll soon run out of money to fund his war and will have to accept the terms favored by most Americans. Or, the long overdue withdrawal can begin.
Reply to this comment
See all 241 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs