Bush Vetoes Iraq Funding Bill

(CBS/AP)  President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Mr. Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Democrats made a last-minute plea for Mr. Bush to sign the bill, knowing their request would be ignored. "The president has put our troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Reality on the ground proves what we all know: A change of course is needed."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the legislation "respects the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war."

A Senate Democrat says they've pushed their demand for troop deadlines as far as they can, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. Democrats know they don't have the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Mr. Bush will meet with congressional leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

Mr. Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.

He said the need to act is urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Mr. Bush said.

He vetoed the bill immediately upon his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Earlier on Tuesday, Democratic congressional leaders sent Mr. Bush legislation setting timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. The move came on the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the war.

The Democratic leaders staged a special ceremony to send the legislation — already approved by both the House and Senate — on its way to the White House.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush is to meet at the White House with congressional leaders from both parties, including Reid, D-Nev., and Pelosi, D-Calif., to begin discussing follow-up spending legislation.

"This legislation honors the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," Pelosi said at the ceremony in the Capitol. She said that provisions of the measure respect "the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war."

Said Reid: "After more than four years of a failed policy, it's time for Iraq to take responsibility for its own future. Today, right now, we renew our call to President Bush: There is still time to listen. There is still time to sign this bill and change course in Iraq."

Some Republicans say they would support tying benchmarks to the more than $5 billion provided to Iraq in foreign aid, but nothing that would tie the hands of military commanders. It's not clear whether the White House is open to this approach, either. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said over the weekend that Mr. Bush would not sign a bill containing any penalties for the Iraqi government.

"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[beanerman4]

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Forgot one. Fill me in please. Don't tell me our president would say something like that without really meaning it.

[beanerman4]

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended"

"Mission Accomplished"

I just woke up from a 4 year nap. Can anyone fill me in on what's happening in this illegal war?

1.20.09 backwardsbush.com for some comfort

[hhkeller]

"Bush is dumber than a sack of rocks"
Those who follow him are even dumber.
It feels like January '09 is an eternity away.

[formrusmcsgt]

This isnt about the business of the People, its about greedy, power hungry members of congress that are every bit as dangerous to us as the terrorists are.
Posted by pwrslm at 08:06 AM : May 02, 2007

If so, why hasn't Homeland Security cordoned off the Capitol building and taken all 485 Congressmen into custody?

You support a policy that all 16 of our intelligence agencies confirm creates more terrorism worldwide rather than diminishes it.

Yet you have the audacity to attack a Congress who is trying to end such a counter-productive policy in regards to terrorism.

[pwrslm]

"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

[pwrslm]

congress authorized, almost unanamously, to send our military to Iraq.

Its not thier job to tell the military how to accomplish its tasks, that duty is vested in the Executive Branch of our government by the Constitution.

We are supposed to support our troops, not make them fail in thier mission. Congress is trying to though, and if they succeed, they will be responsible for the deaths of hundreds more US Soldiers, and uncounted thousands of Iraqi people.

This isnt about the business of the People, its about greedy, power hungry members of congress that are every bit as dangerous to us as the terrorists are.
Posted by pwrslm

Only an a$$hole would send troops to a foreign country and then abandon them by vetoing a bill that not only sought to save American lives, but fund those same troops willing to sacrifice their lives.

[luvny-2009]

MY BAD...I said is didntinhale like 12. I was wrong, it's more like 8 or better yet ******* W'ya hired them to do this LOL. I just ignore them because it's so juvenile.

[formrusmcsgt]

We need them to keep giving our poor excuse of a President the same bill requiring timetables to get out of Iraq.
Posted by bigsk8fan at 07:49 AM : May 02, 2007

While a simple solution, I don't think it's one that is politically feasible.

The neocons are trying to cast the Dems as being non-supportive of the troops because there are strings attached to the funding bill. He wants a blank check like the Repub Congresses gave him year after year.

If the Dems just re-send the same bill to Dubya, they will play into the neocon characterization of them as being obstructionist and non-supportive.

Remember that Dubya has no concerns about facing the American electorate again, Congress does.

As last November proved, neoconism has become a fringe movement and the Dems are not about to squander their advantage and give neoconism an opportunity to regain any momentum.

Why won't GW Bush and his Republican cohorts support the troops?

He has just cut off their funding - what an a$$hole.

He had the option of passing the bill and ignoring the deadline, but instead, he chose to veto it thus denying the troops much needed funds.

Perhaps he could ask Halliburton for some of our money back?