House Bid To Override Bush Veto Fails

222-203 Vote Falls Far Short Of Two-Thirds Majority Needed For Override

(CBS/AP)  The Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about a new version.

"Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Mr. Bush said. "Today is the day where we can work together to find common ground."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on either side of the president. The Democratic leaders were stone-faced as Mr. Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late, apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.

"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Mr. Bush said.

The 222-203 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override. Voting to override Bush's veto were 220 Democrats and two Republicans. Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and seven Democrats.

"The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people," Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the hour-long debate before the vote. "The president wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to him."

But Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., urged his colleagues to sustain the veto, saying politicians should not make military decisions.

"Now is not the time for the United States to back down in its war on terror," Lewis said.

Since withdrawal deadlines are a non-starter, Democrats may now get some cooperation from Republicans on benchmarks, ways to gauge Iraqi progress in their country, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

"I'm hopeful that will be where we go because it makes sense to me to have a public document telling the Maliki government: 'Here's what we expect you to accomplish sooner rather than later,'" says Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

But negotiations for a new spending bill could prove difficult. Although both parties agree it should include benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but many Democrats insist they be tied to timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals if they are unmet. Mr. Bush and his congressional allies say such links are unacceptable.

Hours before the House vote sustained the veto, which Mr. Bush had issued Tuesday, the president showed little appetite for compromise.

"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," he said in a speech in Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.

Of the original bill pushed through Congress by Democrats, Mr. Bush said: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."

Pelosi had told reporters Wednesday: "Benchmarks are important, but they have to have teeth in order to be effective."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said before the vote that he hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final measure sent to the president before Memorial Day. "We're not going to leave our troops in harms way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md.

[adafmtdue]

Not pride - president. No president would or should sign a bill that would limit there power as define by the constitution and the power explicitly vested in the office of the President of the United States

[realpatriot1]

madash38,

We don't have a Parliamentary system so there can't be a special election. Too bad...it would save America from idiots like you.

In case you didn't notice, we had an election last November dfominated by this war and the public voted overwhelmingly to NOT stay the course. The polls you refer to are not limited to the east and west coast. State polls show overwhelming opposition to this war in EVERY region and state.

I know you Neocons are having difficulty accepting democracy but you're just going to have to try harder because this is not going to quiet the "whimpering". The authority for this little conflict was to stop Sadaam. from using WMD-he didn't have them and he's dead.

We can negotiate with parties in the region or just pull out. Even Bush is hinting at an earlier withdrawal than the Democrats. He's saying we'll know by fall if we're going to succeed or not. The funding bill dosen't call for us being out until next April. If the surge works, he can always go back to Congress and ask for new authority. But that would mean working within the system and not like a King.

[madash3ll]

"Congress must go before the American people and tell them: if we don't stop funding them, we CANNOT stop this war--so what do you want? If we still want the funding--Americans must reconcile themselves to staying in the war and shut up about troop withdrawals (bush will NOT let it happen and neither will the minority GOP Congress) If the majority say, okay--thanks for the truth--pull the funding." toldyouso21

Wow, (21 must be your age) the biggest problem with the youth of today...you believe polling numbers that never touch most Americans outside of the East or West coast and trust that poll as you would an election.

If you believe truly that a majority of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq then spur on your elected officials to pass a law that would allow them to call a special election to hear you. There%u2019s not even a provision to poll Americans in special elections right now. You'd think even a benign group like the one we're stuck with now could think of that if they truly believe that they have the majority behind them. How could it not pass since anyone blocking hearing from the American people on such a high profile issue would be truly shunned by everyone? But, don't bet on them doing it...you voted for them, and they'll use their position as they see fit to make the decision...as will the President.

[gramto7]

Posted by toldyouso21 at 09:19 AM : May 03, 2007


WELL SAID!!!

[toldyouso21]

Congress must go before the American people and tell them: if we don't stop funding them, we CANNOT stop this war--so what do you want? If we still want the funding--Americans must reconcile themselves to staying in the war and shut up about troop withdrawals (bush will NOT let it happen and neither will the minority GOP Congress) If the majority say, okay--thanks for the truth--pull the funding. Then Pelosi needs to get on tv and tell us what to expect: the dying, more chaos, until Bush blinks.

She should make it very clear that it is Bush who is standing in the way of the funding, and like he did for the past few months--keep hammering that home, in address after address after address. A simple message--One man's pride and his pen stand between the troops and their funding. One man, who held over 150K lives in his hand when he placed them in harms way, who still holds those lives while he KEEPS them in harm's way, and who now will determine if they have the money to be there, or if his pride and getting his own way is worth more than their lives.

[madash3ll]

The override failure proves this was simply a show for Democrats. I guess a lame duck bill is good enough to quiet the liberal whimpering. Maybe Pelosi should have crossed the aisle and compromised rather than wasting her time and our money on tea and chatting in Syria.

This version of the Democratic Party is all double talk and showmanship. Hillary would love to say that she'd pull the troops out, but she knows that pulling out would be a terrible mistake and so she'll quietly say she'd keep "some" troops there...Uh-huh, as many as she felt she needed...and she's the front runner from her party. In short, that's why the Democratic party will still (after all the bad press to the Republicans) have trouble landing the White House in 08...they would be extremely dangerous if in charge of foreign policy in their current state because they are more set on being against a particular American than doing what's best for America.

Pelosi's "benchmarks without teeth" quote is simply priceless. I believe that's the same argument that got Iraq invaded in the first place...UN benchmarks (resolutions) without teeth. If the liberal masses were willing to give Saddam more than a decade to decide if he would cooperate and still weren't ready to do something with teeth, then they certainly don't stand a chance of forcing the US President's hand. They'll whine all the way to handing him the bill he wants...just a bunch of political hypocrites and weaklings that won't stand their ground.

[toldyouso21]

tuckerndfw
I remember reading somewhere that Bush & Co had arranged to have IMMUNITY from prosecution for WAR CRIMES.

Posted by homespunlady at 06:20 AM : May 03, 2007


Guess you missed the signing into LAW last year of immunity for war crimes (this only applies domestically) AND for circumventing FISA. Funny, how Bush asked for immunity from something he said was legal.

it really behooves Americans to keep up with what is going on in our own country. if we fail to do so--then it will not help us to learn about actions/laws or what fresh hell is being cooked up--after we are already in the pot, and the heat is on.

[the74blaster]

I know one thing for sure never again I have had it with the GOP.

Posted by antoniof123,

I fully agree with this statement! If Bush had any serious intentions of involving the Arabs in stabalizing Iraq he would be Egypt work with regional leaders to address the situation in Iraq. He made a choice to stay here and play politics by vetoing a bill that contains some milestones to chart progress.

Would anyone of the conservatives that post here give a home builder a 300-400K and not ask for a completion date for their new house?

If not, then why are you supporting Bushs Iraq program, after all its you money!

[antoniof123]

I know one thing for sure never again I have had it with the GOP. Nixon, Bush they are all a bunch of wing nuts and I will never vote for them again.

[booyaw_77]

Yer a god damned embarrassment to freedom, and everything it represents. Go to yer room and lock the door and don't come out until 2008. Go play with yerself, ya corporate skaaank.

[booyaw_77]

The doofus who taught you diplomacy should be fired, Bush. He should sell ice cream in an ice cream truck.. He should work in sewer scrape'n the grate of old tampons.

[booyaw_77]

How can anybody be expected to be patriotic under these circumstances? "Well whats the war about?" "Can't tell ya." "Are we fighting fer freedom?" "Quit asking so many stupid questions." "Should I be proud of what I'm doing?" "Yer a god damned trouble maker!"

Everybody's jump'n ship.. write'n books.

[booyaw_77]

The whole point of having a democracy.. THE WHOLE POINT! Is to ban fraternity.. and make civic the notion that we're all brothers and sisters the same! That there is no need for private organisation. That we're the "organisation of the United States"!

Yet these.. weird.. introverted.. fat.. overly psychobabbly.. corporate white toothed weirdos took over some time, a long time ago. And not only hijacked out constitution, but our military into.. some kindofa weird bodyguard outfit.

Wars fought.. we ain't even gotta right no more to know about.

[booyaw_77]

In the good old days, America had her elections and.. you had a presidential winner? And a presidential loser. The winner was president, and the loser was vice president. Nowadays its a sick conspiracy ridden buddy club.

[bluestardad]

STAY THE COURSE VOTE REPUBLICAN! GIVE OUR TROOPS LIVES FOR ISRAEL!

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

http://www.democrats.com/node/12313

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[tuckerndfw]

tuckerndfw
I remember reading somewhere that Bush & Co had arranged to have IMMUNITY from prosecution for WAR CRIMES.

Posted by homespunlady at 06:20 AM : May 03, 2007

It is too complicated to discuss in this forum, but you are correct in your basic assertion.

From a Wikipedia article (which appears to be accurate):

"President Bill Clinton signed the statute in 2000, but stated that he did not intend to request its ratification until several changes were made. On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration informed the United Nations Secretary-General that "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000."

Source: Wikipedia (more easily read than the White House link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

Additional White House (Bush administration) source: (long, technical reading)

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm

However, no nation is exempt from international law. The only thing protecting the Bush administration from prosecution by the ICC is the economic and military power of the US.

And, no one, including the president, is exempt from prosecution under US law. War crimes are a criminal offense under the US Code (federal law).

[karlimhof]

And so we are left with a man unable to bridge the void, the offer any hope, like a solitary figure gazing far out to sea, watching, as the ship sinks slowly beneath stormy skies.

We are in deep *****.


Posted by neoconRcrazy



Stop scaring me neocon!

One thing you touched upon which glares in the night is that Bush is the antithesis of what we americans most admire;

- the ability to find pratical solutions
- the abilitiy to admit shortcomings and offer change

Bush fails on both counts.

[krg12171936]

Now that "IDIOT BUSH" vetoed the House passed bill
it's time to "IMPEACH" that "IDIOT".

[iceman_1960]

"What does it take for someone to understand what Commander-in Chief means?"

To lead and direct the armed forces in their tasks of accomplishing the will of Congress.

Accomplishing the will of Congress.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Here it is:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[neoconrcrazy]

The poor boy, george III, never had a mission his whole life until he became his party's MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT.

The intellectual and moral foundation required of a president sorely lacks in this man.

Between his words and actions there is a void;

Between his virtual vision of the world and reality, there is a void;

Between his character and the change demanded from him, there is a void;

And so we are left with a man unable to bridge the void, the offer any hope, like a solitary figure gazing far out to sea, watching, as the ship sinks slowly beneath stormy skies.

We are in deep *****.