CRAWFORD, Texas, Dec. 28, 2007
Bush Vetoes Defense Policy Bill
Unexpected Move Centers On Provision That Could Freeze Iraqi Assets In The U.S.
-
President Bush's intention to veto sweeping U.S defense policy bill apparently caught congressional leaders off guard. (AP)
-
Blog Enter The Crypt Read the latest behind-the-scenes news from Capitol Hill in this blog provided by our partner The Politico.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."
The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent authorized by the bill.
Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.
The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.
Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."
When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages from the White House during the monthlong break.
A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.
In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."
Democratic aides said they have not ruled out any legislative options, including dropping the language on lawsuits against Iraq and sending the rest of the bill back to Bush.
The sponsor of the contested provision, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the provision would allow "American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable — plain and simple."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called on lawmakers to "move rapidly to fix this section" when Congress returns in January so that the underlying bill can be signed.
Democratic congressional leaders complained that Bush's move was a last-minute stunt because he had never indicated his intention to veto the bill.
Bush aides said they had signaled concern about the controversial provision for weeks, although there had been no formal veto threat. They said their concern grew urgent recently after a legal review and feedback from U.S. diplomats in Iraq and Iraqi leaders.
The disputed section of the bill would reshape Iraq's immunity to lawsuits, exposing the new government to litigation in U.S. courts stemming from treatment of Americans in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Even cases that had once been rejected could be refiled.
Bush's aides warned of a dire scenario — a rush of litigation that could freeze tens of billions of dollars in Iraqi assets being held in U.S. banks. Money at the heart of the Iraqi rebuilding effort would be tied up in court, potentially halting the very stabilization efforts that could get U.S. troops home faster, the aides said.
Yet Democrats fumed that Bush could have worked out the technical fix sooner if he had wanted, without rejecting an entire bill that contains extra help and money for troops.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 146 CommentsThey (the GOP) are right. As long as they are running the Govt. it won''t work.
This is what happens when you put people in charge of something which they not only believe won''t work, but more importantly make money (for themselves and their cronies) when it doesn''t work.
Wake up people.
Let''s stop paying the GOP to destroy our country!
Posted by j-whitman at 06:23 PM : Dec 29, 2007"
wouldn''t this make you dream ... ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/29/ap/africa/main3656114.shtml?source=search_story
Posted by IdlePugilist at 02:09 PM : Dec 29, 2007
To find this president in inconsistent positions is not unusual because he lies when he opens his mouth. He lies to obscure his actions and to give his political adversaries as little time to act as possible. This is a president who intends to get what he wants come hell or high water, the truth and the country be damned. With support and connivance from the GOP, with or without the war on terror, he is destroying the economy, our civil liberties, our preeminnece in the world, and the progress we have achieved in safeguarding the environment and promoting civil rights to benefit an economic class of the rich.
Seeing that impeachment as a mechanism of recall is hardly ever successful, I think our political system needs to be reevaluated to make this kind of president more accountable without the need for an election to provide the ultimate check.
Reasons for the pocket veto.
1. Bush has a chinese magnet somewhere, shaped like a yellow ribbon that says support the troops, so no other actual support is required.
2. The outrageous idea of oversight of contractors and weapons, when they have him in their pockets.
3. The big money interests in Iraq need to be protected at the expense of the troops who are already covered by the magnet (see 1. above)
The concern about the Iraq assets provides an excuse for stopping the legislation to prevent more oversight on contractors and weapons programs as well as wasting money on the troops and our vets. The contractors and weapons systems money pits involve hundreds of billions of dollars. Coincidentally, the beneficiaries of the waste they generate were huge contributors to his campaigns and continue to support the republic party. They can always find a few billion dollars for their friends but not to waste on the troops, veterans or health care for kids.
Posted by david1737
No doubt Bush and his cronies have a Republican connected "privatized" company that can assume these functions by doing half the work and receiving twice the pay.
The Bush Admin. wants to cut anti-terror funds.
The cut would slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters, and rescue depts. across the country by more than half next year, according to budget docs. obtained by the ap.
"...the plan calls for the outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year."
"in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent authorized by the bill."
Enough said.
I believe the following acronym applies when describing the G.O.P. (Government Of the Privileged).
If I do not have a chance beforehand, have a happy new year!
Posted by the74blaster
Blaster, I would agree with what you said and also point out the rise of the corporate funded "think tanks". If you start paying close attention to the so called news stories you will find that these lazy reporters often run to The AEI or Heritage foundation for their two bit opinions. Oh, and a happy new year to you as well.
Posted by omega39,
The Republican party provides a great example of not bitting the hand the feeds you. It would be of interest to see how much the defense contractors have given to put these necons in power.
If you look at talk radio, how many liberal programs do we have to choose from?
On the other hand, I would believe that the conservative talk radio network is very well funded with sponsorships and advertizing from corporations and individuals who benefit from having the GOP in power.
I believe the following acronym applies when describing the G.O.P. (Government Of the Privileged).
If I do not have a chance beforehand, have a happy new year!
Doubya''s father, Bush the First (I can''t bring myself to call him Bush the Greater)Looted the country, but for only four years, with the S&L scam, the first Gulf War and most of all, by his activities with the Carlisle Group.
His father, Prescott Bush had assets seized in August 1942 under the Trading With The Enemy Act.
His father, G.W. bush%u2019s great grandfather, Samuel Bush, through his Yale connections (imagine that) became chief of small arms ordinance procurement during WWI. In1922, when an investigation into some questionable deals with cronies named Harriman and Rockefeller was begun, it was discovered that all records %u2018had been destroyed to make room.%u2019
Can anyone be surprised that this chimp-looking cowardly moron is stealing with both hands?
Have a happy holiday to all.
YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 8
- next
See all 146 Comments