Bush Vetoes Defense Policy Bill

Unexpected Move Centers On Provision That Could Freeze Iraqi Assets In The U.S.

(AP)  President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

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.

[gkc99]

""The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States,"


So Al-Maliki can''t make those big donations to the Darth Bushit retirement fund, no doubt!

This is how deep the Darth Bushit regime "supports our troops", by putting our soldiers in the field at risk for lack of funding because it might get in the way of payoffs to the bagmen of the Darth Bushit regime!

[jumkey]

So reading between the lines here Bush will veto the bill for one or more of the following reasons:

the bill is

1) good for America or Americans
2) good for the world in general
3) fair and equitable
4) a good use of public money
5) bad for the Bush anti-America cabal

That about cover Bush''s motivations?

[gkc99]

So Neoconscums and assorted Bushshytes, why doesn''t the Darth Bushit regime support our troops while we''re at war?

Tell us, we want to know!

[fornicario]

I agree, why is Bush himself bashing the troops?

[demwatcher]

So Neoconscums and assorted Bushshytes, why doesn''''t the Darth Bushit regime support our troops while we''''re at war?

Tell us, we want to know!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by gkc99 at 02:03 PM : Dec 28, 2007

And just WHAT KIND OF SUPPORT would it be to freeze their assets? Hmm? Our troops would have to go back into areas that are under Iraqi control because they would not be able to pay the police on military. We would be stretching our forces at a time when we are seeing significant advances in Iraq.

Use your brain and think the problem through. Or do you just drink knowledge from the kool-aid that your Liberal leadership gives you?

You dumbarse, pea-brained, no-thought-of-your-own, Liberal lemming!

[fornicario]

And just WHAT KIND OF SUPPORT would it be to freeze their assets? Hmm? Our troops would have to go back into areas that are under Iraqi control because they would not be able to pay the police on military. We would be stretching our forces at a time when we are seeing significant advances in Iraq.

Use your brain and think the problem through. Or do you just drink knowledge from the kool-aid that your Liberal leadership gives you?

You dumbarse, pea-brained, no-thought-of-your-own, Liberal lemming!

Posted by DemWatcher

So, the crimes of Saddam Hussein now get a free pass too? What was the point of going there, if the citizens that were oppressed under the ''evil'' regime have no recourse to compensate themselves for the pain they suffered? I guess only corporations have rights anymore.

[demwatcher]

gkc99, Fornicario, fedupwithit1:

Read my last post. It applies to ya''ll as well.

[fornicario]

gkc99, Fornicario, fedupwithit1:

Read my last post. It applies to ya''''ll as well.

Posted by DemWatcher

No, it does not. I am an American, which means I only pay for the mistakes of others. And now Iraqis and Americans have something else in common too, no recourse for any crimes committed by anyone.

[demwatcher]

So, the crimes of Saddam Hussein now get a free pass too? What was the point of going there, if the citizens that were oppressed under the ''''evil'''' regime have no recourse to compensate themselves for the pain they suffered? I guess only corporations have rights anymore.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Fornicario at 02:14 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Hey, dummy. WHO IS LEFT FROM SADDAM''S REGIME? What government are you going to punish for SADDAM''S crimes?

Your point is as stupid as saying that my tax dollars should be used to payoff people that had slaves as ancestors.

I did not own slaves, so why should I have to pay?

This Government in Iraq did not commit the Saddam Regime crimes, so why should they have to pay?

Do we not have laws that protect us from being prosecuted for SOMEONE ELSE''S CRIMES?

YOU ARE SOOOOOO STOOOOOOOOPID!

A typical, dumbarse, Liberal, let''s-have-a-freeforall-for-the-lawyers, lemming idiot!

[fornicario]

Posted by Fornicario at 02:14 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Hey, dummy. WHO IS LEFT FROM SADDAM''''S REGIME? What government are you going to punish for SADDAM''''S crimes?

Your point is as stupid as saying that my tax dollars should be used to payoff people that had slaves as ancestors.

I did not own slaves, so why should I have to pay?

This Government in Iraq did not commit the Saddam Regime crimes, so why should they have to pay?

Do we not have laws that protect us from being prosecuted for SOMEONE ELSE''''S CRIMES?

YOU ARE SOOOOOO STOOOOOOOOPID!

A typical, dumbarse, Liberal, let''''s-have-a-freeforall-for-the-lawyers
, lemming idiot!

Posted by DemWatcher

And by the same token, why should I pay for their war of liberation? I got nothing out of it. Why should I pay a 500 billion dollar tab for a war that does nothing for me?

[fornicario]

What alternate universe are you from sonny?

Dumbarse comment from a dumbarse.

Posted by DemWatcher

A universe where I do not fling insults at other people without reason. Obviously, you have no manners.

[beckajw]

Fornicario
It isn''t the crimes of Saddam getting a free pass. It is allowing a government to have the money it needs to run its country.
Few governments allow themselves to be sued or their funds frozen. This is just leaving that government on an even playing field with everyone else.

It isn''t like they are giving Saddam money. He''s dead, remember?

[fornicario]

Fornicario
It isn''''t the crimes of Saddam getting a free pass. It is allowing a government to have the money it needs to run its country.
Few governments allow themselves to be sued or their funds frozen. This is just leaving that government on an even playing field with everyone else.

It isn''''t like they are giving Saddam money. He''''s dead, remember?

Posted by beckajw

Then what are we paying for? If they have this much money, why do we need to keep paying such huge war bills? And why should they be held above the standards of law? We froze Iraq''s assets back in the first Gulf War, and afterwards. We have frozen many countries'' accounts throughout modern history, and what makes this case different?

[killtheliars]

Actually there are quite a few people from the Sunni regime of Saddam that are in the government, so they should be held responsible. Originally they were to be banned from politics, but the Bush administration quickly realized they were the only ones with the experience to run things. So they can be held accountable.
also if someone was mistreated under Saddam why should they care about who the money comes from, as long as they get paid? If it is ok for big business to think that way the individual should be able to have that attitude as well.
Fornicario has the right idea, as americans why should our tax dollars pay to liberate people in Iraq, what have they ever done or are they going to do for us? Also our so called allies over in the middle east need to learn to fight their own battles, if they can win great if not bye bye, it makes no difference to us here, life will go on either way.

[homespunlady]

From above:
"The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," the leader of the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, both Democrats, said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops'' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."

So, this ISN''T about about FAIRNESS or PROTECTING the BANKS that BLEW THEIR (foreign and domestic) ASSETS on SHAKY mortgages??
But IS supposedly a BACKHANDED POLITICAL TRICK employed by our "fearless leader" in a diversionary move to DRAW ATTENTION FROM the HUGE CRASH of the economy currently being put on the "back burner"!!??

WHO CARES whether someone MIGHT SUE A LONG DEAD DICTATOR! ANY second rate lawyer can delay or have such a suit tossed out anyway!

Too little, TOO late.

Bhutto''s ASSASSINATION has very effectively provided a TEMPORARY DIVERSION of the American VOTER FROM our impending ECONOMIC TITANIC.

HMMM....I wonder...

[skyk-2009]

What alternate universe are you from sonny?

Dumbarse comment from a dumbarse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by DemWatcher at 02:21 PM : Dec 28, 2007
+ report abuse

What''s so Dumbassed about what the poster ask? You fascist do this and It makes no sense. This poster raise''s a REAL question, given that this Administration is consistently hiding behing Executive Privilage and the like. I, as the poster, would like to know why?

[omega39-2009]

Surly Iraq doesn''t need this money, Iraq oil profits were supposed to pay for the entire war and it appears the American taxpayer will be left holding the bag. Since oil is up at $100/barrel, Iraq''s US holdings should be considered a "liberation" fee.

[homespunlady]

to paraphrase W.C Fields I believe - There''s a sucker born every minute.

While the Political Theater is playing the pickpockets (from BOTH political parties) are working the voter crowd.

Keep a sharp eye out for diversions and you hands on your wallets folks.

[mcvet]

A typical, dumbarse, Liberal, let''''s-have-a-freeforall-for-the-lawyers
, lemming idiot!


Posted by DemWatcher at 02:19 PM : Dec 28, 2007
+ report abuse

You have NO idea what the word "Liberal" means there do you Swastika Breath? Anyone who doesn''t march to the fuhrer''s beat is a "liberal" in your small and very insignificant mind isn''t it Sparky? Let me guess, you have been hearing about McCarthy from your task master with the local Nazi Youth? That has to be the case or you would KNOW that all our greatest leaders... all the greats sparky, were LIBERAL. Oh! One more point, they had a fool like you ranting about them then too! Sieg Heil Bush!

[hungry1968]

"The White House contends that legislation would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds..."


...and the amounts that are to be transferred to the private bank accounts of Bush and Cheney.

[fornicario]

Surly Iraq doesn''''t need this money, Iraq oil profits were supposed to pay for the entire war and it appears the American taxpayer will be left holding the bag. Since oil is up at $100/barrel, Iraq''''s US holdings should be considered a "liberation" fee.

Posted by omega39

You see, the government does not want former prisoners of war claiming the money, but no doubt, if Halliburton wants it, they will get as fast as Shrub can sign the Executive Order to allow them to take the money.

[demwatcher]

Posted by MCVet at 02:56 PM : Dec 28, 2007

HA HA HA HA HA!

GOTCHA!

[demwatcher]

We have frozen many countries'''' accounts throughout modern history, and what makes this case different?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Fornicario at 02:31 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Like I said, use your brain and think it through.

It is DIFFERENT because the REGIME that committed the crimes is GONE! NO ONE LEFT TO PUNISH. PERIOD!

Dang, do you need EVERYTHING SPELLED OUT for you?

[homespunlady]

From what I''ve read 25 Billion is a LOT LESS than say what seems to have been "lost" between pallets of missing money and hundreds of thousands of missing weapons and "accidental overcharges" by war profiteers - er - "patriotic contractors".

[demwatcher]

What''''s so Dumbassed about what the poster ask? You fascist do this and It makes no sense. This poster raise''''s a REAL question, given that this Administration is consistently hiding behing Executive Privilage and the like. I, as the poster, would like to know why?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by skyk at 02:48 PM : Dec 28, 2007

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the idiot from the universe next door.

[homespunlady]

Is it 2 or 4 BILLION we''re spending PER WEEK on this WAR OF CHOICE?

[fornicario]

Posted by Fornicario at 02:31 PM : Dec 28, 2007
Like I said, use your brain and think it through.
It is DIFFERENT because the REGIME that committed the crimes is GONE! NO ONE LEFT TO PUNISH. PERIOD!
Dang, do you need EVERYTHING SPELLED OUT for you?
Posted by DemWatcher

Yes, spell out for me why U.S. soldiers held prisoner in the first Gulf war cannot sue for damages due to their captivity? Then tell me why this situation is different then when we looted German bank accounts for war reparations after WWII. Then explain to me why Bush did not bring this up before now, it was all about the ''earmarks''. Then explain to me why, if they had 25 billion dollars in accounts, why we, the American taxpayer, is eating a one billion dollar equipment loss in Iraq, when they can pay for the equipment.

[mudrose-2009]

Yes, spell out for me why U.S. soldiers held prisoner in the first Gulf war cannot sue for damages due to their captivity? Then tell me why this situation is different then when we looted German bank accounts for war reparations after WWII. Then explain to me why Bush did not bring this up before now, it was all about the ''''earmarks''''. Then explain to me why, if they had 25 billion dollars in accounts, why we, the American taxpayer, is eating a one billion dollar equipment loss in Iraq, when they can pay for the equipment.
Posted by Fornicario

There isn''t any explaining to you now is there. See, take it this way, if you bankrupt an economy, you bankrupt all economies. It''s a global economy we''re in and the effects of one economy going under drags the rest. I know you won''t get the analogy or the point because you simply aren''t mentally equipped to. It''s okay. Most Dimnowits aren''t.

[homespunlady]

Is this a bargaining chip so the "contractors" that have been playing "duck shoot" the past few years on the Iraqi civilians "can''t be sued" either??

[fornicario]

There isn''''t any explaining to you now is there. See, take it this way, if you bankrupt an economy, you bankrupt all economies. It''''s a global economy we''''re in and the effects of one economy going under drags the rest. I know you won''''t get the analogy or the point because you simply aren''''t mentally equipped to. It''''s okay. Most Dimnowits aren''''t.

Posted by mudrose

So back when the Asian markets detonated, we didn''t help them why? After all, according to your market theory, we should have bailed them out too, yet we did not. What about our economy? It''s fading fast, at least according to the spending index and new home index, yet no one is stepping in to bail us out. Yet to save the ''global economy'' you are willing to abrogate the rights of Americans, not Iraqis, Americans who served in the first Gulf War and were held as prisoners of war. So, how does that help the troops? By telling them that being captured means you will never have the right to sue your captor, because they can''t afford it?

[fornicario]

Oh, and since I have yet to hurl a insult today, I would appreciate it if you held yours too. I don''t like debating facts while I''m being insulted for no reason.

[homespunlady]

I''ve noticed when someone DOESN''T have valid reasoning to back what they profess on this board they often resort to rudeness and name-calling as a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC.

IF that describes you - please think through what you''re claiming and come back when you can provide something valid.

Name-calling simply means you''ve already lost the debate.

[pakaal]

More evidence that Bush doesn''t even know what''s going on. "What? There''s stuff in that there bill that y''all think I won''t agree with? Why didntcha say so before? Where''s my veto pen?"

What a maroon.

PS Fornicario, don''t sweat Mudrose. That one''s been posting irrationalities on CBS.com for like, forever. I like the bit about "bankrupting one economy bankrupts all economies." Funny how our crushing Iraq''s economy flat (what was left of it) didn''t result in world economic collapse, despite that whole "global economy" thang.

Bottom line, Mudrose needs to take a remedial class in macroeconomics.

[neobrian-2009]

Another ''Shrub Nyet"
Shrub NEVER knew what a veto was until 2007.
He accuses of " Do Nothing " Talk About a TOTAL IDIOT ! W Never ceases to amaze the people that he has betrayed.Makes you wonder what he`ll do when Our Country is freed on January 20,2009.

[lemonskink]

If Iraq has billions in assets in the US banking system and are threatening to withdraw it all, my question is then why is the US taxpayer paying over a billion dollars a week to "defend" Iraq? Another Bush ripoff going on here folks.

www.ronnierayjenkins.com

[fornicario]

A VERY good question. Why can''t they pay the cost?

[bluestardad]

HEY AMERICA YOU LET THIS CHIMP AND HIS ISRAELI NEOCONS RUN YOUR COUNTRY..

STAND UP AND EXERCISE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR SHUT UP!

[fornicario]

HEY AMERICA YOU LET THIS CHIMP AND HIS ISRAELI NEOCONS RUN YOUR COUNTRY..

STAND UP AND EXERCISE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR SHUT UP!

Posted by bluestardad

Slow down boss, no need to get riled up here.

[Krazcarl]

If you believe this national lier and idiot I have high ground in Fl. cheap real cheap ,this is the biggest lier to hit the stage since Nixon and worse.

[homespunlady]

to paraphrase W.C Fields I believe - There''s a sucker born every minute.

While the Smoke and Mirrors Political Theater is playing, the pickpockets (from BOTH political parties) are working the voter crowd.

Keep a sharp eye out for diversions and your hands on your wallets folks.

We''re in for a rough Economic Ride.

Bin Laden SAID he wanted to destroy the American Economy.
Who would have thought George would playing Santa to Bin Laden and playing the GRINCH to our TROOPS!

Maybe the Grinch stole the troops and American Home-owner''s Christmas this year but Bin Laden seems to be getting EVERYTHING on HIS list to Santa.

[fstop100]

Must be something in it for the *** and George Show.

[marcodele]

Apparently Junior wants to be immune from lawsuits surrounding the damage he has done. What a charmed life he''s had.

I can''t wait to see who the idiot right wing neocon Limbaugh lemmings give us in 2008.

[tomar0317]

I have always liked the idea if Irag wants us in their country they should be flipping the bill not the US taxpayers. Actually, this should be the case for any country desiring our help. Pay the way just like we do here.

[gkc99]

"Hey, lib jerks.
How many of you can''''t research before you spout off on your sad and tired rhetoric? All of you, it seems."


Hey fascist *******! Why don''t you take your tired old lies back to *** News where some of the brain-damaged droolers might actually believe them?

Bushit preaches about backing the military, but when it cuts into his bribery and kickback opportunities, pull out the veto pen!

And why this wait until the last moment? Another Karl Rove trick from the shadows to keep anyone from investigating too closely?

[gkc99]

"Hey, d1ckless wonderboy, go spread you delusions somewhere else. These quotes are from this article on the CBS website, ignorant jack-a$$"--Posted by TheGateway1


Hey brainless Coulter-jerker! Your Bushit hero''s lies and incompetence are apparent to about 90% of the population. How come you''re part of the retarded 10%? Time to pull your head out of your a$$!

[gkc99]

Must be Bushit''s puppet masters got Howdy Doody to veto the bill because they want plenty of money for them to steal from Iraq''s future oil income, you know, those great investment opportunities for Americans with connections in the Darth Bushit administration.

[neobrian-2009]

The aftermath of the war promises equal if not greater riches. Even if the new Iraqi government maintains nominal state control of its oil industry, there are still untold billions to be made in PSAs for drilling, refining, distributing, servicing and securing oilfields and pipelines. Likewise, the new Iraqi military and police forces will require billions more in weapons, equipment and training, bought from the US arms industry - and from the fast-expanding "private security" industry, the politically hard-wired mercenary forces that are the power elite''s latest lucrative spin-off. And as with Saudi Arabia, oil money from the new Iraq will pump untold billions into American banks and investment houses

[gkc99]

"what laws have the President broken?
Show me ONE, or shut the h3ll up, you lying, ***-breathed, bvttlicking Clintonite. "--Posted by TheGateway1


For starters, Bushit breaks the laws of nature every time he visits the cows in his pasture in Texas he has trained to back up to the stumps for him.

So stuff that up your ***, swaggering Neoconscum **********!

[creeper00]

This is an ambush, plain and simple. Bush is thumbing his nose at Congress and proclaiming to the American people what a tough guy he is.

Tough, maybe. Stupid, for sure.

[neobrian-2009]

George W Bush, 750 laws broken and counting
George W. Bush is the first u.s. president to declare himself exempt from over 750 U.S. laws, sidestepping most of the bill of rights including the constitutional requirement that the president follow all laws. Yes, they mentioned it specifically to suppress tyranny.
Reference: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/b