Bush Vetoes Defense Policy Bill

(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.

[samsel3]

On September 14,2002 Rep. James McDermott at a Capitol Hill Briefing said that politics and oil, not fear that Iraq will use WMD are driving factors behind the presidents call for regime change. McDermott said there was an organized effort to squelch such discussions. "The political operatives in the white house have been very careful to spin it away from oil. Anytime anybody sees a connection they spin it the other way". These plans were formulated by members of the Council for National Policy and members of the PNAC both secretive private organisations representing some 200 of the wealthiest men in the United States. Global control of business without any worldly government interfering is there agenda. They are in control not the people.

[david1737]

W and the rest of the GOP believes that Govt. doesn''t work.

They (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!

[abbe91]

"jon2012,,,, Impeachment won''''t happen I''''m afraid.. But, the House still has the power to convict.

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

[vincan-2009]

This just shows how much Bush cares about anyone but the rich. The military are finally getting to understand that Bush doesn''t give a high hoe about them. Sadly he would listen to the Iraqi government more than any Americans.

[samsel3]

When you take the oathe of office for the highest position in the land, you swear to uphold the constitution and protect it, not trample on it or try to dismantle it. You don''t use the power for dishonest gain so your backers and buds can make landslide profit''s exporting american jobs and production so that a few can fill there pockets with money at the expense of Americans. Thats not America, it is only greed and the love of money.............

[j-whitman]

jon2012,,,, Impeachment won''t happen I''m afraid.. But, the House still has the power to convict.

[amazedd]

Balking Vampires, Robin!

[jon2012-2009]

But hey, at least the members of our military, whom our President wants to fully support, will be getting a smaller pay raise thanks to... the President. Where''''s the irony in these statement: We will go to war against Iraq for being complicit in 9/11; we will not hold Iraq accountable by litigation for 9/11. With Bush, it''''s always shoot first, ask questions later.
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.

[firststate]

"in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.

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.

[omega39-2009]

"...the plan calls for the outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year."

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.