Bush Vetoes Dem War Funding Bill
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 06:17PM Bottom Line Up Front: Pres. Bush used the second veto of his presidency rejecting the Democratic war funding bill which required a troop withdrawal by the end of 2007 with all troops out of Iraq in a year.
HOOAH! The war funding bill with a withdrawal date was VETOED.
Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and the Democrats are bitter and angry that their supposed mandate on the war in Iraq keeps failing. They managed to pass bills in the House and Senate, after loading them down with unrelated pork to ensure passage (who wants to vote against Katrina aid?), but knew the bill would be vetoed by the President. If the Democrats really had a mandate on Iraq, they would have been able to pass their bill without the pork. If they really had a mandate on Iraq, they would be able to override the President’s veto. DOH!
When Biden was asked what Congress should do with the veto, he replied:
“The idea that we’re not building new Humvees with the V-shaped things is just crap. Kids are dying that don’t have to die. Second thing is, we’re going to shove it down his throat.”
That was Senatorial. I’m fully anticipating a threat to beat the President up after school, too.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1035557
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (21)
Interesting choice of words, Amy. Mr. Bush claimed he had a "mandate" when in 2000 he lost the popular vote and, by the grace of the Supreme Court, barely won the electoral college vote. And in 2004 when he finally did win the popular vote--but just barely--he not only claimed to have a mandate, he claimed he had a lot of "political capital" and said he intended to spend it. What a spendthrift he turned out to be.
Having gained 30 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate last November, the Democrats may be stretching the claim of having a mandate, but that has nothing to do with their being unable to override a veto. Republican party loyalty is the real key. The Republicans in Congress, anguished as they are about the damange being done to their electoral prospects next year, so far are not willing to buck Mr Bush or their leadership.
So, your claim that regarding the Democrats' failing to have a "real mandate on Iraq" is irrelevant to the issue of whether they can override a veto. Mandates come from the people, not Congress, and all you have to do is look at recent polls to see what a large majority of Americans think of this foolish war.
GREAT POST Amy!!! We all just voted for it on RCP, it was 5 minutes after their ususal update but I am looking forward to seeing it on the front page next update.
As usual, spot on and yes wasn't Biden very "senatorial" there?
They are just having temper tantrums because they showed extreme stupidity and the president stole their lil thunder from the "ceremony"they had planned out for todays grandstanding.
Pushing through a bill that you know will be vetoed IF you have the votes to override it is simple process, BUT, shoving through a bill that you know will be vetoed KNOWING and having already admitted that you do not have the votes to override the veto is the height of stupidity.
To JGB, to even think of comparing a general election to a "midterm" election just goes to show how pathetic that argument is considering the midterm consists of millions of fewer votes.
Ya'll are funny!!!!!!
Again Amy, GREAT POST!!!!
I like the liberals placing peanut farming spending initiative and all other types of non-war related initiative into the bill. All these buried initiative are pay-packs to their campaign supporters in their state and they want to take money form the overall army and repay their campaign donors corporations with the American’s money. Isn’t Politics sweet?
Ole Slo Joe Biden, open mouth and insert both feet to the knees, he knows they don't have the votes. They can't even bribe their way to losing in Iraq. The veto is unbeatable. I dare them to Read Mike Yon's latest and then abandon those folks. The kids are incredible and their parents doting and wanting to raise them in peaceful,clean, safe neighborhoods and are happy to see our GIs and even more happy when they are staying to provide that security, winning hearts and minds one door knock at a time.
Pelosi wasted no time in getting out her email condemning the veto and blaming it all Bush, naturally. Of course, she doesn't mention all the pork stuffed into the bill and not one extra dime for veterans care, which she prominently mentions would have been provided for, just give the country a retreat. The email;
Funny was the "nearly 60,000 signatures on their petition. Given the current population of the country, that amounts to about .0002% of the citizens that allegedly signed it. Not exactly what I would call a mandate, LOL.
Please notice what was NOT said in that letter:
"Our bill achieved exactly what the American people elected us to do in November 2006. It would have fully funded troops on the ground, started to bring them home responsibly, held President Bush accountable, and ensured our veterans get the treatment they deserve back home."
There is not a single word about securing Iraq, defeating enemies of democracy, stopping the killing of Iraqi children, protecting American interests, standing by commitments, or assuring that we will win so that the 3,000 deaths are not meaningless.
The American people may want to see progress, they may want a change of strategy. They do not want a new direction that gets us shot in the rear end as we surrender.
Good point, Robert.
Democrats are acting like powerhungry contestants on the Apprentice.
As if the Republicans didn't lard all spending bills with pork over the previous 12 years! Have you all forgotten Sen Ted Stevens's $250 million "bridge to nowhere"? Or all the Jack Abramoff-inspired pork?
And interesting that you're cherry-picking your data. Do you really think that most of the citizens of this country remain behind the war? Polls--even Republican polls--show that more than 60% of the country thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction. Roughly the same percentage disapproves of Mr Bush's handling of his job. A greater percentage disapprove of his handling of the war. Almost 60% think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
You can snark all you wish at the Democrats' failure to override the veto, can fault the bill's pork (ignoring the Republicans' mastery at porking bills), can fault the micro numbers of Peolsi's cited petition, but come on. Look at the macro level. Public opinion has turned big-time on this war. Any view otherwise is as delusional as Mr Bush's views.
"You can snark all you wish at the Democrats' failure to override the veto, can fault the bill's pork (ignoring the Republicans' mastery at porking bills), can fault the micro numbers of Peolsi's cited petition, but come on. Look at the macro level. Public opinion has turned big-time on this war. Any view otherwise is as delusional as Mr Bush's views."
For the sake of the argument of Public Opinion has turned against Bush and the Iraq War have you ever looked at the reasons why? Or did you just swallow whole the tripe the leading Democrats in Congress are serving you? When BushI was president, it was well known. When Clinton was president it was well known. During BushII's first term it was well known.
After his reelection, suddenly... He LIED!" My god, we should impeach him!!!! He misled us!!! He got us into an illegal war!!!! He did it for pay back!!! There were no connections with Al Qaeda!!! There were no WMDs!!!!
And people are memory impaired enough to swallow it without ever going back to check the history, the intelligence reports, and steps that led up to it because that's what we pay the politicians to do, right?
But it's all good. Bring the troops home, admit defeat, let chaos reign over there and when they build their forces back up, while they're sneaking operatives across our open borders, setting up mosques for radical Islamists, laundering money to send back to the Middle East to hit us again and again, who cares? We can still "feel" safe in the meantime, right?
Bush didn't lie to us about the reason for war- He told us (and we saw congressional testimony ot htis fact) that 100's of 1000's of Iraqis were being murdered by one of thew worst human rights violators in a long long time- We went there to liberate a people from a brutal brutal madman and that is exactly what our troops accomplished and what EVERYONE in congress agreed had to be done! I keep seeing the accusation of 'there were no wmds'' so freeging what? Who cares that we haven';t been able to find them after Saddam had PLENTY of time to send them out of the country? Did the lives of trhe millions of Iraqis mean nothign now that we couldn't find Wmd's? Should our government have continued to turn a blind eye to millions of desp[erate Iraqis who were being murdered under a brutal dictator who demonstrated consistently that he was capable of committing the mosty heinous acts of human rights abuses on his own people and other people & eventually us as well? What would we have said if Saddam did in fact turn his wmd's on us? "Whoops?" or would that be Bush's fault as well had that happened? For htose who claim this was an 'illegal war'- tell me right now, did a massive genocide mean nothign to you? Are you saying the freedom of millions of Iraqi's wasn't worth it?
"For the sake of the argument of Public Opinion has turned against Bush and the Iraq War have you ever looked at the reasons why?"
Well, yes, of course I looked at the reasons:
1. The basis of the war turned out to be fabricated, based on the thinnnest evidence (remember "Curveball"?), most of which had been refuted by apolitical analysts in the CIA. Was Colin Powell's presentation to the UN about Sadaam's murdering his own people? No, it was about the WMD threat.
2. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld bungled every aspect of the war after the invasion but continued to insist that the war was won and the insurgent "dead-enders" were in their "final throes." Given that, why would Bush and Cheney have any credibility now?
3. Bush squandered the nation's reputation and alienated most of the rest of the world. After 9/11, we had the compassion and support of most of the world. Today, we are isolated and the Administration is reviled, not just by the jihadists but by most of our former allies. After the revelations of torture and extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo, they say we have turned from the moral high road.
4. Incompetence. Day after day after day (Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed, and on and on), Mr Bush has shown that he surrounded himself with people as incompetent as himself. The American public will go back and forth on policies and ideology, but we all demand and expect basic competence from our presidents.
I could go on, but you've heard it all before. And it's all still true.
It's distressing that many Republicans remain so prideful in this dire situation. It's clear Bush was told there were no WMDS. He was told the enriched uranium yellow cake was probably a hoax. He was told that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He worked to hide those comments, dismissed people, outed our own special agents. The man is reprehensible. A little humility would go a long way toward a compromise in this case, but Republicans will never do that because of their pride. Democrats don't need to be told this is a dire situation. We understand the value of live. It is the Republicans with their idealized view of war and the "American Way" that need to learn. I'm willing to bet a compromise could be reached because this is a bad situation, but it would take a real mea culpa from the Republicans to make it happen. It won't happen...too much arrogance.
War is dire. That's a fact. But this is a totally winnable war. The US is executing a very good counterinsurgency. This isn't something that happens overnight.
I don't understand why people act so concerned about soldiers as if they want to be saved by non-military, anti-war sympathizers. It doesn't make any sense. No extra money is coming out of anyone's bank account, people who don't want to go to war don't have to enlist, and if people are REALLY so concerned about America's reputation in the world we need to tighten up our morals and stop exporting Madonna and Britney Spears around the world. And Rap. And abortion. And porn.
9/11 was not the reason we got Saddam. There had been a policy of regime change in Iraq for 13 years at the time we invaded. The uranium story out of Nigeria was NOT a hoax; even Joe Wilson admitted in the 2005 Senate Intellegence Committee on Pre-War intell that the Nigerian Prime Minister said an Iraqi convoy attempted to procure uranium but he sent them away empty-handed.
Saddam’s former #2 Air Force official GEN Georges and Khidhir Hamza, the highest-ranking Iraqi scientist ever to defect, both have consistently reported that Saddam was indeed developing and had some WMD.
Former Israeli PM in 2003 said he believed Saddam moved WMD to Damascus, Syria.
There's no doubt Saddam was trying to develop WMD, particuarly based on his past record. He had to be stopped by no one was man enough to do it.
There was an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection, but that wasn't the reason we went into Iraq, either. The DOD IG said there was no OPERATIONAL relationship, but that a relationship existed. Bin Laden and Saddam weren't coordinating 9/11 by any stretch of the imagination, but it's niave to suggest Saddam wasn't happy about it.
9/11 was the last straw. It helped America prioritize.
This was is not over by a long shot. It is not a disaster, it is not lost unless we pull out before it's time. We might need to spend another few years in Iraq with a substantial presense but after that, another 6-8 years (or less) with a much lighter presence. If soldiers want to finish this job and are volunteering to do it, and the reenlistment rate for soldiers serving in Iraq is through the roof, who are DC politicians to deny them the opportunity?
Granted Amy Saddam was a bad guy. He was not, however a member or supporter of Al Quada or the Taliban. Certainly he needed to go. However, you must admit those were not the reasons we were given to support the war. We were told there definitely were WMDS. We were told there was a relationship to the people who perpertrated 9/11. In fact some Republicans still seem to believe those things are true. Witness your statement. I prefer to go with the findings of the 9/11 Commision and the CIA. Yes the enriched uranium existed but it never got into or ever had a chance to get into Iraq. As for your assertion that new recruiting is "through the roof". I guess that's why our troops are, in many cases being asked to return for a third and fourth tour of duty in Iraq.
It may be important we remain in Iraq. As for how winable it is. Well we've heard that story before. As I said, a little mea culpa would help but you proved my thesis about profound arrogance. No one has any ideas in your book except other Republicans. I suppose the blank check in Iraq will remain for another year and a half, then god willing we can return to a government for everyone, not just a minority of powerful Republicans.
I challenge your assertion, Amy, that "no extra money is coming out of anyone's bank account." It is coming out of the bank accounts of our children, maybe even of ourselves, because the government continues to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, to borrow enormous amounts of money from China (making us very vulnerable to that less-than-friendly country) and from other countries around the world. If you went out and bought an expensive car, borrowing all the money to do so, would you shrug and say that it's okay because the money didn't come out of your bank account?
I also challenge your focus on regime change in Iraq, which was no more threat to us than North Korea and was much less a threat than Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. And of course, if ridding other countries of despotic leaders is now the primary basis of our invading those countries, I guess we should also invade Sudan, Nigeria, Mayanmar, Pakistan, and numerous others. No, clearly, the American public never would have supported the invasion of Iraq if Bush, Cheney, et al hadn't hyped the claim that Iraq was developing (not wanting to develop) nuclear weapons. Claiming that it was sold to us on the basis of regime change is pure historical revisionism.
You say, "...if people are REALLY so concerned about America's reputation in the world we need to tighten up our morals and stop exporting Madonna and Britney Spears around the world. And Rap. And abortion. And porn." This argument uses the fallacy of logic called "either-or" (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). Being concerned about one problem does not mean we can't be concerned about another problem. We should be concerned about all aspects of America's reputation--though I dare say Mr Bush has done far more to damage our reputation than sorry figures like Madonna and Britney.
lequino said "We understand the value of live." Really? Who's lives? Just our own? I askedcin my previous post how anyone could say we shouldn't have goen into Iraq solely ofr the sake of taking out hte worst human rights violator of all time practically, and I guess I got my answer- The left cares only about themselves evidently. To heck with Iraqis- let them eat dirt for all you care eh? Because that's exactly what is goign ot happen if we abandon the continuing ongoing push for freedom secured (Which I might remind you lefties that it took 200 years in this country to secure freedom securities with many ACTUAL civil wars instead of the CIVIL UNREASTS that we see in Iraq)
Our soldiers are doing a MUCH better job securing freedom for Iraq as quickly as they arew compared with how long it took us here in Amercia to secure those same freedoms!!! P.S pop quiz- how many Americans were killed in the various wars that were waged in America while we fought for freedom? 3000+? No- much much more! And we didn't have roadside bombs and suicide bombers to contend with back then either- I'd say our soldiers are doing an absolutely fabulous job of securing Iraq despite all the leftist whining about how badly things are supposedly going over there and how much of a quagmire it is- sigh!
Leguino- one more point- you place all the blame on Bush yet the whole international comunity were absolutely convinced there were WMD's but again, it's just Bush's fault, right? And of course, going to war to free people from a brutal dictator wasn't a ligit reason, right? Guess we shouldn't have goen to war against Hitler either huh?
And psst- Leguino- While Clinton was in office he made the EXACT same statements about Saddam having wmd's, His wife made the same remarks, GW1 made the same remarks, the whole world made the same remarks, but apparently, only GW2 is to blame? Amazing! Yup- a vast 'right wing conspiracy' I tell you! Cripes! Oh, anmd perhaps head on over to free republic.com for all the evidence you need showing saddam most certainly DID have conections with AQ and terrorism and also note the recent announcement that documents showing those connections and wMD'S were just released to public- and also note the article proving the Baker report intentionally and deceitfully hid certain information about wmd's and terror connections when the evidence was plain as day. They just got another Iraqi top secret stash of evidence showing Saddam most certainly WAS producing wmds!
But that's NOT even the crux of this whole issue- the fact is that Iraqi's NEEDED our help because they were being slaughtered in cold blood by the millions with WMD'S!!!- that in and of itself was JUSTIFICATION enough for ANY war action against saddam!!!! The ONLY way you even have an iota of an argument is IF you can discredit any of that!
Geese, some of you nutcases will go to all ends, to defend your messiahs huh? I can understand how difficult a task it must be to be defending a moving target of "evidence". First came the, "ohh noo the big boogey man has WMD"s and he was eating yellow cake.....mmmm lets get emm" theory, then it was, ohhh well the "Iraqis needed our help, so good thing we yankees were around!!". I am not sure if you clowns are fooling anyone, but you sure seem adament trying. If you're trying to convince the world that war is a noble cause, at least stick to one story line, instead of throwing around plethora of conconcted theories, in the hope that one will somehow get through the cracks of reason.
"Nutcases" "defend your messiahs", "you clowns"...
In my experience, people who get frustrated at someone else's moral resolve tend to denegrate themselves with this sort of language. It's symptomatic of a lack of a good argument as well.
Thanks for the post, http://www.wewintheylose.com/, sign up for victory!
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.