Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill

[bemildred]

Source: Yahoo/AP

WASHINGTON - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech declaring that major combat operations had ended in Iraq.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[Miss Chybil]

1. I thought it was a troop funding bill...

Ah, the media. Gotta love 'em. ... right.

[adamuu]

9. CNN headline..."Bush vetoes 'date for failure' war-spending bill"

"Bush vetoes 'date for failure' war-spending bill"

sigh. www.cnn.com
click on the front page headline and the article itself has a different headline (they are always mixing-and-matching)
"Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable" That's getting more accurate.

Anyway.. .about this post...I have my finger on the recommend button... but i just can't bring myself to do it. That subject line is hideous.

[adamuu]

14. Laughable quote from the CNN article

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html

A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses.

[Fresh_Start]

2. Bush defunds Iraq and leaves troop vulnerable

while allowing Iraq government to take extended vacation.
Of course, chimp is a great believer in long vacations especially if they
allow him to avoid dealing with "bin laden determined to attack in the US"

[goclark]

3. No he didn't talk about prescription for chaos and confusion!

Was he looking in a mirror when he said that one!

[rpannier]

4. It's a Troop FUNDING Bill

scrubbie vetoed a FUNDING Bill.

[bemildred]

5. No offense, but withdrawal or funding, it's all good.

Keep em funded while they are coming home, that's what I say. Give em first class tickets on the best flights. They earned it way more than Bush and his idiot minions.

[alstephenson]

7. FUNDING THE WITHDRAWAL...

NOT WITHDRAWING THE FUNDING.

[rpannier]

13. Sorry

I'm not upset at you.

I'm irritated at the media for continually stating that it's a Bill for Withdrawing Troops.

[bemildred]

15. No problem, I'm not upset with you either.

I understand your frustration.

ABC has a better headline:

Bush vetoes war spending bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would have required him to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq this year, setting up a new showdown with Democratic leaders over funding the war, the White House said.

Bush's veto, only the second of his presidency, came on the four-year anniversary of a speech he delivered announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

His veto of a bill that would fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with $100 billion was a rejection of attempts by Democrats who control the U.S. Congress to force him into a shift in strategy in the unpopular war.

Since Democrats did not appear to have enough votes to muster a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the veto, compromise talks between them and the White House were expected to take place.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3119304

[Rydz777]

6. John Murtha

is just back from Fort Bragg where he says the school kids' performance is being adversely affected by worry about their parents' long absences in Iraq - some with a fourth tour coming up. The Democratic Congress needs to hold firm with 2007 withdrawal dates. Anything less is the real betrayal of the troops. "Benchmarks" are a fraud.

[Kagemusha]

8. What are you people complaining about?... better for the Dems this way.

The public wanted to see a withdrawal bill, not a funding bill. The more the media (rather simplistically) calls it a withdrawal bill, the better! All the Blue Dog resistance gets lost in the shuffle that way, and the party benefits from the appearance in spite of its more stubbornly pro-war members.

[bemildred]

11. Yeah, I'm with you, Make him veto it every week until November 2008. nt

[ShamanaSZ]

12. The content of the bill

Hey, is this the same bill that leaves a mile-wide loophole for people to train iraqi forces, for people to protect above people and other US assets (bases included), AND fight terrorism in case of emergency? Sheesh, how much more does Bush want? That bill can easily allow for at least 40.000 troops in Iraq as long as he wants!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042500273.html - this actually has a mention that some troops will remain. Wow, someone got it right? Nah, can't be.

[Kagemusha]

19. Having read the actual section, I disagree that the terror part is a big loophole

I don't think it's anywhere near as big as people claim. Lieberman was right to say that the Reid proposal would not allow fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq nearly as freely as a full occupation allows at present. That just doesn't happen to be the point of it all.

[ShamanaSZ]

21. Yes and No - mostly no.

Not as freely as now, maybe. However, the way I read it - and the way the war executors will read it, unless they want to intentionally mess up their job - it allows for a nearly unspecified contingent, which can then be boosted by additional troops sent to protect them. That's the best/worse part of it - there's a loophole that boosts any increase in the troops by putting more troops to protect them.

It will involve some pretty slanted reading, perhaps, but that's Washington, D.C. - you will get that slanted reading. Then again, for me the main problem right now is that I see no strategy whatsoever, jut random attacking of the militia closest at hand. Specifying particularly the terrorists/al-Queda as a target might bring some much-needed focus. Mind you, when it comes to counterinsurgency, it's not the army that should be at the forefront, it's the bleep-ing CIA. I hope they won't be putting another "slam dunk" again...

[Kagemusha]

22. I can't quote for certain but I think it's a 'limited basis'.

Something like that. Yes, limited basis is not defined, but good lord, people know what it doesn't mean. If I was a President I'd see it as a restraint too. Of course, when you get down to it, only impeachment can stop a President from abusing laws to his heart's content. But, we are where we are.

[ShamanaSZ]

23. I don't have it at the moment, TBH

but you need to look at who's implementing it. If it's the Army, and they're told to go after Al-Queda, they're going to bend that "limited basis" quite a lot imo. I'm not sure how it will compare to what they do now, but I'm not sure it will be so different.

[Kagemusha]

25. Then it comes down to how much money they have for the process.

So the bottom line is the bottom line.

[superconnected]

10. Guess now we really find out if the Dems are going to stand up for us.

[Roland99]

16. Don't you love that LIBERAL media???

[ShamanaSZ]

17. The New Santa Claus!

Although "Santa" at least drops presents more often than the "liberal" media acts as "liberal".

[cureautismnow]

18. Veto This.

The bastard won't be happy until every last dollar is spent and every last drop of innocent blood is spilled in vain. :grr:

[onehandle]

20. President George W. Bush does NOT support the troops.

If he supported the troops, he would have let the Democratic Congress fund them.

Democrats fund and support the troops. Bush does not.

Plain and simple.

[HuffleClaw]

24. and the chimp pulled his old stunt of blaming al qaeda & 911 for the trouble in iraq

what idiot decided he needed to go on tv to spout this propaganda?

[scarface2004]

26. good...i guess the occupation of iraq is over!!!

we got better things to do with our tax dollars you asshole!!

[sjdnb]

27. CNN Poll

Scroll down to the "Quick Vote"

Currently:

Was President Bush right to veto a war-spending bill that contained a deadline for the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq?

Yes 33% 10621 votes

No 67% 21857 votes

The only way Bush & Co could have pulled this off, would be 1) if people were as ignorant and gullible as they are and/or 2) as ignorant and gullible as they believed them to be!

Fortunately, for the civilized world, the people have once again begun to defer to their 'little grey cells'.

[mvd]

28. Bring it up with benchmarks only

We need a lot more than that, but maybe that will get more Repuke support. Even McConnell conceded that it could. If he vetos that and we can't override, then declare a complete impasse. If Bush wants funds, he needs to at least think about solutions for getting out.