Print

---

Bush to veto funding for the troops
Posted December 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink
The president went nearly six years in office without vetoing a single bill,
but has now had seven - including funding the war in Iraq, stem-cell
research (twice), and healthcare for low-income kids (twice). In each
instance, lawmakers were well aware of the White House's opposition, but
passed the bills anyway, hoping Bush would either change his mind or they
could override the veto.
Which is what makes today's news so odd.
At the behest of the Iraqi government, President Bush will veto the annual
defense authorization bill, saying an obscure provision in the legislation
could make Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks vulnerable to lawsuits.
The veto threat startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush
is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a technical provision
in the bill. The veto is unexpected because there was no veto threat and the
legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.
Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out,
but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, military pay raises may be
on hold, as well as dozens of other programs.
This is just bizarre. If the provision of the bill was so offensive, why
didn't the White House, which was aware of the legislation's progress as it
passed, say something sooner?
As the AP noted, "sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in
U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq
was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq
was exempt from such lawsuits."
So, what's the problem here?

Apparently, the Maliki government was threatening to withdraw its $25
billion in assets held in U.S. banks, under the impression that the funds
would be vulnerable to lawsuits. The White House, anxious to make Maliki
happy, will oblige by rejecting the funding bill.
The legislation would permit plaintiffs' lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi
funds and would expose Iraq to "massive liability in lawsuits concerning the
misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime," said White House spokesman Scott
Stanzel.
"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," Stanzel said in a statement.
It sounds like the Maliki administration is overreacting, the Bush
administration dropped the ball, and U.S. troops will feel the consequences.
Indeed, vetoing the defense authorization bill puts a variety of spending
measures in limbo, including a pay raise for the troops, VA care for wounded
veterans, a new "Truman Commission" to fight fraud and waste by military
contractors, and expanded job protections for family members of severely
wounded troops.
What a mess.

Discussion
What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own
weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.
20 Comments
1.
On December 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm, Dale said:
Well the obvious solution is to immediately freeze all Iraqi assets in
American banks. I suspect that the real entities that are threatened by the
possibility are American contractors in Iraq aka Bush Buddies.
2.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm, lib4 said:
Why does GWB hate our troops.
3.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm, beep52 said:
In other words, Bush disdain for Congress is such that he'll side with the
Iraqi government before siding with America's elected representatives?
4.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:10 pm, Thomas Allen said:
Gosh! This legislation sure gives "plaintiffs' lawyers" a whole lot of power
that would generally be held by the Judiciary branch of the US government.
5.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm, Ohioan said:
Bush will bow to the demands of Maliki and the contractors; Reid will
eventually bow to the demands of Bush. Nothing to see here.
6.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm, Ohioan said:
beep52 - It's worse than that. Bush sides with Maliki over potential
plaintiffs - most prominently, AMERICAN POWs.!
7.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:20 pm, The Answer is Orange said:
Heh. Maybe that $25 b is all that stands between us and complete economic
collapse. Oh wait, I see the problem:
a new "Truman Commission" to fight fraud and waste by military contractors
Bet you $25 b this bill will go through when that provision goes out.
8.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm, toowearyforoutrage said:
new "Truman Commission" to fight fraud and waste by military contractors,
Look for THIS part to vanish from the next bill.
Without fraud, how can the contractors afford massive GOP donations after
the convention?
Honest profits just aren't enough.
9.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm, just bill said:
here's a thought. let bush veto the bill. and then congress should just let
the veto stand.
bush's fault.
(yeah, simplistic, i know. but doesn't it make the point?)
10.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm, lyn5 said:
Isn't favoring a foreign government over American troops anti-American?
11.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pm, Dee Loralei said:
I'm with TAiO @#7. It's the Truman Commission thing that rankles Cheney,
Bush etc. They hated it when it was out in, but couldn't figure out a way to
demand it be withdrawn and save face. The Maliki request is just a handy
dandy excuse to sabotage the entire thing.
If and when the new spending bill is passed, furiously and furitively behind
the scenes manipulations will ensue, leaving out the Truman Commission part
of it. I'd bet money on that.
And no one, but a few lefty bloggers will know about it or remember it.
12.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm, eeyore said:
Why doesn't Shrub just issue a "Signing Statement" ignoring the pesky little
provision?
13.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:41 pm, petorado said:
Maliki is obviously a good student of preemptive actions. There is either
the link with his government and corrupt practices involving US contractors,
which will hopefully one day be short-circuited by oversight, or Maliki is
planning on being more repressive to minority populations and doesn't want
the flow of funds diminished when his Interior Ministry troops become more
aggressive with his political and ethnic foes. Maliki is not honest or a
good leader, but he has taken notes on brazenness from his American
counterparts.
14.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm, Tom Cleaver said:
#7 and #11 have come through with the truth. It's getting so these
motherfrakkers are so obvious all you have to do is look at what part of any
bill will harm the criminal conspiracy they run.
Dick Cheney is the single most pernicious individual to ever have a role in
government. Once he's out of office and we don't have to worry about
impeachment, just try him on conspiracy to commit treason. Every damn thing
he did every day he was in office is an element of the crime. God I wish he'd
do us all the favor of having his damn fatal heart attack sooner rather than
later. I just want to see him dead.
15.
On December 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pm, Zeitgeist said:
Isn't this the same crowd who runs elections chastising Democrats about the
UN and WTO for "giving up our national sovereignty" and who specifically
slammed Kerry for allegedly wanting to "ask other countries for permission"
before taking actions? And now they abdicate the veto pen to a foreign head
of state? Wow, I didn't realize hypocrisy could be taken to such a level.
16.
On December 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm, bjobotts said:
For democrats to call to question any provision that might suggest WH
involvement in criminal activities then they would have to do something
about it like impeach and they have already promised not to impeach so they
will allow anything Bush wants. There will never be impeachment or
accountability for anyone in this administration. You watch.in '09 it will
be "forget the past we must move forward to heal our nation". Doesn't it
just make you sick to your stomach
WE are being forced into this by our elected non-representatives because
they know there is nothing we can do about it. Vote for lying dems who will
ignore their constituents or vote for an even more vile republican.
The DoD has enough pocket money to pay for its expenses for 6mos so there is
no need to delay pay raises or any other military expense. The WH is not
only corrupt but incompetent.they knew what was in the bill and wait till
now to say anything about it thus the whole legislative process now must be
redone because the WH didn't do their job. And they say impeachment would
take up time and be distracting. Can we say GOOBERS?
17.
On December 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm, W.B.N. said:
"You watch.in '09 it will be "forget the past we must move forward to heal
our nation". Doesn't it just make you sick to your stomach"
'09 will the year that the Republicans will start calling for the
impeachment of the Democratic president - again.
18.
On December 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm, OkieFromMuskogee said:
Announced on Friday afternoon, everyone heading out for a big New Year's
weekend. Veto to take place on New Year's Eve. A "stealth" veto.
Who in the hell does George W. Bush work for? It surely isn't the American
people. I really don't buy into most conspiracy theories, but WHY HAS IRAQ
BEEN THE CENTER OF BUSH'S ATTENTION FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS?
19.
On December 28th, 2007 at 5:54 pm, Elsie said:
I just read an article:
"Bush announced he would scuttle the bill with a "pocket veto" -
essentially, letting the bill die without his signature 10 days after he
received it, or the end of Dec. 31."
The article goes on to say that "But that can happen only when Congress is
not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10
days." But "The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned."
So there is now controversy - he can say that he didn't "veto" it but rather
let it die - to go back again. Congress/Senate can say - nope it's law.
Show down?
20.
On December 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm, CalD said:
Can anyone tell me what the aforementioned "technical provision" was doing
in the damned defense appropriations bill anyway? Who's idea was that?
Of course on the up-side, it sounds like kind of a spurious, throw-away
rider. I guess if they pulled just it, Bush would have to come up with a new
excuse not to sign the bill. Perhaps there's method to their madness.
Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn