US News
Bush vetoes Iraq pullout timetable in clash with Congress (Roundup)
By Mike McCarthy and Tony Czuczka May 1, 2007, 23:19 GMT
U.S. President George W. Bush announces that he has vetoed the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill as he speaks at the White House in Washington May 1, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Washington - US President George W Bush, following through on his promise, vetoed Tuesday a war spending bill that would have forced him to start withdrawing US troops from Iraq by October.
The veto came hours after Democratic Party leaders sent the 124- billion-dollar measure to the White House with the pullout deadlines, capping a well-choreographed showdown four years after he famously declared an end to 'major combat operations' in Iraq.
Speaking minutes after rejecting the bill, Bush said he cannot accept a 'rigid' deadline that would send the wrong message to US troops on the ground, encourage terrorists and place 'impossible conditions' on military commanders. The bill called for US troops to be out of Iraq by April 2008.
'Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible,' Bush said at the White House, while accusing Democrats of using the funding issue to make political hay.
He called on Congress to send him a new bill quickly without deadlines. Democratic and Republican leaders were to meet Bush at the White House Wednesday to try to work out their differences.
'I'm confident that with good will on both sides we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need, as soon as possible,' Bush said. 'The need to act is urgent.'
Bush warned that with money running out, the Pentagon will have to scramble from other accounts to continue fighting the war. He has sought to portray the Democrats as abandoning US soldiers locked in the middle of a war.
But polls show most Americans have turned against the conflict and want the White House to set a timeframe for removing US soldiers. Democrats might persuade Bush to keep language in a new bill that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and political reconciliation.
Both houses of Congress narrowly passed the defence bill last week, and Democrats vowed to continue fighting the White House to force Bush to change his approach in Iraq.
Responding to Bush's comments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the president must now provide a plan for ending the US role in the war.
'If the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,' Reid said.
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, accused Bush of failing to listen to the message sent by American voters who in November handed control of Congress to the Democrats.
'The president wants a blank cheque,' Pelosi said. 'The Congress is not going to give it to him.'
Bush in January ordered an extra 21,000 US troops to Iraq to bolster the 140,000 already in place, seeking to curb sectarian killings and bolster the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki.
Bush cited progress in reducing sectarian killing and breaking up terrorists cells, and urged Americans to wait at least until the end of the summer to determine if his revised strategy was succeeding.
Earlier Tuesday, he travelled to the US military's Central Command in Florida, which runs US military operations in the Middle East, to make his case for a continued US presence in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda 'is playing a major role' in the Iraq violence, Bush said in a speech that evoked the 20th-century struggles against Nazism and communism. 'We must stay on the offence. We must defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them in our countries,' he said.
On May 1, 2003, Bush, dressed in a military flight suit, flew to a US aircraft carrier off the coast of California and announced under a triumphant banner reading 'Mission Accomplished' that 'major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'
Critics have held up the declaration as a symbol of US failure as forces struggled to halt the insurgency and bloodshed that would soon engulf Iraq.
The veto marked only the second time Bush has exercised his constitutional authority since Democrats won control of Congress in November on a platform calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. He has used his veto only once since taking office in 2001, on a stem-cell research measure passed in 2006 when his Republicans controlled Congress.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
good for you uncle george.
im proud of you you showed them who's boss and who's running the show.
whats a dead soilder now and then.keep up the good work
There is only one solution to the LIARS BUSH and CHENEY, to impeach them. They have brought nothing but voilence and mockery to USA.
...but first go find anyone in Congress with a backbone to do it...
By now, even the worst libnazi knows, all the backbone is at 1600 PA ave.
Bush: Try that ham Harry,it's from Virginia! I won't even eat a ham from another state, boy. Ever eat them chickens from Arkansas, they lie even when they're dead...at least about Whitewater... heh heh....it's a joke Harry. Karl Rove told it t me. I just love it there boy!
Reid: Yes sir, I see the humor. Sir, I've got a problem...
Bush: What can I do for ya boy?
Reid: you vetoed the war spending bill sir.
Bush: You're sharp Harry, Ill give ya that...
Reid: Yes sir, I was refering to all the pork attached. We have some stuff that was going to fly in that bill and...
Bush: aw shucks Harry, you get all that when you remove th time limits! Go ahead on boy, I'll deeliver for ya!
Reid: Well sir, that's the problem, we have constituants that just have to have that timetable...
Bush: You have constituants that expect something? Harry! Who knew! When did they show up? Where're they from boy? Mexico They run over that fence? How'd we miss em...?
Reid: I know sir, it surprised me too. CBS and ABC told us about them, on the TV...
Bush: aw sheeiit Harry, they's just pullin your leg! Hell, Ol Danny Rather tried that crap on me with that fake document, remember? Heck, Harry, they just make them polls lie like a Clinton lawyer! Ya gotta ignore that boy! How you ever gonna get that new Interstate or water project? Who's gonna pay for that damn leaky tunnel fatboy Kennedy and ol lurch are bankrollin in Boston? Jesus harry, you'll be stoppin up th sink here boy! whattsamatter with ya?
Reid: I'm afraid sir...
Bush: Harry, go t that special safe place I always tell ya t go t an say 'there's no place like home' boy. Jist keep sayin it until the piss quits runnin down yur leg ther boy! Here, take my napkin. You can always blame it on age, Harry!
Reid: Sir, you have to capitulate. I can't move this without a concession...
Bush: Well, Harry, It's yur lucky day boy! All I'm gonna do is just let the money run out and let the repubs whip yur ass in the public arena for running out on th troops! After a gd ass whippin, you just bring me another bill an we'll get er done!
Reid: Really? Oh, thank you sir! My constituants won't see a thing!
Bush: you betcha boy! Harry, ol GWB deelivers. Now git out there an deliver Harry. I'll let ya whip ol Albeertos ass, let ya abuse Condi, hell we'll even get nightsticks an work that cheecaaano over right in the oval office! It's a favorite pastime Harry, in Texas! I'll invite Dick, an Karl! We'll do a smoker...just like th ol Skull an Crossbones Harry...
Reid: That's OK sir, I'll wait my turn...
Bush: Good! Now git out there an make it look good boy! Daddy's countin on ya!
Another wannabe 'playwrite' at work!
How could Bush give a scenario for withdrawal if there was no scenarion even for the war,neither correct information about its causes ;etc .The usual 'trial and error ' method seems to be the working scenario .It is plain for all to see except the hardcore hillbillies from the republican party and neocon allies that there is no progress to a happy ending in this war .If this is to be become a war of attrition most cereteinly the insurgents will win ,just like in Vietnam they did .THe costs of occupation are skyrocketing and the bill for the taxpayer too .
Yet there are still a few simpletons calling to finish the job .So a few qyestions to them;What job would that be ?.SEcondly how do you think to achieve that result ?
Let us get something else than the usual empty words .Come on GOP supporters let me have a working plan ,nopt just the usual improvisation .
The n put your troopers life at stake .Anything else is in fact abandonning the soldiers at the field of war .Hey this sound just like the argument Bush is using .Only now it is used against himself .
We cant help people who fight against themselves. All we are doing is sending our troops over there to die. Bush is techniqully part of the military so maybe with his plan to send over all those other troops he should be deployed right along with them... lets see how long he makes it!!!!
Perhaps a week ago, on a forum now latent, I stated that the Democrats should have offered the funding, BUT with a proviso that in September, either the Iraq Study Group, or an independent equivalent, should use some preset benchmarks to judge the progress on the part of the Iraqi government.
Guess what - the Republicans are buying into precisely that idea, and Bush is losing support for his blind obstinacy. Those planning to run in 2008 cannot have Iraq hanging over them. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released late last week showed that voters by 56 to 37 percent supported the congressional troop withdrawal plan. In the same poll, 55 percent said victory in Iraq -- a war that has lasted more than four years and has claimed more than 3,350 American lives -- is no longer possible.
Republicans say they're willing to require the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to agree on certain issues, such as sharing oil revenue, in order to receive a proposed $5.7 billion in annual U.S. economic and reconstruction aid. Those benchmarks were part of the war spending plan vetoed by Bush. Senator Lott said he, too, is interested in talking to the Democrats about benchmarks for the Iraqi government. 'You can't say it's time to negotiate and then say no if it includes this, that or the other,'' Lott said.
Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky already have started talks on post-veto moves for war funding. Another Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, said the leaders should discuss all issues in seeking a deal. 'Everything has to be on the table. If the urgency is as significant as it is for the military, and it is, it means some compromise has to be arrived at,'' said Voinovich.
This is going to escalate. If the Democrats are smart, they'll agree to the funding (Bush's amount - theirs was higher), and ask for additional funds for the VA and other troop-related expenses in the U.S. The Dems and Republicans can agree on 'Iraqi benchmarks', to be measured when Gen. Petraeus testifies in September. Invite representatives of the Iraqi leadership to address the U.S. Congress, in joint session, to explain what they've accomplished (or to hear the complaints if they have NOT done anything).
The pressure will be on the Iraqi leaders, who planned a 2-month holiday in July and August. That's where the pressure belongs; not on our troops to provide a 'military victory' that cannot happen. The militants can be forced by al-Maliki to back off, to let their government get things done - instead of terrorist attacks, let them work through their Congress. The Shia majority is going to rule, something Bush Sr. tried to avoid. The Sunni can force Al Qaeda to butt out, as we can see from today's news. Al Sadr can influence their Congress, instead of shooting at his fellow Iraqis, and the same goes for the Sunni. Let them try to win over their own people through the Democratic process. If they want Democracy, let them try it on for size.
If this cannot be maneuvered into a lessening of attacks through September, nothing else will work, even the 'surge'.
...from one desperate act to another.
Why is it, the ones who make the most mistakes, are the same ones who are least willing to own up to them ?
The war in Iraq was:
1) To prevent an imminent threat from WMD ... hmmmm. NO
2) To remove an evil man ... OK. I'll give you that one. YES
3) To free the Iraqi people ... Getting a bit philosophical now. What is freedom? To be able to live your life, to work, to raise your family in a safe, secure environment? As opposed to a civil war, where many tens of thousands are already dead, and many more tens of thousands are fleeing to avoid the risk of ethnic cleansing? Doesn't sound like mission accomplished to me. Therefore: NO
4) To plant the seeds of freedom in the Middle East ... Well. That's not really working out too well either. Yay... lets all be like Iraq! Sorry, ya gotta lead by example. NO
5) To fight the terrorists and stop them following us home ... Oh yes. The 'terrorists' who keep materializing. Al Qaida - the biggest organization in the world it seems. 100,000 to 700,000 dead so far, but STILL they keep coming. Holy crap!... let's send more troops. Sorry: NO
Bollocks to this BS. The Congress and Senate should continue to send, to this most deranged President of ours, funding bills that specify benchmarks and timetables.
Let him veto the funding, time after time after time. At some point it will become a critical issue for the troops, where the lack of funds make their withdrawal the only option.
Bush will have to either sign the legislation to continue the funding according to the timetable, or immediately withdraw the troops.
Sorry. America is no longer run by the decider. The people have a voice again. Bush will learn to listen to it, just as we have learned to stop listening to his.
DC4
I base my assessment of the accuracy of Bush's grasp of matters by his speech 4 years ago - when he announced 'victory' in Iraq !
You're all nuts. Give Bush credit for letting you live in freedom and not constant terror!
You're the ones in america who live 'in terror'. The rest of the world accepts that terrorist events may happen, takes reasonable steps to guard against them and then gets on with life. Events happen in life - you take a chance on whether it involves you or not, just like getting an illness, being in a motor accident or whatever, but you can't let in rule your life or induce the sort of paraonia found in america
I'm sick of this 'Hate bush' stuff. If you guys can do a better job, then go for it? If not, then shut your mouth. You have no idea what it's like to lead a country which is always divided because of political parties.
Dwight Eisenhower once said 'History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.' So who are you guys? The weak ones who want the world to deal with it's own problems? Or the one's who will take a stand agianst those who cause fear and injustice to others.
Well Lochemel - surely any democratic country is 'divided because of political parties' - if its not, then it is a one party state or a dictatorship. Is that what you actually want ?
(Para 2) If you look at the situation dispassionately, it seems to me that it is America which is causing 'fear and injustice' in the Middle East
'Jim May 2nd, 2007 - 08:53:19
You're the ones in america who live 'in terror'. The rest of the world accepts that terrorist events may happen, takes reasonable steps to guard against them and then gets on with life. Events happen in life - you take a chance on whether it involves you or not, just like getting an illness, being in a motor accident or whatever, but you can't let in rule your life or induce the sort of paraonia found in america'
Post of the year, Jim!
The rest of the world has dealt with terrorism and other, more powerful threats, for centuries and decades, without completely re-inventing their societies based on FEAR as the
...prime directive.
You lived with the blitz but had a leader that was steadfast in ending it. You lived with the IRA but never quit endevouring to stop the troubles.
That's the problem with the other side of the pond: you let it get out of hand and then cry for help.
Bush is doing exactly what is expected: letting both political sides run on it for 2008, instead of letting them out of it. They're not helping him, so he's not helping them.
The WMD's. Not the 500 they found in various states of repair (yes, they actually existed all along!)not the weapons themselves, but the folks who improvise them. The chlorine gas, the IED's.
It seems Mr. Bush, correctly, understood that the WMD worth concerning yourself about is the person who makes them, not the easily available ingredients.
As for the other stuff...freedom in the middle east, etc., the Iraqi's and the Lebanese are conquered people, so I'm having doubts.
When this is over, the President will be able to say, as Clinton did, that we can only help some, not all.
The dems will say the saved soldiers, although they passed this war JUST like the republicans, and the republicans will claim they were trying to change the world. This president will just put it to them and let them pack it through 2008.
Be that as it may, the war has outworn it's welcome, and the only way the Republicans will get in is to cash-in on the Democrats' withdrawl promise, which is why they have been steadily turning on Bush. Whatever happens, Bush and his friends will be remembered (sympathetically perhaps) for having made things worse through arrogance and mismanagement, and the Republicans have to think about the future -
If they dissassociate themselves with this administrations failures, they can appear emerge as the 'next generation', who cleaned up the messes of both previous Democratic and Republican administrations, and thus regain the credibility of the party.
It seems unlikely that Americans will be in a mood at the next election to be placated with more patriotic slogans and ambiguous declarations of 'mission accomplished' and 'stay the course', etc.
At this point, everyone knows the emperor is naked, but they might prepared to forgive (as long his successor is prepared to stop conning them and put some clothes on).
SP4 - 'The Blitz' as such was over long before the yanks arrived. Any 'cry for help' of the IRA was to stop the Irish Americans sponsoring the IRA with money and weapons - thanks for the help !
(lol) You forgot to mention all the pro-IRA depictions in movies.
Thanks Blue Lady. Just in case SP4 goes into one of his usual rants - actual dates are -
May 11 1941. Hitler calls off the Blitz
Jan 26. 1942 First US toops arrive in UK
I see a lot on incoherent posting from the Bushies, who have run out of forums where they can support the imbecile-in-chief.
Asking what the Dem's can do, when the President is dead-set on his own failed course, is irrelevant.
Check the large post I put up on the first page of this thread, and reply to those points. This is no one's fault but Bush's.
The risks of 'terror' have been with us for years, and we now profit from the FBI, CIA and other agencies DOING THEIR JOBS, as well as Homeland Defense, airline screeners, etc. Bush has still NOT managed to find a was to have a unified terrorist watch list, or to protect our borders, or containerized shipping. Of food imported, only one percent is checked, because under the Republicans many inspectors were let go. Our defenses, in fact, have been stripped, in terms of food and environmental safety.
You have made some excellent points. So many things have suffered cutbacks in this country because of lack of funding, but there seems to be no lack of it for this 'Bush' war. I also understood that there is a great lack of checking on container shipping among other things. We need to concentrate on keeping our own country strong or we WILL be fighting terrorists on our own soil. Bush has gotten in so far over his head that it's unbelievable, and his stubbornness to admit it is pathetic. What on earth were his qualifications to be the leader of the free world - he owned a ball team? Will we survive for another l 1/2 years of his so-called leadership - an extremely upsetting thought.
Re: What on earth were his qualifications to be the leader of the free world - he owned a ball team?
-----------
His basic qualification is his relationship to his father, and by virtue of that, all of his father's contacts. Remember that Bush Sr. was CIA head, and knew everyone. Bush got some ownership of the Texas Rangers by 'jumping the line' of other investors - this is again influence-peddling, because having the President's son as a partner in the Texas Rangers was a natural. He walked away with a lot more money from that deal than he invested.
Dubya has been a back-slapper and glad-hander all his life, and had zero qualifications for President - nothing he did as Texas Governor (again, purchased for him) qualified him for Foreign Affairs. He counted on Cheney and the Neocons for that - our first Presidential Sock Puppet.
Many of those who back him do so on the 'social' agenda (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) outweighing our real problems - the economy, the deficit, entitlements, care of those returning from Iraq, terrorism, the environment, etc. - Bush has contributed little to nothing on those issues, or the country has backslid.
Bush supports Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld because of the support that they gave him, not on merit. He considers blind loyalty a 'strength', because he'd have been a cipher without those people propping him up. To ask Bush now for 'judgment' is like asking Britney for morality. It's just not part of their makeup.
page: 1
Impeach Reid/PelosiMay 2nd, 2007 - 01:28:16
Good. We need to finish the job.
Report this comment