Veto! Iraqi quagmire comes to Washington
« on: 2007-05-01 19:29:28 »
[Blunderov] Them Dems haven't blinked. Yet. Pelosi has retained her focus on the mandate. So far. OK. I'm impressed. So far.
If it was me, I'd tell Dubya to take it or leave it. It's a non issue really. He can just furnish a signing statement to the effect that he feels absolutely no compulsion to obey the provisions of the bill anytime he doesn't wish to. Done and dusted.
Failing that, he could probably do a Robert Mugabe and simply command the mint to print him as much money as he requires. "So what's different" I hear you cry. Quite. That's what a fiat currency is for and it's good for exports. It's all about blank cheques and balances you might say.
Veto! Associated Press | May 01, 2007 WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.
In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation that would have required the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. He vetoed the bill immediately on his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
Democrats made a last-minute plea for Bush to sign the bill, knowing their request would be ignored. "The president has put our troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Reality on the ground proves what we all know: a change of course is needed."
Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion (euro91.1 billion) spending bill.
It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on an aircraft carrier and his declaration that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Democrats held an unusual signing ceremony before sending the bill to the White House.
"This legislation respects the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives.
Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga met Bush April 16 when the president hosted military families in the East Room of the White House. Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did.
Minutes after Bush vetoed the bill, an anti-war demonstrator stood outside the White House with a bullhorn and shouted: "How many more must die? How many more must die?"
One option Congress is considering for follow-up legislation would demand the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks or face the withdrawal of U.S. troops. To avoid another veto, such a bill would have to allow Bush to waive the restriction.
Democratic officials asserted that no decisions had been made on a next step. Lawmakers said they first wanted to scrutinize Bush's veto response to determine whether he was willing to compromise and where he might be willing to negotiate.
On Wednesday, Bush plans meet with congressional leaders from both parties, including the top Democrats, Reid and Pelosi. Past meetings have not led to any compromises, although members said this time they were hopeful Bush would signal a willingness to negotiate.
Until then, Democratic leaders were careful not to get ahead of the script.
"I don't want to get into a negotiation with myself," Reid said when asked about conversations with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
McConnell and other Republicans have said they would agree to provisions that lay out standards for the Iraqi government to meet in creating a more stable and democratic society.
"A number of Republicans think that some kind of benchmarks properly crafted would be helpful," McConnell said. Bush and GOP allies have said they will oppose legislation that ties progress on such standards to a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.
"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said the House minority leader, John Boehner.
Separately, Bush has complained about several billion dollars in domestic spending that Democrats put in the bill, including about $3.5 billion (euro2.6 billion) in disaster aid for farmers.
Some Republicans say they would support tying goals for Iraqi self-defense and democracy to the more than $5 billion (euro3.7 billion) provided to Iraq in foreign aid. But such an idea has not piqued the interest of Democrats.
When Bush announced a U.S. troop increase in January, he said Iraq's government must crack down on terrorists from both the Shiite and Sunni Islamic sects, equitably distribute oil wealth, refine its constitution and expand democratic participation. He attached no consequences if these benchmarks were not met.
Tuesday's developments came exactly four years after Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln decorated with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner. In that address, a frequent target of Democrats seeking to ridicule the president, he declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
At the time, Bush's approval rating was 63 percent, with his public disapproval at 34 percent.
Four years later, with over 3,300 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in Iraq and the country gripped by unrelenting violence and political uncertainty, only 35 percent of the public approves of the job the president is doing, while 62 percent disapprove, according to an April 2-4 poll from AP-Ipsos.
The anniversary prompted a protest in Tampa not far from where Bush spoke. "He's hearing us. He's just not listening to us," said Chrystal Hutchison, who demonstrated with about two dozen others under a "Quagmire Accomplished" banner.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker acknowledged Tuesday that there "is something of an al-Qaida surge going on" in Iraq, with the group using suicide car bombs as its principal weapons, but he said that does not mean the U.S.-Iraqi campaign is not working.
"We're just fighting at a number of levels here against a number of different enemies," Crocker told reporters during a videoconference from Baghdad.
Editor's note: The president delivered this message on Tuesday night as he vetoed the Iraq-war supplemental funding bill.
Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.
Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.
Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto — and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.
Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.
It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength — and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible.
Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.
Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits — and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.
The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander — General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.
In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.
Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.
Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda — the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad — and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."
Al Qaeda — al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 — and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.
We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow — and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.
The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better — and their elected leaders can do better.
Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding — and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.
Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.
Re:Veto! Iraqi quagmire comes to Washington
« Reply #2 on: 2007-05-10 10:46:51 »
[Blunderov This just in from Crooks and Liars. In view of Pelosi's response it might be prudent to wonder who has the keys to the mint? Better not let Dubya get them.
For several weeks now, the president’s critics have imagined an entirely plausible scenario: Bush could sign a congressionally backed funding bill for the war in Iraq, with the various conditions included (i.e., a withdrawal timeline), and then decide he won’t follow the law. When he signs the bill, the president could issue one of his infamous signing statements, explaining that he’ll abide by the legislation’s provisions as he sees fit.
There’s ample reason to expect such a move. The president has “touched up” hundreds of bills with signing statements, in which Bush has announced his intention to treat legal provisions as suggestions, which he can accept or ignore, depending on how his lawyers interpret the law.
On a recent conference call, House Speaker Pelosi touched on how she might react to such a move.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”
It’s encouraging to know the Dem leadership won’t take signing statements lying down. This has been an extra-constitutional tactic, abused by Bush, for far too long.
Re:Veto! Iraqi quagmire comes to Washington
« Reply #3 on: 2007-05-17 02:29:36 »
[Blunderov] I've been wondering why Bush would want a war czar. (And how anyone might so misguided as to accept such a maifestly poisoned chalice.) Given that overseeing the theatres of the Afghanistan and Iraq seems clearly within the purview of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why would such an appointment be necessary? Or why not tell Cheney to do it?
<light bulb moment>
"US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill that would have set a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Congressional opponents of the war believe that as a result, the president alone must now take responsibility for continuing America's involvement."
[Bl.] Aha! Seems the Dems have been quite crafty. The whole world knows that Dubya has never been one to stick around to face consequences. Hence the appointment of Gen Lute. How soon the inevitable rift will occur remains to be seen.
Rival factions are struggling for local supremacy in Iraq Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation, UK foreign policy think tank Chatham House says. Its report says the Iraqi government is now largely powerless and irrelevant in many parts of the country.
It warns there is not one war but many local civil wars, and urges a major change in US and British strategy, such as consulting Iraq's neighbours more.
The UK Foreign Office stated that security conditions, although "grim" in places, varied across Iraq.
"Most insurgent attacks remain concentrated in just four of Iraq's 18 provinces, containing less than 42% of the population," a Foreign Office spokesman told the Press Association news agency.
"Iraq has come a long way in a short time," he added, saying the international community "must stand alongside the Iraqi government".
'Harsh realities'
It is not the first time that the Royal Institute for International Affairs - a highly respected foreign policy institution in London known as Chatham House - has been critical of American and British strategies in Iraq.
This latest paper, written by Gareth Stansfield, a Middle East expert, is unremittingly bleak, says BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.
There is not 'a' civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organisations struggling for power
Chatham House report on Iraq
Mr Stansfield, of Exeter University and Chatham House, argues that the break-up of Iraq is becoming increasingly likely.
In large parts of the country, the Iraqi government is powerless, he says, as rival factions struggle for local supremacy.
The briefing paper, entitled Accepting Realities in Iraq, says: "There is not 'a' civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organisations struggling for power."
Mr Stansfield says that although al-Qaeda is challenged in some areas by local leaders who do not welcome such intervention, there is a clear momentum behind its activity.
Iraq's neighbours also have a greater capacity to affect the situation on the ground than either the UK or the US, the report adds.
Sole responsibility
The paper accuses each of Iraq's major neighbouring states - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments".
The paper says: "These current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq."
Mr Stansfield contends that the American security surge is moving violence to different areas, but is not overcoming it.
Certainly there is a growing sense in London and Washington that the American commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, is likely to ask for more time to continue the surge later this summer to deliver results, our correspondent says.
That will confront the Bush administration with a real dilemma, he adds.
US President George W Bush has vetoed a bill that would have set a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Congressional opponents of the war believe that as a result, the president alone must now take responsibility for continuing America's involvement.
The report urges the governments in London and Washington to include radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, who leads the Mehdi army, one of the major Shia militias, as a political partner and no longer treat him as an enemy.
Author
Logged
