Bush to veto pay raise for the troops. Merry Christmas!

[snapcat]

OK. It wouldn't be the holidays without a "bash Bush" thread, so here ya' go ...


Nothing says "I Love You" more than a veto of a pay raise for the troops. This legislation just screams the need for a line-item veto.

from AmericaBlog ...

Suddenly, out of nowhere, Bush announced today that he's going to veto the Defense Authorization bill. This is legislation that's already passed Congress, and that the administration had no problem with. Now, suddenly, Bush is against it and is going to veto it, threatening pay raises for the troops and more.

Part of what troubled Bush about the legislation is that it would permit US troops to seek compensation for having been tortured by Saddam during the first Gulf War.

The provision that is causing problems would have allowed the victims of the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam to seek compensation in court, Democrats said. The Iraqi government has warned that former U.S. prisoners of war from the first Gulf War might cite this legislation in an attempt to get money from the Iraqi government's reported $25 billion in assets now held in U.S. banks, they say.​

Nice. Now who hates the troops? (And how much do you want to bet that the Democrats will fail to capitalize on this issue?) How the Democrats brought this on themselves, after the jump...

Putting aside for a moment how unprofessional it is to announce a veto of legislation AFTER it's passed, rather than objecting to it prior to its passage, I think something more is up here. Bush is struggling to be relevant, so he needs to keep vetoing legislation, anything he can get his hands on, to show how "strong" he is. And all the better that it's a defense bill. The Democrats are scared to death of anything dealing with "defense," so the more Bush blusters, the more they cringe and fall back. By creating an issue out of nothing, and nowhere, Bush will again get the Dems to "cave" and will prove that not only is he "strong" on defense, but they're "weak" on defense - even though this is a non-issue. This is the legacy of the Dems constantly caving on every issue, especially defense issues. If you refuse to fight back, don't be surprised that the bully continues to find new ways to kick sand in your face.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

How about a professionally written, hopefully objective piece from the AP instead of the left wing schlock blog.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Bush rejects defense bill by pocket veto

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."

The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were increases in military pay and veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.

Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.

The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages_ from the White House during the monthlong break.

A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.

In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."

Democratic aides said they have not ruled out any legislative options, including dropping the language on lawsuits against Iraq and sending the rest of the bill back to Bush.

The sponsor of the contested provision, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the provision would allow "American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable — plain and simple."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called on lawmakers to "move rapidly to fix this section" when Congress returns in January so that the underlying bill can be signed.

Contrary to the "unprofessionalism" of Bush's veto (whatever the hell that means) mentioned by the blogger, it seems more likely that this was a last minute addition buried in the bill which they discovered after passage.

 

[snapcat]

Yet, the fact remains that Bush vetoed a pay raise for the troops.

Again, I say, this would have been the perfect opportunity for a line item veto - were Congress to ever approve one.

 

[springboksfan]

Golly, so TTA, what your cited article says is that Bushieboy cares more about the Iraqi government than he does the American POWs? But why in the world would he worry about that sort of lawsuit? I mean, hasn't he fucked up the definition of torture so much that no court in the land can really say what is or isn't torture? How could an American POW hope to win such a suit?

Nah, there's something more to this.

BTW - it's so cute how you gave the administration credit for actually reading the bill! You're too much. No really! You are!

 

[swerve]

Personally -- I DON'T agree with the concept of a line item veto...

I ALSO don't like the way they bunch THOUSANDS of things into a single bill...

The PROBLEM I have with this story is -- How are the "Victims" going to be made whole???

AND...

Why is OUR country creating LAWS to BENEFIT THEIR country???

NOW would be the perfect time for our Democrat congress to grow some balls and say -- OK, you vetoed it -- NOW we'll pass a bill that doesn't give you SQUAT...

I can dream -- can't I???

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Bush is concerned about the Iraqi govt economics while our own is in the toilet?
Thousands of our troops have sacrificed life and limb in a misguided war which he launched.
There should be some way to give them a raise (and help their families also) while circumventing the Iraqi economic issue.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

NOW would be the perfect time for our Democrat congress to grow some balls and say -- OK, you vetoed it -- NOW we'll pass a bill that doesn't give you SQUAT...

Sometimes, it is nice to live in your own little world! Now, maybe Congress would like to give the American people some sort of a reason NOT to kick everyone of their fucktard asses the hell out of there and actually do something. Nice idea, gentry!

 

[JackFTwist]

So far essentials have been overlooked.

This bill was passed by overwhelming margins in both houses.

If the White House had signaled their displeasure with any provisions while the bill was still in Congress. it is probable it would have been revised and the bill in its entirity would not have to be vetoed after passage. So what the fuck was the White House doing saying nothing until the bill was passed? There is no defense to the White House in this - especially in their use of a pocket veto now. If the White House had courage, they would have pocket vetoed this bill during the Christmas holidays, they would have objections while the bill was still before Congress.

How in the world is this the Democrats fault? The bill passed by overwhelming margins. The Democrats cannot stop Bush from vetoing a bill by any method.

Line item veto - ripping on Congress for not passing one - if I may ask politely, what the fuck is anyone talking about? Are we in a time warp? it was passed once and properly struck down by the Supreme Court. For a little trip down memory lane:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
Clinton disappointed; Opponents of veto call it a victory for the Constitution

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand that power to the president.
Line Item Veto

The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.

In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens upheld a lower court's decision, concluding "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."

If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment, Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.

The court's ruling was a defeat for the Clinton Administration, which asked the high court to reverse the lower court's ruling. President Bill Clinton, traveling in China, said he was "deeply disappointed."

Clinton was the first president to exercise the veto, which he did 82 times last year. Many of the vetoed programs are under court challenges and should now win their appeals.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer dissented. Scalia, who wrote the dissent, made clear his disagreement by taking the unusual step of using nine minutes in court to read from his opinion.

 

[JackFTwist]

The line item veto was declared unconstitutional in 1998 - I don't think I had the year in the prior post - 1996 it was passed and signed into law and in 1998 it was declared unconstitutional - why are folks acting like it has never been done? Want a line item veto, amend the Constitution.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

You're too much. No really! You are!

Funny, you're not the first guy who's said that...I wonder what they all mean

The line item veto was declared unconstitutional in 1998 - I don't think I had the year in the prior post - 1996 it was passed and signed into law and in 1998 it was declared unconstitutional - why are folks acting like it has never been done? Want a line item veto, amend the Constitution.

Exactly, I was wondering the same thing.

And I believe it was Sen. Robert Byrd of W-Va. that made the original challenge to the Supreme Court. He feels very strongly against it.

Yep, Byrd brought the original suit against it. He can't have Navy bases built in his landlocked state if the line item veto exists. But he was found to lack standing to bring the case...although in reality he probably stood to personally lose money. In reality the case that overturned it was from the City of New York, with Giuliani as Mayor.

 

[JackFTwist]

In reality the case that overturned it was from the City of New York, with Giuliani as Mayor.

well, half ... there were two cases that the court ruled on, one was from NYC and the other was from the Snake River Potato Growers of Idaho


and as for Byrd, he was among a group of Senators such as the Honorable Carl Levin of Michigan who opposed line item veto on constitutional grounds from Day 1.

Opinion: And Day 1 was everyone knew it was a violation of the constitution all along. Reagan used to talk about it because he knew it would never happen because it was unconstitutional but was a crowd pleaser he could use to attack people (and by reading this thread it is still good for that). Lo and behold Gingrich and the 1994 Contract with America crowd took the House in 1994 and passed it in 1996 - just in time for Clinton to sign it to neutralize the issue, just as he did with the Defense of Marriage Act. I love Bill Clinton but the man could pander with the best of them. And it took two years for the court to throw out that farce which is fast for the court system.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

well, half ... there were two cases that the court ruled on, one was from NYC and the other was from the Snake River Potato Growers of Idaho

Well, not really. The courts only ruled on one case as they combined the two...and the combined case was known as Clinton v. City of New York.

 

[snapcat]

Hey, I forgot about the supreme court case on the line item veto!

 

[Yuki Sohma]

I'll just call him W., (for as in Ronnie I dare not speak his name) is very self-serving and has done, I believe, terrible terrible terrible (yes, that's 3 terribles & probably warrants 4 or even 5 in a row) damage to our country......let's hope we can recover..............."down with the W. regime"

 

[Yuki Sohma]

^geez, now I feel 5 terribles in a row isn't strong enough--------shall I say 10 terribles in a row-----------I do not like the W. regime whatsoever............"may they be gone already"

 

[naked gent]

I'd veto the stupid bill to.

It sounds like something which will benefit american lawyers and probably nobody else.

Does anyone think its a good idea to withdraw our troops and then send the lawyers in?

Haven't we already done enough to "help" the iraqis.

And could someone explain to me WTF Senator Lautenberg is talking about when he says the provision would allow "american victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable--plain and simple"

its neither plain nor simple.......what american victims is he talking about and which perpetrators have escaped the noose to be sued?

 

[LaloGS]

So far essentials have been overlooked.

This bill was passed by overwhelming margins in both houses.

If the White House had signaled their displeasure with any provisions while the bill was still in Congress. it is probable it would have been revised and the bill in its entirity would not have to be vetoed after passage. So what the fuck was the White House doing saying nothing until the bill was passed? There is no defense to the White House in this - especially in their use of a pocket veto now. If the White House had courage, they would have pocket vetoed this bill during the Christmas holidays, they would have objections while the bill was still before Congress.

How in the world is this the Democrats fault? The bill passed by overwhelming margins. The Democrats cannot stop Bush from vetoing a bill by any method.

Line item veto - ripping on Congress for not passing one - if I may ask politely, what the fuck is anyone talking about? Are we in a time warp? it was passed once and properly struck down by the Supreme Court. For a little trip down memory lane:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

OK, so if Congressional Repugs supported the bill, then they should have enough power to override Bush's pocket veto. This could be a test of their loyalty. We'll see when the Congress reconvenes.

 

[LaloGS]

I'd veto the stupid bill to.

It sounds like something which will benefit american lawyers and probably nobody else.

Does anyone think its a good idea to withdraw our troops and then send the lawyers in?

Haven't we already done enough to "help" the iraqis.

And could someone explain to me WTF Senator Lautenberg is talking about when he says the provision would allow "american victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable--plain and simple"

its neither plain nor simple.......what american victims is he talking about and which perpetrators have escaped the noose to be sued?

9/11? The reason Bush/Cheney doesn't want this to happen is it would begin a series of court proceedings that could or would expose him and his administration for the lying bastards they are. After all, he insists to this day that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

 

[naked gent]

^^ But the fact is that Saddam was not involved in 9-11 so he would be tough to sue.

The dems passed it because lawyers are big dem supporters.....Bush veto'd it because the pugs are not.

Not a whole lot more than that going on here as far as I can see.

 

[LaloGS]

^^ But the fact is that Saddam was not involved in 9-11 so he would be tough to sue.

The dems passed it because lawyers are big dem supporters.....Bush veto'd it because the pugs are not.

Not a whole lot more than that going on here as far as I can see.

Whoa!!!! Lawyers support Dems over Repugs? Sources man, sources.

And the fact is, your president bush seems to disagree with you, that Saddam was not involved with 9/11. Don't you watch the news, or read the papers? WMD? Terrorist nation? All Bush lies.

If you want to post, at least get your act together on facts.