[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/pl_nm/iraq_bush_veto_dc[/url]

Well, this is obviously not really news. Everyone pretty much knew this would happen. Question, though, is who will break? If the Democrats are smart, they will continue to send the same bill back up. If I'm not mistaken, they have gained slightly more support each time the issue has come up. Eventually -- at least theoretically -- they'd have enough to override a veto.

In reality, I doubt they would ever actually have enough to override the veto, but I do think people are smart enough to realize that "funding the war, with strings attached" is not tantamount to "putting our troops in harm's way without the supplies they need to succeed." At least, I hope so. Point is, though, at some point the Dems can probably garner enough support that it would be political suicide for GOP lawmakers to stay on board with Bush's program, and they'll quietly push Bush to cut a deal.

Personally, though, if Bush rejects this funding just because it effectively shifts the burden to him to start showing some results immediately, I think he's the one that would be hanging the troops out to dry. Of course, my thoughts on Bush are pretty well-documented, so what else would you expect me to say, I suppose... :D

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

veto? give me a break...then whats the purpose of the damn congress?

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

Agreed that this is no surprise as he's been saying all along he would veto this bill. However, at some point he's going to have to compromise and understand that America & Congress demands resolution in Iraq.

Most of us agree we probably shouldn't even be in Iraq in the first place. Mission was already accomplished by making sure that there were no WMDs that could harm us. We're going above & beyond why we went to Iraq in the first place.

Harry Reid is being irresponsible by saying we've lost with troops still in the field. But, we need Bush to work with Congress on a timetable to withdraw if the surge doesn't work.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=apollo_1444;482117]veto? give me a break...then whats the purpose of the damn congress?[/quote]

It's part of that whole checks and balances biz over here. He's the Pres and it's his administration in the White House, so he has that right. If Congress wants to get it through, they just need to override it with enough support. Simple :D

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

Good for him. I am glad he has vetoed that bill.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

At some point Bush may need to open up his eyes and see that what is currently the plan is not working. Not saying that the Dems are 100% correct on what they're are doing but we need to get back to the checks & balances of our government. There has been too much allowance to the current administration to do whatever they want that now anytime something comes up that goes against their ideal, they automatically disregard it as 'unpatriotic'. The only group that is suffering during this back and forth is the troops out in Iraq. I am not a supporter of the war but I do want my fellow Americans to at least have the protection necessary so that they can get through their tour and come back home - earlier the better.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

at least the soldiers aren't ours haha

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

Don't be too sure about that - Bush may start pulling yours as well - I mean, you are on the same continent as us (and right next door)...

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=apollo_1444;482211]at least the soldiers aren't ours haha[/quote]Well, aren't you the king of shitty remarks? I mean c'mon, I am and always have been against the invasion of Iraq, but at least I'm showing respect for those who got royally fucked by their commander-in-mischief. Maybe you should do the same, gringo...

On topic: pulling back US troops from Iraq is probably the only thing that will prevent the complete crackdown of the largest military force in the world and the only barrier against even more shit on international scale.

But then again, the Dem's bill is just as shortsighted as the decission to get assraped in Iraq in the first place. Neither of those plans has a "what are we going to do next" clause. Or am I missing something?

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[QUOTE=KinKyJ;482504] But then again, the Dem's bill is just as shortsighted as the decission to get assraped in Iraq in the first place. Neither of those plans has a "what are we going to do next" clause. Or am I missing something?[/QUOTE]

In fairness, it would be inappropriate for the Congress to include language in a bill regarding tactical questions such as "what do we going to do next" because that, unfortunately, is the exclusive purview of the commander-in-chief, our beloved president. Really, the only thing Congress can do is to choose not to fund the war, or to put (broad) limitations on the funding of the war.

I was listening to CNN this morning and Roy Blunt (GOP Minority Whip) was on there talking about how there were so many Democrats who were "joining Republicans in rejecting this bill." Jackass. What Roy failed to mention is that the Democrats that would not vote for the bill did so because they wanted a bill that would stop funding the war, period, not because they agreed with him that the war ought to continue. Shameless, really shameless spinning thought ought to be obvious to anyone that pays any attention to politics whatsover.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

Veto override has failed.... as expected.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

bush knows everyone wants out. he has to balance that with the utter chaos that the violent towel heads will unleash upon the place once we are out.

i beleive, that if they truly wanted us out, and not a side agenda, they wouldnt have put in 20 billiion in pork fat bill attachments, and also, wouldnt put a "date" on the withdrawal, but use some common sense, and base it upon the numbers game of violence, ie. a slow in bombings and murder, whatever, at least that way, all the little al queda wanna be's would chill for awhile, allow the US to leave, then rip shit up. that way, everyone gets thier goals. bush gets his i toldya so, the dems get out, insurgency gets to kill everyone in thier way, and the american citizen can stop listening to our government do NOTHING>

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=KinKyJ;482504]Well, aren't you the king of shitty remarks? I mean c'mon, I am and always have been against the invasion of Iraq, but at least I'm showing respect for those who got royally fucked by their commander-in-mischief. Maybe you should do the same, gringo...

On topic: pulling back US troops from Iraq is probably the only thing that will prevent the complete crackdown of the largest military force in the world and the only barrier against even more shit on international scale.

But then again, the Dem's bill is just as shortsighted as the decission to get assraped in Iraq in the first place. Neither of those plans has a "what are we going to do next" clause. Or am I missing something?[/quote] talk about respect? :lol: when millions are dying from both sides in this lame ass war .. it's just critical sarcasm I have a cousin who is in Iraq right now you moron. :roll:

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

millions? are you SURE?

it appears CNN is now supporting the idea that it would be a bad idea to leave Iraq at this juncture.

[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html[/URL]

[QUOTE] "Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict." [/QUOTE]

while this war, i think, was never in the best interests of the American people, it would, in all honesty, be disastrous to leave. It's now a necessity to prevent massive-scale sectarian violence, an Al Qaeda base for terror in oil-rich Iraq, and a broader Middle East conflict....

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[QUOTE=88Mariner;483103] while this war, i think, was never in the best interests of the American people, it would, in all honesty, be disastrous to leave. It's now a necessity to prevent massive-scale sectarian violence, an Al Qaeda base for terror in oil-rich Iraq, and a broader Middle East conflict....[/QUOTE]

I was on board with this idea for a long time. In the fairly recent past, though, I've begun to develop the opinion that Iraq is going to be fucked regardless of whether we stay or go. There's already a massive civil war, and I don't even know who's side we're on any more. Far as I can tell, the only thing the Shias and Sunnis can agree on is that killing us is a good idea.

We've been trying to rebuild the country with the assistance of the Iraqis for over 4 years now, and it simply hasn't worked. I think it's time to get the hell out of there and let them figure this out for themselves. It's going to be a complete clusterfuck either way, and I guess I prefer the clusterfuck that has less troops dying.

No easy answers. It's a mess regardless.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=apollo_1444;482627]talk about respect? :lol: when millions are dying from both sides in this lame ass war .. it's just critical sarcasm I have a cousin who is in Iraq right now you moron. :roll:[/quote]

looks like you get the o'reilly factor down there in mexico. millions huh?

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

Back on point, I gather that the idea of benchmarks is being discussed as a compromise. Seems like a reasonable deal to me. Congress basically says, "Look, we'll continue to fund your war, but the Iraqis have to start making some progress and demonstrate that they are interested in taking their country back or we're out of here." Bush always talks about all the progress we're making, so let's see it -- put up or shut up, IMO...

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

^^you notice right after the bill was vetoed and the override failed that pelosi et al was right at bushes side stating that they are ready to compromise. i think the timelines setup is what is going to go forward, a hard set date is going to be bad for everyone.

i believe the whole bill was just to show officially that the majority of american people are supposed to be against the war.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=toasty;483108]I was on board with this idea for a long time. In the fairly recent past, though, I've begun to develop the opinion that Iraq is going to be fucked regardless of whether we stay or go. There's already a massive civil war, and I don't even know who's side we're on any more. Far as I can tell, the only thing the Shias and Sunnis can agree on is that killing us is a good idea.

We've been trying to rebuild the country with the assistance of the Iraqis for over 4 years now, and it simply hasn't worked. I think it's time to get the hell out of there and let them figure this out for themselves. It's going to be a complete clusterfuck either way, and I guess I prefer the clusterfuck that has less troops dying.

No easy answers. It's a mess regardless.[/quote]

quite, quite true. but i disagree with you on the point that we need to pull out. our presence, in my opinion, depresses the number of attacks. If the iraqi's aren't doing anything about thier country now, they won't do anything for themselves in the future that would forge a stronger government. IMO, if we left, and we take your theory that all the Sunni's and Shiite's can agree on is killing pro-Democratic Iraq, then I believe Iraq would simply be bought out by the highest bidder. The Saudi's? Syria? Or worse... Then what?

Interesting idea comes to mind.... if we leave now... does the probability of us returning to Iraq as a military force, say twenty years from now, increase? or decrease....>?

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=88Mariner;483124]quite, quite true. but i disagree with you on the point that we need to pull out. our presence, in my opinion, depresses the number of attacks. If the iraqi's aren't doing anything about thier country now, they won't do anything for themselves in the future that would forge a stronger government. IMO, if we left, and we take your theory that all the Sunni's and Shiite's can agree on is killing pro-Democratic Iraq, then I believe Iraq would simply be bought out by the highest bidder. The Saudi's? Syria? Or worse... Then what?

Interesting idea comes to mind.... if we leave now... does the probability of us returning to Iraq as a military force, say twenty years from now, increase? or decrease....>?[/quote]

It absolutely increases. But it won't take 20 years for us to have to return. It would be more like 3-4 years, tops.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[QUOTE=88Mariner;483124] Interesting idea comes to mind.... if we leave now... does the probability of us returning to Iraq as a military force, say twenty years from now, increase? or decrease....>?[/QUOTE]

Wide open question, IMO. Personally, I think it's probably more likely that we'd have to return at some point if we left now, but I don't think that's a foregone conclusion.

Even assuming that to be the case, though, I don't think it follows that we should stay in there now for that reason. Sometimes you have to step away from the sandbox for few minutes and let the kids work things out themselves before stepping back in.

I think of it the same way I think of my dogs, to some extent. I realize that probably seems like a ridiculous analogy, but hear me out. We have two very energetic dogs -- a Boston Terrier that we've had a little over 3 years, and a Yorkie that we got right around New Years. When the Yorkie was introduced to the fold, there was a period where they just had to work out who the alpha dog was. They wrestled, they growled, they peed on various things, they humped each other, etc. We would step in if they got really aggressive, but by and large we let them do their thing. Now, they're past that and have learned how to live together, and all is well. If we had tried to pull them apart every time they did any of that, though, we'd probably still be having problems.

Am I [B]really[/B] comparing the Sunnis and Shias to dogs? Do I think that a few months after we leave, the Shias are going to be curling up against the Sunnis by the fireplace, or that the Sunnis are going to be licking the Shias faces? Of course not. I do think, though, that there are times when it makes sense to step out of the fray for a bit and let the chips fall where they may. We're tried separating these folks for 4 years, though, and it hasn't worked -- maybe we just need to give them an opportunity to establish their own hierarchy so there will at least be enough stability that we'll know what we're up against, and then proceed accordingly, whether that means diplomacy, military action, whatever.

Just my thoughts as of 10:38 am CDT, May 4, 2007, and subject to change.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

[quote=res0nat0r;483109]looks like you get the o'reilly factor down there in mexico. millions huh?[/quote] I think he is back now, if so i'm glad, on the other hand thats what he wanted to do when he was a kid being on the army and shit.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

I loathe this president, he's put the US in quite the predicament. Troops shouldn't have even gone over there, there would have been no problem.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

unfortunately in the US, war being declared against another country doesnt rest in the hands of one man.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

When is the world gonna realized that Bush and his brother fixed the election recount in Florida so he could stay in office and play a lead role in 911. [EVIL][/EVIL] We need to burn this fucker at the stake! Oil in the Middle East is not worth the death and fear he has caused.

Re: Bush Vetoes War-Spending Bill

There is also information coming to light about the Ohio voting machines (made by Diebold) that show evidence of being tampered with, for example there are entire sections of votes that somehow no longer show the time the vote was cast...and wouldn't you know it, when the contract to supply those machines was up for grabs in 2003, the president of Diebold wrote in a letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." This would be totally unbelievable if we hadn't already heard about Florida.

[URL]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm[/URL]