White House Says Bush Will Veto Defense Policy Bill

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush plans to veto a sweeping defense policy bill on grounds that it would derail Iraq's efforts to rebuild its country, the White House said Friday.

Bush's action, which apparently caught congressional leaders off guard, centers on one provision in the legislation dealing with Iraqi assets. 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 administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. “The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.”

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.

Unless Bush vetoes the legislation, the Iraqis have threatened to withdraw all of their money from the U.S. financial system to protect it from the lawsuits, Democrats said.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1228bush-veto1228-ON.html

[underpants]

1. Lawsuits bad

Oh except Bush v. Gore

[ShockediSay]

2. Lobby Lawyers worse, Much Worse

'specially those working for the war profiteers
like Haliburton, BlackWater &c &c &c

[Tesla]

3. Are you sure he isn't gay??

I mean he sure like screwing the troops!

[atreides1]

5. No, He's Bisexual

There are both male and female troops that will be screwed by Bush.

[ladjf]

4. Good. Let it languish. (nt)

[catnhatnh]

6. Steno Much?

Msm asswipes parrot White House spin-AGAIN.Not normally news of course but in the spirit of waiting for the Patriots to go 16-0 let's take a look....AGAIN Bush like a spoiled child threatens to veto a major piece of congressional legislation, a "DEFENSE SPENDING BILL"-got that??? There was no "DEFENSE POLICY BILL". But G.W. goes a zillion to zip for spinning this as congress imposing on "Presidential Perrogatives" rather than characterize it as what reality will show it to be-a bi-partisan effort to give US troops what Commander Bunnypants said was sufficient funding. Finding his $100,000 candy bar does indeed contain the FDA approved "3 or less insect larva and or insect parts and or rodent droppings" (ie:little bits we know suck but must accept if we are to swallow our candy) does he do what sane people do (ignore the tiny unpleasant bits of reality to achieve a desired goal)??? NOOOOOO....he throws a shit fit tantrum to shame a spoiled two year old...and again the press spins it to a congressional trick or failure..."FUCK him and FUCK the press", sez I.

[fascisthunter]

7. Bush the Weakling Fascist Propped Up by Wealth and Legacy (nt)

[Faygo Kid]

8. Bush plans to veto defense policy bill

Source: Associated Press

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush plans to veto a sweeping defense policy bill on grounds that language exposing the Iraqi government to damage suits stemming from the Saddam Hussein era would derail Baghdad's efforts to rebuild the country.

Administration officials said Bush was expected the veto the bill Friday.

Democratic congressional leaders complained that Bush's move was thrust upon them at the last minute. The controversy centers on one provision in the legislation dealing with Iraqi assets. The bill 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.


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

---

This is one more way Bush can rub the Dems' noses in it, and show who's boss. They gave him everything he wanted on the defense bill, and it's STILL not enough - now, after everything was settled, he has to up the ante again, this time adding "tort reform" for the Iraqi government. The smug SOB is really enjoying kicking the Dems yet again.

And I'm afraid they'll just take it. Happy Holidays.

[TwilightGardener]

9. I guess he doesn't support the troops, then.

[fascisthunter]

10. No, He Just Enjoys Getting Them Killed and Privatizing What's Left (nt)

[AZlineman]

12. Could you be referring to...

John Kerry voting AGAINST the $87 billion dollar plan to arm the troops with bullet proof vests?

No, certainly not.

[Aviation Pro]

11. "Support the troops."

Well, well seems the motherfucking AWOL deserter non-pilot really hates the troops. Hey, fuckface, bet you don't show up at any military facilities for the rest of your illegal term.

Fucking asswipe shitstain.

[caligirl]

13. Bush supports his banking buddies over the troops.

[rodeodance]

14. Bush gives pocket veto to defense bill (playing with the troops and vets)

Source: ap

Bush gives pocket veto to defense bill

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.


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.

But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

.......

"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent to Congress.

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

[rodeodance]

15. Topic subject Bush to challenge Senate's pro-forma session blocking his recess appointments?

Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Bush to challenge Senate's pro-forma session blocking his recess appointments?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3899647#3899647
3899647, Bush to challenge Senate's pro-forma session blocking his recess appointments?
Posted by kansasblue on Fri Dec-28-07 04:26 PM


Bush gives pocket veto to defense bill

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


CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.

It was unclear how the executive and legislative branches would determine whether, in fact, Bush's lack of signature would amount to vetoing the bill or turning it into law.

"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent 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."

[LiberalFighter]

28. It is not up to Bushwad to decide whether Congress is in session

Congress should arrest him for treason.

And threaten the Secret Service with arrest if they refuse.

[hack89]

47. I understand the anger but stop using the word treason

it has a very specific and limited definition contained in the Constitution itself - this is clearly not treason. It most likely is not even a crime - our history is full of constitutional spats like this as Congress and the Executive jockey for power in the gray areas of the Constitution. It will be handled like all the rest - the Supreme Court will fulfill its constitutional role and decide who is right.


On edit: check post 18 - it is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

[damntexdem]

36. The House needs to have a pro forma session before Dec. 31.

LOL!!!

[Toots]

46. I think Bush* will win on this issue just as he has on every other issue

Democrats know the Extreme court is in Bush*'s pocket and will not allow it to go in front of them. IMO only gaveling in for a few seconds does not mean they are in session and I think ANY court let alone the Extreme Court would agree. If Reid wants to keep the Senate in session he will have to do just that and not some mockery of it..

[Joanne98]

16. He doesn't like the part where Saddam's friends assets could be seized!

I just that not surprising since HIS FAMILY is one of Saddam's friends.

[rodeodance]

20. no no--he just wants to please Maliki --over money that the troops need.

[dipsydoodle]

34. It goes further than that

Lawyers acting on behalf of Saddam Hussein's victims could have had the Iraqi government's US-based assets frozen pending the outcome of their cases, the White House said.

Congressional Democrats accused President Bush of giving in to a threat from the Iraqi government to withdraw all of its assets from US banks.

"We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in US banks if this bill is signed," said Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a joint statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7163567.stm

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

43. LOVE your rightwingnut impersonation!!!

Do you perform at parties, too?

[rodeodance]

17. Topic subject Want more proof that Bush is a calculating a**?

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Want more proof that Bush is a calculating a**?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2547574#2547574
2547574, Want more proof that Bush is a calculating a**?
Posted by ProSense on Fri Dec-28-07 04:24 PM

Bush announces 'pocket veto' of defense bill
Updated 27m ago

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush on Friday headed toward a constitutional confrontation with Congress over his effort to reject a sweeping defense bill.

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.

But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.

The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.

It was unclear how the executive and legislative branches would determine whether, in fact, Bush's lack of signature would amount to vetoing the bill or turning it into law.

"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent to Congress.

more


So he's going to veto a bill that was passed with a veto-proof majority using a tactic that allows him to veto a bill by not signing within 10 days of receiving and only when the Senate isn't in session, except the Senate is in session?

More on why his reason for vetoing is BS.

[LiberalFighter]

30. How about if Congress wrote the bill and insert it into a piece of cowpie

Then see if still does a pocket veto. Tell him that in order for it to be a real pocket veto the bill MUST go into his pocket and remain there until the time he figures Congress is back in session.

[gratuitous]

18. The Senate has been in session

Bush will actually have to veto the defense appropriation bill; he can't just "withhold approval."

But then, this outlaw administration doesn't recognize any rules but its own rules of the moment, so this out-of-control dictator will probably try to act like he can pocket veto the bill. Who's going to stop him? A Congress that has already concluded that impeachment is off the table? Is the pocket veto going to be the issue they finally get serious about? Somehow I doubt it.

[rodeodance]

19. Bush has Proclaimed that "{Congress has adjourned."!--yup bush says so

....The White House's view is that Congress has adjourned.

[gratuitous]

22. The lie detector test

Bush hasn't tried to make any recess appointments while the Senate has been adjourned.

I think he's perfectly happy with the defense bill, he's just jerking Congress' chain.

[Kokonoe]

26. Decider decides if a senator is really a senator in session??

[hack89]

48. Didn't the bill originate in the House?

the House is adjourned - how can Bush return it?

[madrchsod]

21. he`s such a baby.....

he just throws a little hissy fit when he finds out he can`t get his way. the rules state that the senate is in session no matter what he thinks.

[rodeodance]

24. he really is isn't he!!

[old guy]

25. I believe you are correct.

My technical knowledge of procedure is limited, but he is going to have veto this bill outright or it will become law without his signature. A pocket veto will not be valid under these circumstances no matter how they reason. He is trying to get the Senate into a pissing contest to make him look relevant. Their best course of action is to pay no attention to him at all as he has no precedent for this action. Just saying.

[rodeodance]

23. Topic subject Topic subject Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Topic subject Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2547574#2547745
2547745, Topic subject Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"
Posted by rodeodance on Fri Dec-28-07 04:49 PM

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2547706#2547706
2547706, Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"
Posted by ProSense on Fri Dec-28-07 04:43 PM

12/28/2007Senator Kerry: Veto of Defense Authorization Bill a "Disgrace"Boston, MA –

Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement today regarding President Bush's expected veto of H.R. 1585, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

"Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it,” said Kerry. “We fought against this White House to provide our men and women in uniform a decent pay raise and now three days after Christmas George Bush says he'll veto it. What a disgrace. This fight has just begun and it won't end until we do right by those who sacrifice for our country."

Senator Kerry had previously written to President Bush asking him to stop opposing a 3.5 percent increase in military pay and also introduced a resolution in support of a 3.5 percent pay raise. That pay raise was included in the bill President Bush now threatens to veto.

more

[bain_sidhe]

27. "It's not a law unless *I* say it's a law

See, I'm not sure this is about challenging Congress on whether they're "ajourned" so that he can make recess appointments. (Although I'm sure he'd consider that a nice plus.) But if Congress "goes along" by re-passing the bill, they've de-facto agreed that if he doesn't sign a bill, it doesn't become law even if they *are* in session.

It will be interesting* to see what happens now.

*"interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times."

[LiberalFighter]

31. He's not the President until WE say he is the President.

[tritsofme]

29. Is he trying some bizzare justification under Article II Section 3 of the Constitution?

...he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

[oldhippie]

32. Two points.........

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it... unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

The bill would have to be returned to the House, where it originated, which has, in fact, adjourned. So he can't return it, so it does become a pocket veto.

Yes, the Senate remains technically in session, so BushCo cannot make recess appointments. But, the Senate is NOT "the Congress". It is only half the Congress. And the other half, the half that BushCo has to return the bill to, IS adjourned. Therefore the "pocket veto" seems to stand. Don't have to like it, but them's the plain facts. You can't make a plausible case that the Senate is "the Congress."

[AndyTiedye]

33. What If The House Has a Pro-Forma Session on Monday?

[Deny and Shred]

37. Nice reference

I never would have consulted my Kucinich(TM) Pocket Constitution over this one, but I'm glad you did. Thaks for the info.
If it's not one slight of procedure with these guys, it's another. Dems outflanked again.

[Akoto]

35. I think I'm not quite understanding.

"But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session because it has held brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present."

It seems like the situation is resolved right there. As far as the Senate is concerned, it has been in session, so the bill would go into law rather than dying.

Are they saying that Bush and the Senate are now in conflict over whether they've been in session?

[SteveG]

39. it must be returned to the house in which it originated

The House did adjourn. Since the Bill originated in the House and not the Senate, it must be returned to that house. Looks to me that this pocket veto will stand. If the bill had originated in the Senate, then it would be another story.

[pleah]

38. God damn it! When are these pussy dems going to stand up to the

murderer in chief.

[fenriswolf]

40. he cant do this while congress is banging in and out of sessions

as per their current plan of blocking bushes recessed appointees right?

[humbled_opinion]

41. Congress needs to take action aginst this crap...

Bush is becoming one of the healthiest lame duck Presidents on record.

[IndianaGreen]

44. It is called IMPEACHMENT! But Pelosi and Reid are protecting Bush.

Any impeachment hearings will also bring to light Democratic complicity in Bush and Cheney's crimes. This is why Pelosi put impeachment off the table!

[humbled_opinion]

58. Agree and its also the reason that the whole Congress needs replacement.

[suston96]

45. The House did not adjourn -it recessed and left instructions for vetoes and such...

...anyway, I read that he vetoed it and returned it to the House.

[tabasco]

49. Why does Bush hate the troops?

Rats in Walter Reed and now this!

[rodeodance]

50. Bush to veto defense bill after Iraq objects

Source: reuters

Bush to veto defense bill after Iraq objects

By Tabassum Zakaria Fri Dec 28, 3:33 PM ET

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush intends to veto defense legislation after Iraq objected to a provision that could freeze its assets in the United States if Americans sue the country, the White House said on Friday

Iraqi officials raised their concerns with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about 10 days ago and when administration officials took a closer look at the provision they agreed that it could pose "grave financial risk" for Iraq, tying up assets needed for reconstruction, the White House said.

Iraq also discussed with the United States the possibility of pulling its assets, about $20 billion to $30 billion, out of U.S. institutions if the defense policy bill became law, a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity..........

The Bush administration is concerned that the bill would re-open lawsuits filed against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, some going back to the first Gulf War, and tie up the assets of the post-Saddam government.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071228/pl_nm/bush_defense_dc;_ylt=ArjTL2iBhimLOyk.CjA.Fzus0NUE

[TwilightGardener]

51. Good to see he listens to SOMEBODY. It sure isn't the Dem Congress, or we the people.

[LeftCoast]

52. This is an odd story. Digging in, it looks like Bush is going to try to pocket veto this

According to a post on Kos anyway. This doesn't look legal, but then again Bush seems to control the SC so maybe this will work?

[MH1]

53. But why? The Iraq provision seems a good justification for an actual veto.

I suggest, without, ahem, having read the linked story yet. I heard about this on NPR this morning and my first reaction was, who put that provision in the bill anyway?

Edit to add: okay having read the article, it was Lautenberg:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who sponsored the provision, said it was aimed at allowing American victims of terrorism to take countries responsible to court, such as Iran for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

[ck4829]

54. This is just another way to stop people from investigating Saddam's regime

And the Right Wing's ties to it.

[nwduke]

56. 10m a month not enough???

We are now spending 10 million a month on Iraq. Bush backs big oil, Pharmaceutical companies, Parasitic Insurance companies, and tax cuts for the top 1% of the population, why not succumb to Iraq's US chosen leader. Hopefully another bozo is not elected to replace the current one.

[Irishonly]

55. The Senate has been in Session

Not for long but I don't get why Bush is saying they are not and that's one of the reasons he is going to veto.

[rockybelt]

57. He is playing the ambiguity in the Constitution

The Constitution states that he can pass the bill, veto the bill and send it back to Congress or hold the bill for 10 days, in which time it will become law unless Congress is not in session and then it becomes a veto without his signature. The SENATE is in session but the CONGRESS is not. There lies the ambiguity that the chimp and his lawyers are trying to play. He don't have the balls to veto a bill outright that gives the military a 3.5% raise and allows Iraq to be held liable for war crimes. The same as he does not want himself to be held liable for war crimes.

[humbled_opinion]

59. Congress will Capitulate because.

There is no difference between A Democratic controlled Congress and a GOP controlled congress when Bush is the President.