NBC's Williams: Iraq spending bill would be "vote" by Dems "to leave American soldiers high and dry"
On the April 3 edition of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams asked NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert if President Bush, in threatening to veto an emergency Iraq war supplemental bill that would contain a timeline for troop withdrawal, was making "a calculated bet ... that Democrats aren't really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight." Russert replied that Bush "[a]bsolutely" was making such a "calculated bet" because "[h]e believes in the end he will get the funding" for the war.
But, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, both Democratic-led houses of Congress have passed legislation providing funding for the troops in the field. The Senate and House are expected to reconcile the bills in conference and send a final version to the president for his signature. Bush, however, has promised to veto the bill if it includes a timeline for the redeployment of troops from Iraq. So while Congress has demonstrated a clear intention to fund the troops, Bush has said he will veto the bill -- thereby denying funding to the troops -- if it doesn't meet his conditions.
From the April 3 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: And with us tonight for some analysis, our Washington bureau chief, moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert.
Tim, we mentioned at the top of the broadcast, isn't this a calculated bet on the president's part, betting that Democrats aren't really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight?
RUSSERT: Absolutely, Brian. He believes in the end he will get the funding, but the Democrats are also betting, Brian, that the president will veto a bill that puts pressure on the Iraqis and sets a date for withdrawal of U.S. troops. They believe 60 percent of the American people agree with them on that issue. So what happens after the president vetoes that Democratic bill? Then, I believe, enough Democrats will join Republicans to provide the funding, but a significant bloc of Democrats will oppose the funding. And today, Brian, as indicated by David [Gregory, NBC chief White House correspondent], the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid [NV], said he will vote to cut off funding. That puts enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton [NY], Barack Obama [IL], Joe Biden [DE], Chris Dodd [CT], Democrats in the Senate running for president, having to make a decision on that issue.
And herein lies the problem. The democrats have already voted FOR the money. It's just that Bush won't sign the bill when it gets to his desk. So indeed, once again, it would be Bush leaving the soldiers high and dry, and NOT the Congress.
Has the bill been sent to the White House yet?
The bills have been passed. The President will not approve a bill that has timelines in it.
No, wrong. The bills are in reconcilement committee between the House and Senate and has not been sent to the White House yet.
--"has not been sent to the White House yet."--
Bush is saying he'll veto a bill-even though he hasn't seen it. Your right-wing talking point is irrelevant.
As a single word standing by itself, 'timeline' means nothing... what the word is intended to mean, once properly filled out, is:
A scheduled end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
That's all, it's that simple.
Who does not believe in an end, scheduled or not, to the U.S. occupation of Iraq?
Even the very U.S. Troops who are occupying Iraq at this time, believe that the occupation must have an end to it, at some time or another...
The president is worse than negligent in not having planned any kind of 'exit strategy' or 'stand down' or 'timeline' to this occupation of Iraq, he presently borders on a criminal liability in his refusal to effect or even think about, an end to this military occupation of Iraq, which is now four-plus years ongoing...
Again, thousands of our Sons and Daughters killed in that place... tens of thousands of Iraqis killed also... more and more die every day... hundreds of billions of dollars siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury... $2 billion more each and every week.
After four-plus years, when does this life-consuming occupation end?
In the place where a responsible Commander-in-Chief would have planned such a thing (where George W. Bush negligently continues to refuse to address), the American People and their agents in Congress have taken responsibility, to end the occupation of Iraq.
That's all that's happening... it's that simple, that's what 'timeline' means.
The hack williams, cited in this item, mispoke... he should have said...
williams: ...isn't this a calculated bet on the president's part, betting that
Democrats aren't really going to vote to bring American Soldiers Home, safe and alive, and for the U.S. Armed Forces to be rebuilt, and made ready, for any true National Security threat we might face...
Democrats aren't really going to vote to end the occupation of Iraq, and bring American Soldiers Home, safe and alive, are they ?
I would say they are both to blame. I read Bush asked to cut the pork out of it. You read that to? So, why don't they cut the pork out of it and see if he is for real? Sounds easy to me.
Because if the pork was slashed, some Democrats wouldn't have supported it.....(and it probably wouldn't have passed).
Per Charlie Rangel, on H&C the other night.
Can you give us a link to where Bush said to cut the pork out of the bill?
Even if he said that he wants the pork cut and even if the pork is cut out entirely, he's still going to veto the bill.
So I don't see how his even mentioning pork is anything more than him trying to blame the congress while he hasn't accepted the blame for a goddamned thing since January of 2001.
Remember, if Bush says it's pork, then it is all most certainly not pork. Everything out of his mouth is a lie or half lie. Sometimes a lie and a half.
I love the concept of "a lie and a half"! That truly captures the essence of the creature known to us as Prez.
Yeah,
Be careful when Cons start talking about "Pork."
Something like increased funding for veterans' medical care would be labeled by Republicans as "pork."
...Yes, they can go that low.
Or corn storage.
In his opening statement, the President said this:
even in that statement, Bushie puts the "pork" at the end. He does not say that he would veto the bill only because there is pork.
One less thing for him to veto it over if it is not included. You like Pork Spending?
It takes nerves of steel to be a republican and complain about pork. Bridge to nowhere, anyone?
There are a few Repubs that want the pork gone. And you name a few Dems and you will have a point. Otherwise, your statement lacks.
My statement lacks nothing.
Yes it seems to, unless I missunderstood it. Let me try. Are you saying there is not ONE Republican who does not like pork spending? What is your take on Dems and pork spending?
Now you want to pretend like pork spending is a big problem??? Can you not see how ridiculous your point is when the Republican-controlled Congress was out of control with their pork spending? You had the highest federal budget deficits in history, and never complained. You had the highest percentage increase in the size of government spending ever, but never complained.
You people are total sheep. As soon as the right-wing blogs and pundits started using the word "pork" again, you start running around caring about pork spending again.
You remind me of Bush's speech yesterday. He criticized the Democrats for taking an Easter vacation while he is the most vacationing President in history. He criticized the Dems by saying their actions will mean military families won't be together, when Bush's actions are keeping hundreds of thousands of soldiers apart from their families.
Thank you for that. I've been hearing this idiotic "pork spending" problem come up on just about every talk radio program I've listened to of late. It's a way of attacking the bill without mentioning that it gives Americans WHAT THEY VOTED FOR in the last election: a beginning of an end to this disastrous foreign policy blunder by Bush and Co.
Do you know me personally? I did not think so. How do you know I DID NOT COMPLAIN? Typical dumb ars stereotyping me.
We saw you on this site, EvilLib.
Are you trying to say not one dem dislikes pork spending?
I'm not the one pretending to be offended by pork speding. You are. My original statement lacked nothing that yours did not dispell.
Good thing Bush never signs pork into law. And good thing the Republic Congress provided him pork free bills. After all, he only vetoed one bill (stem cell research).
So I gather you are for Dems spending pork, but not repubs? I am against it all.
It's the way business is done in Washington. The only way to get rid of it is to eliminate representative democracy. As long as people are accountable to a subset of the population, that subset will expect results for their vote.
And you've chosen now to come out of the closet as a pork hater. How brave.
There sure is a lot of pork that is a waste of money. However, sometimes it is the only way to get money to spend on improving our infrastructure in certain areas of the country.
As I recall the Ds have used the "Bridge to Nowhere" (rightfully) as an example of how they were going to change the mindset in WA DC. Ah, but we find that the more things appear to change, the more they stay the same. Use taxpayer money to buy votes and influence, makes no difference if you are D or R, you should be as outraged about this as some of us conservatives were about the aforementioned Bridge.
You said it Roundhouse...
All of a sudden the Cons--who packed 3 trillion in fresh debt on the backs of ordinary Americans--are trying to pass themselves off as "fiscal conservatives."
Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom!
What about when the repukes stuffed their bills for the war and the troops with pork. Or the bridge to nowhere, or the authorization to go into Iraq right before the mid term elections in 02. That was shameful because if the dems did not vote for it then it made them look weak on terror and unable to "protect" our country. Shrub don't like it when it's now done to him, well Tough S###.
How is providing relief (finally) to New Orleans and Katrina victims pork? How is helping farmers who lost millions over the tainted spinach pork? What you want to import even our food from China now?
I for one am sick and tired of this coward president using our fighting men and women for his own political gain. That is all he has done and that is all this war is about for him and his party. If he was so concerned about undercutting the troops, then he wouldn't have cut VA benefits, our soldiers wouldn't have to live off food stamps, he would have sent them to battle with the body and vehicle armor they needed and he wouldn't have used Walter Reed for yet another phot op. I would rather see some of this wasted money be spent here instead of on this useless war.
If he was so concerned about undercutting the troops, then there wouln't be millions of Iraq dollars unaccounted for and he wouln't let Haliburton continue ot overcharge for their services.
This is all about politics for this lying weasel who occupies OUR White House and he makes me sick.
Since the start of the "war", how many "commanders on the ground" has Bush shuttled through before finding ones that agree with him?
Or at least cow-tow (sp?) to him?
Why not reply to the presidents inane statement that he kept his lying mouth shut when Rummy was running roughshod over the same generals and commanders on the ground, and basically running the war his way. Why was it okay then and not now.
Also, in order to prevent a military dictatorship and to have some checks and balances on our generals and commanders, the framers of the constitution gave the right to congress to do exactly what it is they are doing now. We have a military that has power to execute and plan but with CONGRESSIONAL civilian oversight.
Next Bush will try and strip that away so he can finally be freakin King.
Earth to middle earth, in the words of the honorable senator from CA to Mr. President "‘You Don’t Make The Rules Anymore"
You read incompletely, obviously.
In other words, pass whatever the boy king wants or it gets vetoed. Hopefully he will eventually stop throwing his tantrum and actually work with Congress to see real progress in the Middle East so the troops don't go without.
Not to mention, who the he!! is he to speak disparagingly of vacations?
Note also that The President has the power to call congress back to session. So why didn't this President do that? Oh, uh, cuz he's going on vacation.
Also, as one congressperson pointed out last night, what Bush referred to as vacation is our congress people getting back to their home states and districts. Bush said something about Congress coming "home" to pass a new bill. If Bush thinks of Washington as "home" now, then so much for that "outside the beltway" mentality his crew was supposed to bring to DC.
"Pork" is money spent in other people's state or district.
Are you advocating leaving the soldiers sober and wet?
Why do you say that?
Think about it.
Really carefully.
Still do not get it.
"High and Dry" vs. "Sober and Wet"
Study in opposites.
conservatives + abstract thinking = confusion - funny.
Aw, be nice. It took me a moment to figure out, too.
Uh, Yeah, Magnolia....Bush told the democrats in no uncertain terms that if the bill contained and artificial date for a cut-and-run surrender, HE WOULD VETO IT. The democrat party knew that going in. They're just playing political games with our troops. Can't have a win in Iraq. No, no, no. That wouldn't look good in '08.
He isn't going to veto it JUST because of the pork.
I agree that both sides are to blame too. Technically, it is Bush that will not sign a bill (that hasn't arrived yet.) But, the bill is a conditional funding; conditions that Congress knew the Commander-in-Chief of the military would not support.
I have to disagree that there is any kind of equal blame on this issue.
Congress is demanding that the administration act with a modicum of responsibility in this matter - they lied to get us into war, they've lied at almost every step of the way, and they're scrambling to keep the money pit of the Iraq war open. Congress is giving more funding to the troops than requested, but demanding progress if we're going to stay there. No progress, get the heck out.
To me, that's a reasonable stance. To me, demanding unconditional funding for this war is completely unreasonable, and the President will hopefully capitulate before Congress does on this issue.
More reasons why the President should have the line item veto.
So he can take the money and leave troops in harm's way?
Brilliant!
No, so he can stop these ridiculous attachments to bills that have no relation to the meat of the bill itself.
Yeah, and put a stop to everything else that this President thinks is silly... Give him more unchecked power. Great idea... You could throw out the entire checks and balances thing that makes our government great.
Actually the Preznit already has been doing line item vetoes his whole time in office. It just isn't called something that blatant, we call it "Signing Statements". Which he uses like a line item veto (saying what part of the Bill he will abide by, and follow, and what parts he doesn't have to abide by). So stop the BS tommy, line item vetoes are here, and have been here in the form of Signing Statements.
Yeah, that makes no sense at all. If a President, any President, had a line item veto power, than what would be the point in having Congress at all? Because then any President could veto out whatever he and or she might not like from a certain bill, and I'm pretty sure that this was ruled un-Constitutional before. Giving a President line item veto power would further consolidate power into the executive branch, therefore turning the US into something more closely resembling a dictatorship, except with elections.
Very, very true. Line item veto would explode the power of the Executive to something beyond what anyone originally intended.
I like the line item veto as an idea, in an ideal situation. You know, with an honorable President who is looking after the best interests of the nation and its people and is wise enough to know what those are. In actuality, there is not one man or woman alive that I would trust with that kind of power. Hell, I wouldn't trust lincoln with that kind of power.
you should qualify your statement with "this" commander in chief. You make it sound as if he is acting in the best interests of the Soldier, which he is not. He is not a responsible commander.
I understand. I say cut it out, and see what he says. I am tired of the, "Ill scratch your back if you scratch mine" bs pork spending that goes on.
The pork isn't a concern of the President - he's not been concerned with "pork" since he's been in office. He threw it in there because it's politically advantageous and intellectually dishonest - he will not pass any bill that constricts his war on terra.
I understand, period. But why not call him on it?
Because troops' lives are more important than a relatively petty point about political pork?
Ok, whatever....... I find pork spending to be a huge reason our social programs ect are so f--ked up. I guess, you could care less about it. I care about the troops. Why is it the Dems, and Repubs included can not stick with one agenda? This should be all about the war, not scratching other rears.... Maybe you like it though.
All those years of a Republic Congress and there was no pork at all. There must not have been, because Bush only vetoed one bill the entire time. Nope. No pork at all approved by this president.
Nope, that 15 billion attached to the "emergency supplemental funding bill" last year was for... uh... Oh, a railway to nowhere in Mississippi. That's right.
Proof that our social programs are f'ed up because of pork spending.
Look, we get it. You'd rather not give our troops overseas another dime because your sudden philosophical enlightenment with regards to earmarks is more important than feeding, training, and protecting our armed services. You've made it clear where you stand and it's not on the side of our troops.
trying to reverse the role here? Remember, you are the liberal. You know, the ones that, "Don't support the war, but support the troops"....... BWA HA HA HA HA
move on.
First, provide the proof that our social programs are f'ed up because of pork spending.
Second, you're the one supporting a presidential veto of funding for our troops. I support the bill, and support the demand for an exit strategy.
You prefer to put your new philosophical objection to pork before the lives of soldiers. That's fine. You're entitled to such a nasty, uncaring, wicked position.
Truthfully, Marv, that puts him smack on the Repugnants' talking-points foundation. Although proud possessors of every single one of the IAVA "F" grades, and of every IAVA grade below "C"; and having NO Congressional Repugnants achieving even an "A-", the Repugnants nonetheless have spent six years berating the Dems - lowest grade "B-" - for failure to support the troops.
Who is IAVA? Why, just the well-known and prestigious "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America" whose ratings over the past five years have been used even in the MSM as measures of support for veterans and current troops. IAVA
Alternet conversion to letter grade
Oh, an aside on the matter of pork in the supplemental funding: please note that the single citation by Bungle of that pork, was the "cover" for the mandated security updates to the Capitol Bldg. - a few $million, and pretty much a non-starter as pork, compared to the average $20Billion of the Repugnant supplementals.
This is not a war and I wish people would stop calling it such. I remember shrub standing on a aircraft carrier with a big banner behind him saying "Mission Accomplished" and touting the end of official military actions.
There is a Civil War ongoing in Iraq, but technically we are on occupying force under attack by unconventional means and not by any one country's military.
War is hell, this think in Iraq is just Hell!
Funny, WIMA, Bush has been just about veto-free this century, and you're suddenly very concerned about pork.
I am too (I'm a liberal).
I think the only way to get rid of pork (which needs to happen if we ever want any fiscal responsibility) is to pass a Bill that says "one bill, one issue".
ALL bills are conditional funding. Every bill that crosses the president's desk with pork projects is conditional funding. The idea is that the president is NOT the be-all and end-all of government spending.
You hear a lot about the line-item veto, it's desired for things just like this current emergency funding bill. If it was in place, the president would get his money and congress - those who speak for the people - would get nothing. That's not democracy, OR a republic. That's a monarchy.
"congress - those who speak for the people - would get nothing. "
Right now we live in a monarchy. Those idiots in congress do not give a rats ars about the people of the United States.
The PREVIOUS congress didn't give a rat's arse, that's why there's new folks in there. This congress will find that if they likewise don't give a rat's arse, they will be be replaced also. That's the basic workings of a democratic republic. Don't llike it? Sorry.
New Folks? Who? Those vermin that got elected in are the same ones that have been in office for years. Things will not change soon. Go back out to pasture you sheep.
"Those vermin that got elected in are the same ones that have been in office for years."
Aw...someone must have slept through the election, Rip Van Winkle style. Well wipe the goobers from your eyes honey and observe reality.
"vermin".
Ahhh, that explains it. A Weiner dog...
First off Neon, I wasn't advocating line-item vetoes. Second, not ALL bills have a 300-lb gorilla condition like the funding bill Congress will send the President. Third, you didn't answer my question...if you didn't agree with the conditions that the funding bill set forth, would you still say it was the president's fault the bill won't pass? I'm not saying it's ONLY Congresses, mind you.
First, the line-item veto was the next logical step in this discussion, and has been addressed in prior comments, if you care to read anyone but yourself.
Second, the pork or timetables included in this emergency spending bill are NOT 300lb gorillas compared to bills historically sent to the president.
Third, I DID reply to you, however your ignorance of how the "reply" link works (I don't really think it was ignorance, I think it was probably a misclick, but ignorance is more fun) makes my reply fall further down in this comments section, immediately after your message asking me your "hypothetical".
The FACT that Congress couldn't pass this Bill without PORK attached is pathetic. So much for really being concerned about the Troops...their votes had to be bought!
And the excuses some of you have given for your Democrat lawmakers is just as pathetic...
IF the Democrats are truly serious about bringing the troops home then send Bush the Bill as is, let him Veto it, then send it back WITHOUT the Pork. IF he vetoes it again, then they'll have the upper hand and their dignity.
The Republicans may be the scums you'd all like to claim they are, BUT I have a news flash for you...your Democrats aren't much better. I have zero respect for the whole damn bunch.
Then get involved, organize a concerned citizens group, something, anything. It's your American right to petition your government. It's YOUR GOVERNMENT. Do something about it.
Roundhouse,
I know you mean well but unless me & 1,000,000 other people join forces and march on Washington and let these clowns know we're sick of it, nothing is going to change.
I had high expectations that the Democrats would find a way to bring the troops home. Instead it's just politics as usual.
Bush is useless, BUT I thought Congress would challenge him without looking for handouts. I thought they were serious.
Except for a handful of principled lawmakers the rest are just playing the old 'you scratch my back-I'll scratch yours' game.
Games. While more of our Troops & innocent Iraqis die. Pathetic.
hahaha funny guy...you think Congresscritters ever take a principled stand and make tough decisions? They are there to get people to lie them so they can get re-elected again. Hence why I'm disassociated from the Democratic party (they are the same as Republicans in Congress, values mean nothing if you don't stand on them and actually make tough decisions that may piss some people off).
should say "so people like them" not "lie".
Also, wanted to add, I see most of the Dem's as not having any spine at all (See Obama's short history in Congress, and how short he comes on the really tough issues of making a principled stand).
Oh...it's the "they are all the same" canard. Get in line. You're not the first to think of it as a pu$$y position.
OK. That's the attitude that made a great nation. No doubt, MLK wouldn't have worked for change without the massive support base? No, he raised and energized a support base. No doubt, mother Jones had a million member support group? No, she inspired people.
Nothing like cynicism to inspire one to greatness, eh Jeter?
Sorry to take you to task but when reasonable people such as yourself are negative it's a bummer.
What were you expecting? Fairy dust and clicking their heels?
Congress controls the purse strings. Congress is working on passing a bill that will provide funding for the next year PROVIDED that it's the last year our soldiers are in Iraq. By late 2008, if this bill passes and is signed, our soldiers would be redeployed. Bush is refusing to sign it.
And you have a problem with CONGRESS?
Congress has now made it clear that it's time to start the process of redeployment. Bush is standing in the way of that, and the way of the will of the people.
Yo kiddos!! Just because Bush wants to label some items as pork don't make it so. This man is a liar extraordinaire . As has been noted many many times in this thread, not once has he vetoed a bill because of "pork". His argument that pork is holding up this bill does not hold water. Ok?
Judging by his record, Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like.
This is really a stupid issue, one that any halfway intelligent person could understand. For conservatives, it may need some clarification:
The president is willing to put American lives on the line by rejecting the money congress has voted to give him - as he requested - to supply the troops. The spoiled brat is wil....I'm sorry, I mean the president is willing to do this in order to keep the troops in harms way longer than the legislative branch thinks is necessary. Here's the key point: to make himself look good, he fired the first shot in the blame game by saying the present bill does not please him, and by stating that the burden was on congress to write a bill that DOES please him. So all you partisan dummies need to do is ask the question "Does the current bill fund the troops, as the president requested?". The answer is, of course, yes. And from that perspective, it's easier to see how questions of the dems "stymieing" bush and "leaving the troops high and dry" are ridiculous.
Now, there's always the outside chance that at least some of the democrats and republicans who voted against the bill the first time will flip and vote to override the veto, something that I haven't heard talk of yet. It's very unlikely, but either that or a good spanking are the only things I can think of that the president needs right now.
BLR, just as Bush is not working with Congress by forcing them to pass exactly what he wants or threatening a veto, Congress is not "working" with Bush in terms of this funding bill they're going to send.
I think it would make veeerrry interesting politics if the Dems withdrew the timetable but left in the pork and sent it to Bush.
I agree. It's really the timetable that Bush will not adhere too......the pork is just a tool that he's using. But the pork should be removed too, it is unrelated and ridiculous.
I agree with your assessment. I'll add (or highlight since you kind of allude to it) another aspect of the "pork" I don't like...it muddies the Iraq debate. Why give Bush any refuge from facing the real issue of a timetable?
?? Why would they take out the provision that helps our soldiers and leave in pork? That makes no sense, politically or otherwise.
Bush has already demonstrated he would vote such a bill. He did exactly that with LAST YEAR's "emergency supplemental funding" bill. It had fifteen billion in pork, including money for a railroad that goes to nowhere down in Mississippi.
This year's "pork" includes money for things like peanut storage in the south, fishery rebuilding, etc. Stuff that, you know, the economy down there relies on.
If right-wingers really gave a crap about spending accountability, they a) wouldn't have voted this administration in for a second term, and b) would insist that Bush fund his war via the regular budget process rather than via "emergency supplemental funding bills." The regular budget process provides way more oversight on everything, as committees and even the military get to look at each item in every part of the budget. These supplementals avoid that process. Gee, wonder why? Maybe we'd have a better idea of where all those pallets of money went had we had a bit more oversight from the Republican controlled congress.
Oh, wait. That's the congress that gave us bridges and railways to no place.
"Bush has already demonstrated he would vote such a bill."
Er, SIGN such a bill.
Neon, if the Dems sent a bill to Bush that funded the troops but mandated that we execute one of our own troops for every Iraqi killed by a car bomb until a withdrawal, would you say "Well, Congress sent Bush a funding bill but he won't sign it, so it's his fault the troops won't get their money!" A more extreme example than a simple timetable for withdrawal, but the point is the same.
If you would say the same thing, please carry on.
Hey Dex - just so you know, there's a "reply to comment" link under every post that will thread your replies and will allow them to be a bit easier to follow. When this thread explodes, which it probably will, your comments will probably get lost if you don't use it.
Just an FYI!
Yes, I would say the same thing. Because that's the way the system is set up. Then the judicial branch would declare the bill unconstitutional, and your manufactured crisis would be over. Because that's the way the system is set up.
Now, using your analogy (a really sad one at that), if Bush required the spending bill to have those same executions, would you still be a Bushie?
I'm no Bushie and this certainly isn't "my" manufactured crisis. I am able to look critically at both sides of the political spectrum.
You manufactured the execution of one of our troops for each car bomb, or did I misinterpret what you wrote?
And there's a difference between looking at both sides of the issue, and just being cynical.
Oh, please do assure me that you have no cynicism for the current president. Please.
Look up the literal meaning of the word "cynic", and re-read the sentence in which I used it. Then decide if you really want to pose that question.
Although this could be just another attempt by the so called liberal media to paint the democrats as "anti military" and not good for national security. Even though when the bills get reconciled and sent to Bushie for signature, he'll veto it. When this does happen, as he keeps saying that it will, it will be HIS fault, and HIS fault alone that the troops aren't getting the funding that HE asked for, and which Congress gave to him.
It seems to me at this stage that Congress has the right to force this choice. The people don't like the war, the intelligence was cherry-picked at best, and the legality of it is questionable at best. The suggestion of the right-wing talking points seems to be that since Bush promises to veto, Dems are acting irresponsibly in not supporting the troops while accepting the premise of indefinite war. They know he's going to veto it, so they should just send him a plain funding bill to "support the troops".
Here's the thing, though;the resolution is non-binding. It doesn't force anything. Very few people are supporting open-ended war (especially under the circumstances it started and the execution of it since), and if Bush can't even put his name on something that even suggests a foreseeable end to the war, then what sympathy should the American people have for him?
The Dems are doing exactly what they should, forcing Bush to own the war. If he really thinks the effort is so worthwhile, then he should sign the bill and fund the troops. It's going to be hard for rank-and-file Americans to buy into the whining that Dems are acting irresponsibly because Bush vetoes a funding bill because he's not even reasonable enough to accept the concept of it ending. Since Bush and his war are so unpopular, why should they care?
They're trapping Bush in his own net of rhetoric, and hanging him over the bottomless pit of his own unpopularity. And that's exactly where he should be.
So, because you agree with the conditions, it's totally the President's fault that the troops wont' be funded right away? If you did not agree with the conditions, would it still be his fault?
I can see your point, but the majority in Congress and the majority of Americans disagree with the President on this matter. At some point, it has to be said that the President is blocking the will of the people on a matter that is draining our national resources in funds and in lives.
BLR, I also tend to lean toward the position that the President should sign bills that aren't unconstitutional or represent a major misuse of resources or de facto corruption. If he has a problem with it, he should just campaign against it and go on TV as much as possible to talk about it.
So, massive pork, veto. Black people get 3 votes each to make up for when they were only considered 3/4 a person by the Constitution, veto. Most other things, pass 'em along.
Here's the bottom line;it's a reasonable expectation that we can see an end to the war. The people are for that. They are against the war. They don't like Bush. Bush is acting unreasonably by not even opening up to the possibility of what the ever-increasing majority of Americans want.
If the shoe was on the other foot, if it was a Democratic president who was being a pig-headed, war-mongering idiot who refused to listen to anyone but the voices in his head, and Republicans forced his hand, that would be fair. Bush laid all the groundwork for this, if he wants to own the war forever here's his chance. You can't blame Dems for making him put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
You are clueless Dex. There is ample funding to support the troops into early summer. Also, there has been no cost breakdown of how exactly this funding will be spent and what % of that money will actually benefit the troops or how much will benefit the bush pal contractors that are gouging us and amassing nice little war profits.
If the president was honest about this funding, he would break down the costs ie "without this money, we cannot pay our troops which will have a hardship on their families." etc. He does not say this and never will because he is a LIAR.
The earlier post about the emergency supplemental spending is right on - go back and read it. This is nothing more than more war profiteering for the pres, his supporters, their cronies and the industrial war complex. The troops are pawns.
Cheney made $8 million last year from his Haliburton stock. They were caught deliberately overcharging and charging for services they did not provide and then they paid the paltry fine from the money they stold from the taxpayers and the troops.
What I hope is that when it's vetoed, they are able to get enough people to override the veto. It worries me that the funding may not get passed anytime soon, but I do support it being passed with a provision that demands accountability from the admin and some kind of demand for progress.
I'm not sure Republicans are quite ready to break with Bush on that level just yet. But it's certainly something they should be thinking about, considering how unpopular he and his war are. Bush is looking at an almost historically low level of respect, and deservedly so. It might sting a little to side with the Dems on anything, but if they're looking ahead to the election ads pointing out that they "didn't support the troops" "voted for open-ended war" and "backed Bush", they might not find that scenario very appealing either.
If he vetos, they fund the war crime from the regular Defense (heh) budget. If he doesn't, he gets more funding than he asked for. It's a win/win either way, except for a few defense contractors looking for the pork. There are no binding timtables for withdrawal, the White House is given all the power to decide if Iraq has met the 'benchmarks', he even gets to decide what those benchmarks are. The Democrats can sit on their butts for the next two years, telling their puppies that the war crime MIGHT end in 2008 and campaign for the next election over the deaths of all the Americans and Iraqis to be killed in the next two years...which they made sure would keep happening. Dems prove yet again that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Only 10 Dems voted against the bill in the House because it did not end the war crime. All the rest supported it, supported two more years of senseless death and destruction.
Looks like both sides just left our troops "high and dry"...or more appropriately, stuck in Iraq up to their armpits in death and misery. Troops. Home. NOW! Not two years from now.
Tommy,why the big rush now,after 6 years of pork-laden bills and ridiculous attachments,why does Lil"w" now decide he doesn't want any pork or attachments in the bills?
Care to elaborate or opinine,why at this time,Tommy?
You are correct. As I said, Bush's big problem is the timetable - he is just using pork as another reason to be against it.
Bush loves pork, always has up until now.
Yeah, the pork thing is definitely a red herring by Bush. Yeah, there's smelly pork, but it's really a secondary issue, and both sides know that.
Only way to get rid of pork w/o the Pres. having a line-item (which I don't support) is for Congress to police themselves and encourage one another not to take $$$ from the federal coffers to fund suspect projects for their consituents.
Pfffffffffffbwahahaahahaahahaahaa.
Taxation without representation....... No one better at it then our present congress.
Uh... you have no idea what you're saying, do ya?
I thought his post was revolutionary.
Dex,
I realize the line item veto gives more power to the executive branch, but Congress is unable to police themselves and wean off the pork they so desperately are addicted too.......that is the problem.
All these bills get muddied up with a bunch of pet projects - if the Pres had the line item veto it would force Congress to leave out these idiotic earmarked pork projects and send cleaner more focused bills up the hill.
Again, the President (whoever it is) could then not only take out pork, but could also take out whatever else he or she wanted. Line item veto, un-Constitutional, period. It would not clear up this issue either, because then he would take out the pork, and the timeline, and he'd have exactly what he wanted, which unfortunately since his party doesn't run Congress any longer, he doesn't get. Line item veto consolidates MORE power into the executive, and you can once again scrub out the checks and balances set forth by our Constitution. Why do you have such a problem with our Constitution that you want a line item veto?
In support of your position: 1998 USSC decision that the line item veto is unconstitutional:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -Sinclair Lewis
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1911
I think a line-item veto's constitutionality would be decided on whether the privilege it gives the Exec. branch outweighs that of Congress to overturn vetos. Remember Congress can overturn the line-item vetos as well. I think that requiring 2/3 (or is it 3/4? I forget my kiddie political science videos) of each house to overturn a veto is a bit unfair if a pres. can line-item. Just my two cents.
The line item veto has already been ruled unconstitutional. I happened during Clinton's magnificent reign. Let's move on.
So that means you can't be more than, what, 15 years old?
Huh? What are you talking about? With most trolls, I understand what they are trying to accomplish, namely the prorogation of long ago discredited talking points. They have their own internal logic. You obviously have none.
It was a joke. Chill. I like how you used the big p-word to make up for your little typing slip (which we all have) in the post I was joking you on.
What case was the line-item veto issue? I want to read it..I wasn't under the impression that a Repub congress would give Clinton a line-item, unless it was before they came to power.
I liked the ribbing. Thought it was funny. In fact, it was obscure enough that I have my doubts that you're even a conservative...
Well, trust your instincts. I think my challenges are more to people's partisanships and how it skews their reason than directly to ideologies. It really is no matter to me if you're a liberal, conservative, moderate, dem or repub. Just don't be wacky.
[link to www.cnn.com]
ps I think the case was Clinton vs. City of New York.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
Thanks! Major consitutional issues crop up from the oddest little cases.
I have 2 observations:
1 - You all have mentioned line-item vetoes - Hasn't Bush essentially been doing this with his "signing statements"?
2 - What's to stop Bush from signing the supplemental funding bill and using said signing statements to blow off what he doesn't like about the bill?
Just wondering..
Good post Spin. There don't seem to be differences unless someone/something challenges Bush on the constitutionality of the signing statements OR his disregard for a law set forth because of it.
If Congress/Bush fight, it gets to go right to the Supreme Court, I believe, so it's not like it would bog things down forever.
Regarding (2.), that's exactly what makes Bush's position so unreasonable, and what's going to make it hard to convince people that Bush is a victim of those mean Dems here. That might actually be a legitimate use of the signing statement, to point out that the timeline is non-binding. But if Bush can't even sign it under those circumstances, it's hard to argue that anyone's forcing him to veto it.
I just don't get it. Sure, if he signs it, Dems can point to it later, but Bush has people to spin for him working full-time. They can say "it was non-binding" or "circumstances have changed" or "we were just supporting the troops", etc. As if Snow, McLellan, Fleischer, and Bush himself haven't tried to sell a million less plausible defenses to the public already?
Yeah, I said that earlier in the comments (don't expect you to read and remember everything written). But yeah, he has already been doin the line item vetoes in the form of signing statements...hence breaking the constitution and could easily be impeached just on those grounds alone (let alone Treason for leaking a CIA operatives name that was still undercover), or starting a pre-emptive war with a country that posed no threat to us and made our national security less safe.
I don't really understand the signing statements anyway. If the pres. thinks his powers constitutionally trump something that comes across in a bill, he should either veto that bill as the protector of the Constitution, or just invoke exec. privilege when he/she feelst he time is right. Why make a statement?
Because he doesn't have the balls enough to veto it, especially in the past cases where there were more than enough votes to overturn a veto (such as the anti torture legislation that was passed).
Meh, but why not just invoke privilege without the statement? Could just do that with this bill too.
Too bad. I thought Williams was actually OK.
Holy cripes for Williams to ask such a loaded question.
He might as well ask, "Isn't the President betting on the fact he has the votes to continue an unending, unsuccessful occupation until he leaves office and the quagmire of blood and money is turned over to the next president?
Well phrased, and Bush seems to be acting in just that manner, probably because he's used to being able to do WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS. So now it seems he's preparing to take his ball and go home.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/features/article_1287132.php/Bush_delays_slowed_war_funding
Since 2002, however, the White House has submitted the annual war funding request six months after the fiscal year has already started. This automatically puts the bill and Congress into crisis mode and ratchets up political pressure to approve the $100 billion requests quickly to demonstrate their support of the troops.
But with half the year elapsed already with no war funding, the military every year dips into its procurement accounts, delays training exercises and defers scheduled weapons and vehicle repair until the war money comes through.
Keep the above in mind when you look at Timmy Russert's framed question which is this: that Democrats aren't really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight..
What Brian meant to say was that GE defense contracting would be left high and dry, but his bosses control the TelePrompTer, after all.