CNN's McIntyre: Bush "can't sign" war funding bill Congress sent him
On the April 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, reporting on how the standoff over Iraq war funding could possibly delay the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored vehicles, CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre said: "And so, while the Democrats send the president a bill he can't sign, and the president holds out for one with no timelines, the Army and the Marines have to get by with the 1,000 vehicles they have now, not the 6,000 more they're still waiting for." McIntyre's construction -- that President Bush "can't sign" the war funding bill -- echoes the White House's position on the bill. Congress passed a bill that provides $124 billion in funding and requires that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begin by October 2007. Bush could sign the bill and fund the war, including the supply of MRAP vehicles, but instead he has vowed to veto it.
From the April 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
McINTYRE: But plans to kick the deployment of the better-armored vehicles to Iraq into high gear has hit a political roadblock: the standoff between Congress and the White House over Iraq funding. While each side blames the other, $3 billion for more life-saving vehicles is held hostage to the political debate. As the outgoing Army chief told Congress last month, the only hold-up is funding.
GEN. PETE SCHOOMAKER (U.S. Army chief of staff): We can build what we could get the funds to build. It's strictly an issue of money.
[end video clip]
McINTYRE: And so, while the Democrats send the president a bill he can't sign, and the president holds out for one with no timelines, the Army and the Marines have to get by with the 1,000 vehicles they have now, not the 6,000 more they're still waiting for -- Wolf.
BLITZER: So, you -- there's a clear frustration level that you're sensing out there?
McINTYRE: Well, that's right. I mean, obviously it doesn't become a critical problem right away. But with Congress looking like they may not come up with a compromise until June, that's really putting the squeeze on the Army to try to reprogram some funds to keep the flow of these vehicles going.
BLITZER: Jamie, thank you for that. We'll stay on top of this story for our viewers.
I know - "can't" should probably be "won't", but if that isn't a hair-splitting difference, I don't know what is? Bush "can't" (head shaking No!) sign it for reasons he has explained, or Bush "won't" sign it for reasons he has explained.
Absolutely right Tommy, Great article MMFA! Keep um comin....
Oops, I think I just gave Tommy credit where it is NOT due!!
I kind of liked it - thought it was a really counterintuitive way to debate Tommy: "You're absolutely right dude, I completely disagree with you!"
Yes Tommy is right. It is nit picking.
Darn it, if one doesn't pick the nits, one winds up supporting the infestation that we currently have in the White House. Tough choice whether to barf and pick, or barf and impeach.
Your post doesn't make any sense. Of course there is a tremendous difference between "can't" and "won't." The President can not sign a spending bill until it has been passed by Congress. That's against the law.
In this case, President Bush has decided - before it was passed and therefore before he could read it - that he would not sign it. Could he? Of course - I'll loan him a pen if he needs one.
Further - it was President Bush's Administration that decided to fund these Wars through Supplemental bills rather than as part of the annual Defense Spending allocation (which would have been more honest, required some planning and being straightforward with the American people, and would have been the right way to do this). Instead they elected to take these Wars "off the books." That worked to some extent with a Republican House and Senate.
I guess it's too late for them to try to do it the right way - be honest about how much money and time it's going to take.
The difference is essential, especially in the context of McIntyre's distorted presentation. McIntyre is claiming that it is the Democrats who are holding up the required funding (by "not compromising"). This is a distortion. The Democrats have created a bill that WILL fund the troops. If the President signs it, they will get the funding they need.
That whole presentation could have been skewed in a completely different direction. Why not say that the President isn't compromising?, and why not say the the Democrats "can't" offer a bill without a date for withdrawal? This would still be a distortion, of course, but it helps to illuminate why McIntyre is distorting the debate in his presentation.
Well there is a difference between "Cant" and "wont". Bush wont sign the bill, he "can" but he "wont" We know why, because him and his war criminals are in to deep.
Of course Bush "can't" sign that bill. He's totally incapable of doing the right thing.....
:-)
Eloquent and elegant summary! Woulda loved touv said it.
Thanks!!! :-)
C(ertainly) N(ot) N(ews) is trying to outfox, uumm...Fox *news*
The question of semantics may seem like a non-issue, but elections have been decided by such "trivial" matters.
can't (cannot) - unable to do something
won't (will not) - lacking the desire to do something
'Zactly.
The fact remains that he won't sign the bill. As others have pointed out, there is a large difference. Now, say his arms were broken, then he couldn't sign the bill, but as we know, this is not the case. He just won't sign it, as is his right according to the Constitution of the United States, but he alone will be to blame for not continuing funding for the troops, as the majority of Congress voted for these bills.
I hear what you're saying, but you could also apply the word "can't" to someone who won't do something based on his or her moral objections or being unable to do something based on core principles. And that is part of the reason Bush is giving for his refusal to sign this bill, so for him to stick to what he believes in, he "can't" sign this bill, therefore the word is properly used.
For the record, I think Bush should sign this bill - he is being obstinate and thumbing his nose at what the people voted for in November.....it doesn't even have a binding timetable, so Bush is being a little ridiculous, and patently stubborn.
Bush has signed bills he didn't like before, and just signing-statemented them out of existence.
Stubborn and obstinate is right - from everything he has said publicly his opinion appears to be: leaving = losing. And that's exactly how far he seems to want to think about it.
Val, That is not the point. The point is the correct or incorrect use of the term "can't"........in my opinion, the reporter used it correctly given Bush's stance and committment to this war, in his eyes, a principled stance he "can't" compromise on, obviously.
Sorry, Tommy, I'm boycotting the "meta" arguments. I chose to agree with you on the substantive part of your comment.
The use of "can't" here can be explained and justified - you have done that. The fact is though, that this is a propagandistic slant put on the situation implying that Bush is being forced to veto rather than just being intransigent. There are many different constructions that can be put on that veto. That one is a demonstration of bias.
I appreciate your opinion and understand your uneasiness with the term "can't"......as I said, "won't" would probably have been the better, more innocuous, word to use, I certainly can't or won't disagree with that.
"but you could also apply the word "can't" to someone who won't do something based on his or her moral objections or being unable to do something based on core principles. And that is part of the reason Bush is giving for his refusal to sign this bill, so for him to stick to what he believes in, he "can't" sign this bill, therefore the word is properly used."
Should an objective reporter make a subjective judgment that Bush has a legitimate principled stand against this? You say he should sign the bill, so obviously you don't buy what Bush is selling. Unless you think people should do things that they "can't" morally do, of course. That's interesting, if you do.
Really, if you think he can sign the bill, why should an objective reporter on cable say he "can't"? Especially considering that the conclusion that Bush "can't" sign the bill leads to military shortages being the fault of Congress, from the sound of the text here.
This isn't to be "argumentative" or anything, I'm genuinely curious how this works out in your mind. It's very odd, by any standards.
It is no secret how Bush feels about his war, the committment he has to it in spite of his historic poll numbers and the bad news coming from Iraq everyday. There is nothing subjective about a reporter conveying that.....it is well known. So, saying he "can't" sign it, knowing full well how Bush feels about it, seems like a fair word to me.
Do I think that "won't" would have been a better choice?, probably......but his using the word "can't" in the context of Bush's strong objections to signing the bill for reasons well known, seems appropriate enough. In other words, it's not a big deal to me. I don't see any misinformation in it, but apparently you and I see it differently.
If it's still "odd" to you, I am sorry - I have explained it enough.
Have a nice afternoon.
So Bush should sign the bill, and it's ridiculous for him not to...but it's acceptable to you that an objective reporter declares that Congress sent him a bill he "can't" sign, and because of that it's going to hold up support for the troops. That seems like pretty obvious bias and distortion. What's the principle? Obstinance and inflexibility? If that's the basis for the "principle" he's standing on that disallows him to sign the bill, then he shouldn't be pinning the blame on Congress.
You said you thought Dems were the wronged party regarding the war...but when they're blamed for the veto, that's just fine by you.
Oh yes, how could I forget this?
I suppose hypocrisy is something that an objective source can legitimately portray as a principle to stand on, along with obstinate commitment to an unpopular, inexplicable war.
TOMMY:
Without much hope, I'll try to explain the difference to you a different way, by asking a question: What does the White House want the American People to think? That Bush just CANNOT SIGN this bill, or that he stubbornly WON'T sign the bill?
Obviously, he CAN sign, but he refuses to. To say he CANNOT SIGN it is to say the bill, in itself, intrinsicly, is UNSIGNABLE. The little old lady from Pasedena, having seen this "report", will think Congress has given the president a bill that is UNSIGNABLE, and that is MISINFORMATION. That is the White House's SPIN on signing, that the President has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE.
The President DOES have a choice: he CAN sign it, but he WILL NOT (WON'T), which is completely different, because this places the decision NOT on THE BILL, but on THE PRESIDENT. The failure to provide funding for the troops then falls on THE PRESIDENT, not on Congress (for writing a bill that just COULD NOT BE SIGNED).
There was either a CHOICE, or there was NOT a choice; this "reporting" informed the American People that the President had NO CHOICE ... and that is a LIE.
The SECOND bit of water-carrying is this nonsense about a particular vehicle that CONGRESS is now denying the troops. How utterly cynical ... and with unmitigated gall ... of the White House to bring up the topic of supplying the troops with the equipment they need to be safe. We KNOW that this war was begun in such haste, and with such little regard for the troops by the President, that they were initially sent into battle with IMPROPERLY ARMORED Humvees, which led to the unnecessary deaths and maimings of at least DOZENS of our troops. Rumsfeld KNEW about this problem for MONTHS, and did absolutely NOTING ABOUT IT. This neglect is FIRMLY on the White House and the President ... that blood is on HIS hands. How DARE he try to blame his FURTHER incompetence on Congress, which is after all trying to BRING THE TROOPS HOME and out of harm's way? This "reporter" is carrying the MYTH that, by sending this bill which CANNOT BE SIGNED, that Congress is depriving our troops of life-saving equipment. WHAT A TOTAL CROCK!
If you can't see ... or WON'T see ... how this is a major propaganda piece FOR the White House, Tommy, then I'm afraid you have too little cognition to understand how to pour piss out of a boot, if the instructions were written on the sole.
Or, to put it another way, "Congress can't send the president a bill he will sign". How's that for splitting hairs?
Kilgore, your english is bad, lets try this one on for size
its "Congress hasn't sent the president a Bill he wants to sign".
Sorry, but the real problem comes later, when this shameless hack says, "the Army and the Marines have to get by with the 1,000 vehicles they have now, not the 6,000 more they're still waiting for."
Is this guy a reporter, or a Karl Rove spokesman? Whose fault is it that they are still waiting on those vehicles? Did production stop to wait for the resolution of this p*ssing contest? I really doubt it.
Amazing.
I agree, Nerzog. That part really caught my attention. That sure seems a deliberate attempt to imply that any delays in vehicle deliveries are caused by delays in the funding bill...which makes the "can't" seem deliberate too.
For me the problem comes later when he says: "...with Congress looking like they may not come up with a compromise until June..." Why is the burden on Congress to come up with a compromise? Why shouldn't the President compromise?
That whole report was tainted by distortion. What is really disconcerting is that McIntyre (and CNN) probably doesn't even realize what kinds of presuppositions he is swallowing in and spitting out. Like the rest of the mainstream media, CNN often simply accepts the framework of debate that is preferred by the Republicans.
NERZOG:
I was reminded here of that famous National Lampoon cover, which said "If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog!" On the cover was a picture of a cute dog with a gun to its head. This was, of course, a biting satire on shameless promotionalism ... and we see it here in real time: "See these 6000 vehicles? They're ready to go, to PROTECT OUR TROOPS, but CONGRESS will not send the President the bill HE WANTS, so the troops will have to DO WITHOUT. Shame on CONGRESS! They must HATE OUR TROOPS."
Shameless, and utter nonsense. Propaganda with a capital "P".
Oh, yes, those silly, futile Dems have painted themselves into yet another corner, sending Bungle a bill that provides everything his simple mind asked for, and adds a sizeable number of things he should have asked for (but which escaped his limitations), and now must face the inevitable pummelling by the electorate which erupts from their transgressions. Oh, if only they had the wisdom to heed the Corporate Media's scandalous scum, and schedule Bungle's coronation well ahead of any further resort to those quaint elections.
I'm actually relieved. I thought the headline meant W forgot how to spell W.
C'mon, give him a break. He hasn't even been reading very long...
I thought the break I gave him was far better than his arms, in not insisting on the extermination of his gene pool, to avoid contamination of what will remain of humanity after his policies have led to our near-extinction.
---McIntyre: "... with Congress looking like they may not come up with a compromise until June..."---
If there's going to be a compromise, it is the responsibility of BUSH as well as Congress to come up with one. That's how compromises differ from capitulation.
I think they're right. Bush can't sign it.
He can make an X at the bottom, though, and someone else can witness that it is his mark.
Classic.
xxxx
McINTYRE: Well, that's right. I mean, obviously it doesn't become a critical problem right away. But with Congress looking like they may not come up with a compromise until June, that's really putting the squeeze on the Army to try to reprogram some funds to keep the flow of these vehicles going.
Media Matters should have highlighted the above as well. McIntyre is suggesting that the squeeze on the Army is due to Congress not compromising with Bush and we all know compromise means giving Bush back the dictatorial powers he was accustomed to when Congress was ran by a rubber stamping Republican Party.
Never mind the fact that if we continue to support this war we have redeemed Hitler and we should take him off of the boogeyman because we are playing the game of how we got into this war is irrelevant and if we are playing that game then Hitler should also not be hit for going into an unecessary war.
The Republican Party's game plan is to keep the public's attention off of how we got into this war by getting the public to put its attention on some imaginary victory.
Of course. Every time the pre-war lies are brought up, they hem and haw about not dwelling in the past and concentrating on what to do next. This is because they know that revealing the truth will guarantee Democratic majorities for the next 30 years.
Glad to see that blame for the lack of proper equipment is finally being put where it belongs. It's the Democrats fault that the troops haven't been properly equipped.
How great that after all this time responsibly is being properly assigned. I think that's the real issue here - we'll be seeing much more of this as time goes on.
Actually, Tommy is correct that "can't" is permissible in this situation. He comes closest to the reason when he notes that Bush's decision to veto is tied to his view of the war. The applicable definition of "can" is:
d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to (per Webster)
Of course, this just means the use asserted by Tommy is acceptable. It doesn't mean McIntyre didn't mean "can't" to mean lack of ability. As pointed out by others but missed by MMFA, there's a couple of other statements by McIntyre that clearly imply blame resting with Congress.
Actually, for the afformentioned use of "can't" I prefer this defintion of "can":
b : be physically or mentally able to
Think about it. <g>
Clearly, Jamie is promoting theadministrations view as un-biased news.
THAT's the point of the report by Media Matters.
To go a step further - that's also why I have such a difficult time getting factual information anywhere, main stream 'news' vehicles won't make the effort to simply report what is in an effort to sell the sizzle.
Everyone is missing the main point of the statement (at least in terms of what is at stake). Bush has had 4 years to get it right as far as equipment goes...the fact that they haven't previously ordered the right equipment is due to their focus on getting as many contracts to Halliburton and their ilk as possible while the conditions were still ripe...for those of you who know anything about production of armored vehicles...from the time the president signs the budget authorization bill until the first vehicles roll off the assembly line...we are talking 9 to 12 months...and then they will be delivered at the rate of about 50 per month...so how is this act by our congress denying our soldiers of the weapons they need to fight this was today? At the very least, Wolf should have had the guts to point out that we have heard this story about how the troops went to war without the proper equipment (remember the bullet proof vests that didn't work) since the invasion...and nothing has changed in the interim.
Someone might have beaten me to this but I'll post it anyway.
Little Georgie says to his special-ed teacher, "Can I go to the bathroom?" and the teacher just glares at him then says, "I don't know, CAN you?" He shrugs and rephrases his question to "MAY I go to the bathroom?" to which the teacher nods yes.
CAN or CAN'T are expressions of ABILITY.
MAY or WOULD or WON'T are expressions of DESIRE.
CAN I flap my arms and fly? No, I CAN'T. (ABILITY)
WOULD I like to be able to flap my arms and fly? Yes, that WOULD be nice. (DESIRE)
But I WON'T pray to God for wings because it's a waste of time, however I MAY be inclined try if God talked to me, like he talks to Mr. Bush (DESIRE)
Bush did possess the ability to pick up a damn pen and sign the bill. He chose not to do so, so WON'T is appropriate. CAN'T is not an honest substitute for WON'T.
Arguing to the contrary shows that one, TOMMY for example, CAN'T tell the difference, or perhaps he just WON'T admit there is a difference.
Randy
There are legitimate uses of "can't" that include the abillity to do something. Sometimes there are moral or religious standards that one can't break. But that's clearly not the case here. It could be as in able to afford something, you may literally have enough money to buy something but you can't buy it because you wouldn't be able to pay your electric bill afterwards. Similarly one can say that in politics one can't do certain things that are obviously damaging. "You just can't do that", that sort of thing, like declaring you think there is no God while running for President. That's not the case here either, since the war is unpopular, he can use signing statements, he has people who spin for him on the payroll, etc. He could politically do it.
So in this case, there's no reasonable standard for "can't", like in the scenarios above. There's no universal, objective understanding of his reasons, like there is for taking off work if you're throwing up every 30 minutes. Technically, you can go to work, but it's legitimate to say "I can't come in today".
I think the bottom line with Tommy is that most people would realize that arguing "he really really should do something but it's OK to say he can't do it" is off-the-wall to an alarming degree. Whether it's a severe logical lapse or shameless intellectual dishonesty, I can't say. But he's explained it "enough" as far as he's concerned, and that's all he feels he needs to do.