Yesterday President Bush vetoed the war spending bill. They bill had already been approved by both the House and the Senate. This is only the second time Mr. Bush has used his veto power since entering he became president back in 2001.
The president's explained his veto:
"Here's why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st, and it would have to start no later than October 1st regardless of the situation on the ground. It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible."
The explanation above hinges upon a few questionable assumptions. The first is that the goal of the terrorist organizations currently operating in Iraq is to overthrow the Iraqi government. But it can easily be argued that Al-Qaeda entered Iraq primarily to fight against the United States. Prior to the invasion, Al-Qaeda had little or no presence in Iraq. Mr. Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq acted as an invitation for foreign extremists to, in the presidents own word, "Bring it on!" The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq has only strengthened Al-Qaeda's position. With the timetable off the table, Islamic extremists can continue to make the case that the United States' mission has always been about occupation, not liberation.
Polls taken in January and September of 2006 show that both Shia and Sunni Iraqis favor the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Outside of Baghdad, majorities of Iraqis from both sects also believed that inter-ethnic violence will decrease once American forces leave.
Mr. Bush has also said that the passing the bill would have meant that "America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops." What Mr. Bush forgets is that he too is simply a politician. A politician who avoided going to war when he had the chance. And a politician who had little training in military matters or in foreign policy before becoming president.
It is a shame that Mr. Bush did not taken his own advice before starting this war, and realized that, as a politician living 6,000 miles away from the potential combat zone, he should be prepared to listen to the advice of the experts. Perhaps then he would have had a plan for securing Iraq after the invasion. Perhaps he would have realized that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps we would not be there at all.
It is time for Mr. Bush to start doing his job and stop playing politics. America does not support this war. Iraqis do not support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. But, Al-Qaeda has benefited from the war in Iraq. The organization was arguably on the run after the invasion of Afghanistan, but President Bush's policies ensured that Al-Qaeda would find a new safe haven in Iraq. The war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism by providing extremists with a powerful new tool for recruitment.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 65
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
There is a difference between politicizing issues and politicizing a war, one in which the people complaining about it voted for it. What do you think inspires terrorists to keep killing our soldiers more? 1) Re[publicans wanting to finish them off and stabilize Iraq. Or 2) Democrats and the media pointing to every thing terrorists blow up and everyone they kill as proof that we should do what the terrorists want and leave. Think about it.
If leaders want to go to war let them do it like Napoleon...leading the troops into combat. Did you know that Saddam called out Bush for a mano-a-mano prior to the invasion. Bush, of course, turned that offer down.
Oh...incidently, Bush always knew Saddam had no WMD's...that's why he invaded thought it would be a cakewalk like Grenada.
I have heard both liberal and conservative commentators say the time-table provisions of the bill were not binding. That being the case, Bush could have signed the bill, had the funding and ignored the the time-table. In other words, Bush refused to sign the funding bill because it contained suggestions he did not like!
There are many options and realities to consider that make it difficult to argue that an American withdrawal eqautes to victory for Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations:
1. Withdrawal does not need to be immediate. If we start now, we can build an international peacekeeping force that can replace the U.S. in Iraq.
2. The United States is not exactly an expert on peacekeeping operations. Take what happened in Somalia for example. The U.S. policy in Iraq emphasizes the used of force over humanitarian aspects of the mission. Until new jobs are created for Iraqis, and the Iraqi society is rebuilt, peace will not occur. The U.S. should continue to finance the rebuilding of Iraq even after withdrawal. Otherwise chaos will continue, and Iraq will likely become the next Afghanistan.
3. A majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave. But a majority of Iraqis do not support the style of governance proposed by Al-Qaeda. This war is not just about Al-Qaeda. Reuilding a stable Iraq should be the priority. The U.S. presence in Iraq is fuelings extremist activity there, and as long as our forces remain we will not see an end to terrorist violence.
4. It seems unlikely that a conventional military force can stop the violence.
It all seems to come down to a compassionate and caring world view of cooperation ... OR ... the one of, 'I got mine and want more, this is a competitive world of winner or loser where survival of the fittest is paramount and the weak losers should be exterminated somehow because they are all a threat to our way and serve no useful purpose to our superior way of thinking and acting. Make them servile slaves or be rid of them completely ... liberals at home included.'
I have to say that many times you lose me in your comments, the spritual thing eludes me in discription, if not personal practice, but that was the most lucid and truthful thing I have ever seen you post, kudos.
If the terrorist cells are in Iraq because America is in Iraq why are they killing and targeting Iraqis and instead of Americans? Thats like if the original 13 colonies of the 1700s started slaughtering each other to get the British to leave.
Which is worse? Representing the wishes of your district, or blindly following the party line in Congress? Republicans are doing the 2nd.
Which is worse? Following the mandate of the Constitution and insuring congressional oversight and balance, or politicizing the Department of Justice and other areas of government in order to sabotage the Constitutional rules of the Republic? The Democrats are doing the former - the Republics and the corrupt administration have been working at the latter for 6 years now, as senate hearings are proving.
Democrat, Good - Republican, Bad ... why can't the Democrats
1) Pass this bill without attaching all kind of bribes to it?
and
2) Override the president's veto?
Do you really need me to give you a basic Civics lesson? Overriding a veto requires much more than a simple majority, Snookiedimples.
You might want to check this website and familiarize yourself with it before you look any more like a raving idiot:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
"Mixed in with the defense spending is a complicated list of earmarks, legislative language, and program expansions. Let me walk you through parts of the bill.
The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating and I have supported the government's rebuilding effort in the region. But the bill before us today includes $1.45 billion in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. It also eliminates a 10 percent local matching requirement for FEMA funds and eliminates the prohibition on forgiving community disaster loans.
These are two provisions Congress has supported in the past to ensure responsible spending. These provisions are not only inappropriate for a wartime supplemental, but also bad policy.
Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of American farms, but the programs in this bill are routinely funded through the regular process. I can not justify supporting $3 million for a Hawaiian sugar cane co-op or $20 million for insect damage in Nevada on a wartime supplemental bill. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers.
There are even more glaring examples in this bill. There is $3.5 million for the Capitol Guide Service to provide services in tourists in this building. It adds $100 million for dairy production losses. $13 million for a lamb replacement and retention program. $40 million for the tree assistance program. $6 million for flooded crop land in North Dakota. $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol power plant. $23 million for geothermal energy research.
The list goes on and on. I can not support requests like these on the backs of our fighting men and women. will support every effort to strip all the non-defense funding out of this bill. It is time to show fiscal restraint and use emergency wartime spending legislation for precisely that purpose – to pay for the war.
Finally, I want to address the single most important issue in this supplemental: the shortsighted and political call for troop withdrawal.
This bill includes similar language which was rejected by the Senate two weeks ago. It calls for the withdrawal of troops starting 120 days after passage of the bill and sets an arbitrary goal of full withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
(Part of Senator Jim Bunning's Floor Speech on "The Emergency Supplemental Bill.")
So the arbitrary date is for full withdrawal, but the date of mandatory withdrawal, and it doesn't state how many, is just 4 months from now. Looks like the Democrats have managed to weasel in their usual big spending plans at the cost of taxpayers, but more loathingly, at the expense of troops that need the funding to save their lives. How despicable and low can they get or have they finally reached bottom?
What are you talking about, or do you even know? So are you saying the Democrats were bribing the President? hmmmmmmm... Now that would be mighty lawful of them! Also, what kind of bribe is it to give someone what they want least? A stupid one? What, in God's name, are you feebly trying to convey? Can you write some English, please?
It's great that you can quote Sen Bunning verbatim (you should, however, give him credit for his words), but have you actually done your own research on the bill?
Per the funding for the corps: Every dollar for recovery of the Gulf Coast has had to come in the form of a supplement to an emergency spending bill, usually for Iraq. The Corps has requested a lot more than is on this bill, and desperately needs it.
Iraqi collaberators like the members of the Iraqi parliment and the Iraqi police?. Don't get me wrong I'm sure the Iraqis as well as most Americas these days would rather not have Americans in Iraq. But don't fool yourself that Al Queda is not welcome in most of the middle east if only in the very least because of the fear they generate from thier non discriminate violence. You don't have to be American to incur the rath of radical Islam. Just look at most of Africa starting with Darfur.
That being said, now there's buzz about "benchmarks" rather than a timetable. I've been saying that all along. Benchmarks would be a win-win compromise. Democrats would have imposed accountability on the process of winding down the war. Bush would have shown a willingness to find a middle ground. Or is that asking too much of the "decider"?
This was only done to satisfy the rabble who are rabidly anti-war Liberals and who would probably be tempted to actually go somewhere else or cause trouble if the Demos don't placate them in some way.
I keep saying that the Mid-term elections were not about Iraq, they were about Bush's crappy domestic policy that they rich want to ramrod through, and then somewhat about Bush's incompetent showing as Commander in Chief if the military. No one likes the situation in Iraq, and Bush was responsible for screwing it up - that does not obviously mean that everyone in the country wants us to pull out or give a drop dead date, though that is an expanding group thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
What are you talking about, or do you even know? So are you saying the Democrats were bribing the President? hmmmmmmm... Now that would be mighty lawful of them! Also, what kind of bribe is it to give someone what they want least? A stupid one? What, in God's name, are you feebly trying to convey? Can you write some English, please?
Sue B. Always Be Creating Fond Memories B., May 3, 2007, 6:15pm ET
Well I sort of thought that there were both republicans and democrats that voted on these bills ... but I guess that you sweet sue are telling me that no republican would ever vote for a bill put up by the democrats no matter what pork they allowed to benefit said republicans ... I guess that I am just too stupid to know as much about the political system as you seem to sweet sue ... please excuse me for asking ... I was only trying to learn something ... YOU sweet sue have been most helpful ... NOT !
You really think the war in Iraq had little to do with the Republican's losses in 2006? I am sure corruption has alot to do with it too, but Iraq is an extremely unpopular war - the kind that discredits presidents and their parties.
Oh, you mean that that 70% of the population that continually polls that they want us the hell out of Iraq is all Democratic rabble rousers? Well, 2008 should be a cake walk, now shouldn't it? What the hell are you thinking? 70%--did they change percentages since I went to school, and you came later, or what? That is the......well, I won't get personal here, but it is incorrect to say that this was only put up to placate a few democrats of any kind. When are you deniers going to realize that you are fast becoming a lunatic fringe group, and if you don't come out of it soon, you teeter on the edge of becoming political stand up comedy?
1. Allowing American intelligence agencies to search for WMD's.
2. Agreeing to hold free elections within 2 years.
At the time it was not clear whether the offers were coming from Hussien himself. But the story makes it clear that, in the end, American officials chose not to pursue negotiations that may have brought about a peaceful end to the crisis.
>> Today's politicians will attach pork to any bill, regardless of its import.
Could be, but I think they do it to their detriment. I do not think, for example, if the Congress passed a vote condemning some country or a member of their elite, for example, Tom Delay, that it would have this kind of pork is embedded in it.
The Democrats are ensuring that they are always in reactive mode by these kinds of strategic decisions. I don't think we are going to see an end to pork barrel politics in this county it is just way too engrained in the way we work - or don't work depending on one's point of view.
Many of us did not want this war from before the beginning, but the truth is, this is simply a way for big business (read: Haliburton) to make a lot of money. We invaded Iraq for lots of reasons, but to liberate the Iraqis, however many times we were told otherwise, was not one of them.
Whoa, where did you get that, that is not what I thought I said, or meant to say.
The pork aspect of the bill just shows that it is weak, and that the idea of showing
the American people that you are strong and trying to do something about the
Iraq war ... this is pretty much watered down water, and they knew it too. I
think you're correct that after this pathetic token effort to assuage the far left
they will go back and fund the bill.
Weaver, I think it is just plain wrong to characterize the war as "simply a way for big business (read: Haliburton) to make a lot of money." I don't think it is true, I want to think the no one would be that evil ... and the evil part is not in running the war, but in running a war just for profit.
I also disagree that liberating the Iraqis was not a significant reason. Obviously the Iraqis of today, as the Germans and Japanese of yesterday, are conditioned to see us as enemies and occupiers, but I think the whole reason for this war, and the military foothold in Iraq is a strategic move to both ensure energy security and crack open the Middle Eastern societies that left unmolested will sure as hell cost us economic security, lots of money and lots of lives.
Now for those that do not see any of this as evil, I would hope that you might at least see it as excessive greed if nothing else.
As for 'security', what goes around comes around ... and I do not see a whole lot of love and respect for 3rd world countries. I see an extreme amount of lying though on the part of our leaders.
>> lives to be patriotic and good citizens supporting
>> our glorious causes all over the world.
Not me Jerry, I'm a product of the 60's and I have come
full circle by paying attention to what has gone on in our
country and thinking about it for a long time.
The problem with you and your ilk is that you see a few
similiarities between say Iraq and Viet Nam and suddenly
you are a history expert. It is a natural need to simplify
things, but simplification is only appropriate when it also
explains the facts.
The fact is that the US has no intentions of colonizing Iraq.
Yes, we have business people who want to do business
there and see it as a great place to make money which
brings me to another common mistake of the left, to equate
business and making money with corruption.
And what do you call excessive greed ... anyone with more
money than yourself? Excessive greed. Is this a crime? What
statute are you talking about.
Jerry, you see what you want to see, and you are not being
overly rigorous in it either.
You know, the people in government have to actually do something
and they have to take responsibility for things. How do you think
Bush and his crew felt after 911 ... assuming you don't suppose
they were cheering because their plan got pulled off? From our
government's POV the history of the free world was at stake.
You call me naive, but if you were in charge of the country and
started in with your spiritual mumbojumbo you would see how
fast you lose the country ... you do not have time to learn on the
job, or say sorry.
"The problem with you and your ilk is that you see a few
similiarities between say Iraq and Viet Nam and suddenly
you are a history expert. It is a natural need to simplify
things, but simplification is only appropriate when it also
explains the facts."
Did I miss the reference to Vietnam in Jerry's post? I can't find it, or a reference to history?
"The fact is that the US has no intentions of colonizing Iraq.
Yes, we have business people who want to do business
there and see it as a great place to make money which
brings me to another common mistake of the left, to equate
business and making money with corruption."
How do you explain the permanent bases that are under construction in the Iraqi desert, then? Maybe you have an explanation, because the administration seems to not want to talk about them at all. As far as equating business with corruption, it might help us poor ignorant liberals a bit, if the contracts weren't no bid, and the firms, like Blackwell, weren't major contributors to the president's campaigns and the RNC, not to mention the major one, Haliburton, one that the vice president still has financial ties to, albeit in a blind trust, but what idiot trust manager would you even begin to imagine would sell his stock in Haliburton, without reason, to begin with, and certainly not now?!! It's pretty much a no brainer that he knows he's lining his own pockets.
I'd say Jerry sees pretty damn good, and it is you wearing blinders of partisanship.
"You know, the people in government have to actually do something
and they have to take responsibility for things."
Are you seriously referring to Mr. "Uh, Uh, I know there must be something" that can't even come up with one thing he's done wrong, when asked, even though he has to be the biggest frack up that's sat in the chair in the oval office in recent memory?
"How do you think Bush and his crew felt after 911 ... assuming you don't suppose
they were cheering because their plan got pulled off? From our government's POV the history of the free world was at stake."
OK, maybe for the decision to invade Afghanistan, but Iraq isn't Afghanistan. We know as a matter of record, attested to by at least two former administration officials, that the invasion of Iraq was being planned from the earliest days of the Bush administration. We also know, from the Downing Street Memo, that the intelligence was cooked and misrepresented for Iraq, at the behest of this administration. 911s only import to Iraq, and Iraq's only import to 911 was that it was a convenient way to get the American people to accept something they were going to do anyway. It had nothing to do with the history of the free world being at stake, never did, never was.
" you do not have time to learn on the job, or say sorry."
You really can't seriously be saying this and supporting GWB at the same time can you? It was my understanding that GWB's only qualification on taking office were a few failed business ventures, and a stint as Governor of Texas, which pretty much gives him experience with foreign policy and military commanding that pretty much added up to, let's see, ZERO! ZIP! NADA!. Seems to me that is exactly what has been going on, and it shows. As for saying you're sorry, well, he's had time, he just hasn't, because he's not, even though he has more than enough reason to be.
Naive doesn't begin to cover it, Bruce.
Ron, the Viet Nam comment was an example of a kind of thinking that is non-rigorous and was used since even before the war in Iraq started. No Jerry did not us that argument in that post, but that is how I perceive his arguments and thinking.
>> How do you explain the permanent bases that are under construction in the Iraqi desert, then?
Now, to the point, good question. First mistake - why do you equate a colony with military bases and/or consulates? Second, did we "colonize" Germany and Japan at the end of the war? I think we made them into two of the most strong societies in the West. We have been leaving bases in Germany as this has succeeded. Iraq, is a different thing, you can compare and contrast, even as you can with Viet Nam, but you cannot just say it is the same. I believe that we intend to have bases in Iraq for a long time. The other day Jimmy Carter said that the US intended to be in Iraq probably for a period comparable to how long we were in Germany/Japan.
The reason is military security and support, ie. should the pressure we are going to bring to bear on the Islamic supporters of terror and their fascist societies erupt in war we are going to be there to handle it and win it. To bring about "globalization" it is impossible to have another symbolic "USSR" - a terrorist totalitarian Islamic caliphate that is hostile to the rest of the world, America, the West, Israel and determined to destroy anything that is not Islamic in their vision.
How is Bush and Cheney lining their own pockets? Both of them did fine without being in politics and probably would have personally made more money had their remained in the private sector. We just saw their tax returns, so where is the money? It is totally fine to say it's got to be there somewhere, right?
Yes, the invasion of Iraq I think was part of a larger plan to have a long term Cold War style conflict with Islamic-Nazism because they have been attacking us for 10 year and we have already tried just about everything but direct sustained confrontation.
The thing is, and this is nuanced, so I expect you and Jerry will pick up some small part of it and throw it back at me ... but I do not really support Bush. I think we could have done Iraq differently, I think he has been incompetant in executing the war, and been hands off trusted civilians like Rumsfeld and Cheney with no military experience and tossing our Generals like they were fry cooks. I support the larger vision of destroying the threat of Islamic-Fascism because in the long run it is the only thing to do, the cheapest thing to do, the most stabillizing thing to do, and the thing that will ultimately costs less lives. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that is what my opinion. I sure wish Bush was an effective President, but he isn't, on any score. I am extremely unhappy with his domestic policies, which I think the Democrats should be exploiting more, but they are stuck on making themselves look like clowns about Iraq. I never voted for Bush, and I tried to convince as many people as I know not to vote for Bush since he started running ... needless to say I was in the huge minority.
Ron, you and Jerry, and you "Democrats" or people on the left need to stop thinking that all you have to do is have these fits of frustration over Bush and the war- the Democrats may win the next election, but they have no plan for any leadership. It is out of Iraq, national health care which is going to turn into a fiasco, and maybe drop the tax cuts, and a big gas tax, but without radical reform, and a sustained
clear direction for the future that most Americans can support it is just going to be more of the same, and we can expect the IslamoNazis to regroup and press ahead with nuclear weapons and then start to blackmail us over oil.
Bush is who we got. If history had taken a different turn and Gore had been elected we would have problems of a different sort, maybe worse, like 911, or Iraq, or Bush, we have already made certain mistake, and dwelling on them doesn't help.
If the Democrats had taken the time to get themselves in the media in a better light, a continuing problem with a right-wing media, and attacked Bush's actions - and suggesting something different that made sense they might have gotten some traction. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and I wonder now with such an overwhelming lead over the Republicans if they will do it again in the next election by being clueless and even "naive".
Can you muster an argument to go with that or is fries the only option?
>> upper Republican power base and the Carlyle Group
>> and Halliburton.
One way or another there always has been in this country.
The Carlyle group is just a business conglomerate that brokers
a lot of sensitive economic deals.
Sorry ... where did I ever say GWB was a "whiz bang businessman?"
So please withdraw the statement about me drawing haloes around
their heads.