Archive for Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Bush vetoes measure setting troop withdrawals

May 2, 2007

Advertisement

President Bush makes a national statement in the Cross Hall of the White House after vetoing legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Bush and congressional leaders will meet today to discuss how to proceed in funding the war.

President Bush makes a national statement in the Cross Hall of the White House after vetoing legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Bush and congressional leaders will meet today to discuss how to proceed in funding the war.

— President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech declaring that major combat operations had ended in Iraq.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring Americans' desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

"The president wants a blank check," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., moments after Bush's appearance. "The Congress is not going to give it to him." She said lawmakers would work with him to find common ground but added that there was "great distance" between them on Iraq.

Bush will meet with congressional leaders - Democrats and Republicans alike - today to discuss new legislation.

He said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.

He said the need to act was urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.

Comments

Godot 7 years, 11 months ago

Umm, Windlass, in 2004 GWB was re-elected because the Democrats put up an empty wind bag of a candidate.

It was just in 2006 that the Dems gained the majority, and they have done nothing but to completely ruin the chances of there being any positive result in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or, frankly anywhere in the world that the US has an interest.

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"It was just in 2006 that the Dems gained the majority, and they have done nothing but to completely ruin the chances of there being any positive result in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or, frankly anywhere in the world that the US has an interest." - Godot

Yeah, because things were going just swimmingly in those places before the Dems took over.

In all seriousness, everyone should be prepared for the right-wing nuts to try to pin the blame for the disaster in Iraq on the Democrats, even though their team controlled all branches of the government and the entire Iraq operation for the first three + years of the war (with obviously disastrous results). We've already seen the right's revisionist (read: batsh crazy) version of the end of Vietnam - be ready for more insanity re Iraq. In their alternate (read: hyper-partisan) reality, no blame can be laid at the feet of the people in charge of the fiasco - no, the only blame here, according to them, belongs to those who tried to change course in the hellhole. Example 72,367 of why right-wingers have zero credibility left.

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"This one (Windlass first post) gets my nomination for most unhinged ranting of a hysterical far-left Bush-hater"

Yeah, we all know that right-wing extremists such as yourself find the Constitution of the United States distasteful. Stating such a warped opinion on a public forum such as this is not wise (other, less extreme right-wingers might not want to be identified with such overt hostility to the founding document of our nation), and personally takes you down to negative credibility, rt.

temperance 7 years, 11 months ago

Drewdun is right in that "everyone should be prepared for the right-wing nuts to try to pin the blame for the disaster in Iraq on the Democrats . . . the only blame here, according to them, belongs to those who tried to change course in the hellhole." This is exactly why they're trying to run out the clock until '08. So far, it's working.

drewdun 7 years, 11 months ago

"And there we are again, for the first time, the Constitution somehow failed us and thru a democratic election process we failed miserably and elected a 'tryannical madman'." - rt

Who was making that argument? Windlass was merely stating that the Constitution is to be praised for its qualities, including the possibility of self-correction when "we failed miserably" and elected a madman. You replied in your typical manner:

"The looney-left Bush-hater sometimes just hands it to you on a silver platter lined with the most exotic fruits, nuts and cheese.

This one (Windlass first post) gets my nomination for most unhinged ranting of a hysterical far-left Bush-hater.

Anyone got an explanation for how stupid that post is yet? Left or right or in between can answer."

You're running on fumes, pal.

"There will be a time notable lapse before we know how much we will need to hold some Defeat-O-Crats responsible for the impending disaster we are going to see. That's when you will see some heads roll."

Thanks. You really do a service for those who visit this site - illustrating the alternate reality that the Bush base lives in. "need to hold some Defeat-O-Crats responsible for the impending disaster we are going to see" - where does one even begin?

*YOUR TEAM had control of the war from the very beginning and now completely owns the negative consequences associated with it. Do you really think that people are going to blame the Democrats for what has happened/will happen in Iraq?

"impending disaster" - Question: what the *** would you call what's happening in Iraq right now? Where does 'impending' come from?

"You can bank on on it:..2012-2015-2020 will be here before we know it. This is the problem with the far-left Bush-haters, they want immediate gratification and it is a hatred for Bush on what they think is a personal level and is pathological"

First off, 2008 will be here before any of that. With control of both houses of Congress and the White House, we'll see what the Democrats accomplish - could be a lot, could be a little. However, they will be judged by what they do, not by the royal ****-up of the previous administration. So by 2012-2015-2020, if the Democrats have extricated our troops from Iraq, covered the uninsured, and moved us towards energy independence, I'd say the 'immediate gratification' of opposing Bush and his disastrous policies will have payed off, both for the Democrats electoral prospects and the nation.

"I will not forgetwill you?"

No one will forget that people like you supported this clown, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was doing great harm to our nation. The question is, when Bush's name is as toxic as Richard Nixon's twenty years from now, will you still continue with the blind, fanatical support, or finally acknowledge reality ie that you were very wrong?

b_asinbeer 7 years, 11 months ago

"The looney-left Bush-hater sometimes just hands it to you on a silver platter lined with the most exotic fruits, nuts and cheese."

Again with the same comment? That's at least twice this week with the same cheesy comment that I've seen. Shows how original republicans are (sarcasm)....Reminds me of someone: "Stay the course." "We will not withdraw (until Cheney Daddy says it's ok)." Like a broken record...

Kathy Getto 7 years, 11 months ago

scenebooster (Anonymous) says:

"Umm, Windlass, in 2004 GWB was re-elected because the Democrats put up an empty wind bag of a candidate."

Yeah, and Bush's campaign of fear, and the Rovian Swift-boating business had nothing to do with it, right?


Not to mention the mother of all vote frauds.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Mkh 7 years, 11 months ago

Did this veto honestly surprise anyone? We are not leaving Iraq people! I don't care how many resolutions the Dems pass or even if the Dems win the White House in '08, does not matter one bit. The US Military will be in Iraq most likely for decades to come. This war will not end in our lifetimes, remember who said that? It was not a joke.

This war was the second engagement in the growing conflict for the remaining energy resources on the planet. Oil is in depletion and most of the remaining deposits are in the Middle East. Iraq is essential to the US dominating the remaining resources and to sustain our fragile economy. We are constructing permanent military bases in Iraq and will not be leaving (until the Oil is gone). Sorry if you don't like the idea of endless war...guess you should have listened earlier, huh?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.