Bush to address nation this evening

[Donkey®]

White House: Bush to explain veto of war funding bill - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Four years after declaring "major combat operations" in Iraq as being over in a speech from the deck of an aircraft carrier, President Bush prepared to veto a war-spending bill that calls for pulling American combat troops out of the now-unpopular conflict.

The president plans a 6:10 p.m. ET address to the nation after vetoing the $124 billion measure, which calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by March 2008.

Before sending the bill to the president Tuesday afternoon, Democratic congressional leaders urged Bush to sign the bill and begin winding down the war.

"A veto means denying our troops the resources and the strategy they need," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "After more than four years of a failed policy, it's time for Iraq to take responsibility for its own future."

The spending bill, which Congress passed last week, funds military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it also calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning in October, with the goal of getting all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.

Bush and his Republican allies in Congress call the withdrawal timetable contained in the bill an admission of defeat.

The White House said it expected to formally receive the spending bill from Congress about 4 p.m. ET. Bush has requested airtime for a televised statement after he vetoes the bill.

Bush declared an end to "major combat" in Iraq in a May 1, 2003, speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. However, U.S. troops have been battling an ongoing insurgency since then, and more than 3,300 Americans have died in Iraq since that address.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused congressional Democrats of "a trumped-up political stunt" by sending the bill to the president on the anniversary of his speech.


Bush: Failure 'unacceptable to the civilized world'

The president headed back to Washington on Tuesday afternoon after a visit to U.S. Central Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base, outside Tampa, Florida.

He told American and allied military officers there that a U.S. failure in the four-year-old war "should be unacceptable to the civilized world."

Bush said the current push to pacify Baghdad and the western province of Anbar has produced progress, but will need several months to succeed.

He said the United States and its allies were faced with a choice at the end of 2006 -- tamp down the wave of sectarian killings that followed the February 2006 bombing of the al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, a revered Shiite Muslim shrine, or withdraw.

"Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous," Bush said. "Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous."

The war is now widely unpopular at home, with 32 percent of Americans in a recent CNN poll supporting the conflict and 60 percent siding with Congress on the issue.

The veto would be the second of Bush's presidency. The first, in July 2006, killed a bill that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
New bill in the works

The president said Monday he wants to work with Democrats and is "optimistic we can get something done in a positive way."

"I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a bill that doesn't set artificial timetables and doesn't micromanage and gets the money to our troops," he said Monday during an appearance with European Union leaders. "I believe there's a lot of Democrats that understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible."

Bush has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Wednesday to discuss a compromise.

Bush administration officials have said the money is urgently needed -- and that Democrats would be to blame for any hardships suffered by U.S. troops and their families, but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that the Pentagon could wage war through July without additional funding.

The compromise bill being worked on would strip out the controversial troop removal language and replace it with a series of benchmarks to measure the progress of the Iraqi government.

The benchmarks would include passing laws related to the sharing of oil revenue and national reconciliation and reducing sectarian violence -- benchmarks that Bush himself has publicly pressed the Iraqis to meet.

However, the big question facing lawmakers and the White House is what happens if those benchmarks aren't met.

Many Democrats and some Republicans support setting out consequences, but the White House opposes the idea, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday would "tie our own hands" and reduce the United States' "flexibility" in Iraq.

A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses.

Some of the things I read in this article really tick me off.

Originally Posted by article

1: Bush and his Republican allies in Congress call the withdrawal timetable contained in the bill an admission of defeat.

So what? We did not lose the Iraq war. We lost a battle in the war on terror. We regroup and go at it another way.

Originally Posted by article

2: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused congressional Democrats of "a trumped-up political stunt" by sending the bill to the president on the anniversary of his speech.

Excuse me whore, the President shouldn't have put on that dog and pony show on the deck of that aircraft carrier and proclaimed himself "Victor and Conqueror of All Muslimville."

Originally Posted by article

3: Bush: Failure 'unacceptable to the civilized world' "Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous," Bush said. "Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous."

No, we accept YOUR failure just fine. If we had gone after TERRORISTS instead of messing with Iraq...it would have solved all your issues buddy. Now we have invaded a country self destructing all around us. They are killing each other and killing us because we're in the way. On top of that, the real terrorists are still launching attacks against us and we're doing nothing viable about them. As soon as we kill one leader, another appears and the attacks continue. These attacks will continue up until the day we leave.

Originally Posted by article

4: "I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a bill that doesn't set artificial timetables and doesn't micromanage and gets the money to our troops," he said Monday during an appearance with European Union leaders.

Micromange? How about absolutely ANY management of the billions we're throwing away over there? When we lose money left and right, when more money is spent on things than should be and when the Iraqi's complete mismanage all projects we "hand over to them" when completed, what exactly is there that doesn't call for "micromanagement?"

Originally Posted by article

A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses.

This is just the most moronic statement I have ever seen. Ever.


On a more personal level, I don't give two fucks what he has to say on tv tonight to try and justify this veto. There is no justification. Period.

[RMNIXON]

I must admit I don't know why this is being played up as such a big event? Talk about a telegraphed punch!

Drudge has VETO! as the headline.

[thomez]

The job of the Congress is to handle the purse and that is what they are doing. If they stand their ground it will be a huge victory for the restoration of equality between the branches of government and the Constitution.

[RMNIXON]

"A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses."


This would make any attempt to ignor the bench marks soley the Presidents responcibility, but the Dems wont go for it.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

"A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses."


This would make any attempt to ignor the bench marks soley the Presidents responcibility, but the Dems wont go for it.

Why would they? It is like saying "we are going to pass this as law, but the President is above the law and can just ignore it if he deems it necessary"

There couldn't be a greater waste of Congress' time than to pass that kind of legislation.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thomez

There couldn't be a greater waste of Congress' time than to pass that kind of legislation.

The only thing the Dems have passed so far is non-binding Resolutions.. they're used to it.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thomez

The job of the Congress is to handle the purse and that is what they are doing. If they stand their ground it will be a huge victory for the restoration of equality between the branches of government and the Constitution.

Yes, but that would imply equal responcibility. Today Harry Reid went before the press saying how it was once again the Presidents fault for not funding the troops. That does not sound like standing your ground to me. Since Reid himself declaired the surge a failure they should deny funds period.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The only thing the Dems have passed so far is non-binding Resolutions.. they're used to it.

A non-binding resolution at least gives a show of majority opinion for everyone to see, the kind of legislation that guy was promoting would be even more useless.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, but that would imply equal responcibility. Today Harry Reid went before the press saying how it was once again the Presidents fault for not funding the troops. That does not sound like standing your ground to me. Since Reid himself declaired the surge a failure they should deny funds period.

I agree, that is what they should do. The resolution they passed is actually a compromise.

If the only resolutions the Congress will pass are those with an exit plan, and the President chooses to veto them all, then yes, he will be responsible for not funding the troops. The money is there right now, he is making his choice because he wants to do the job of Congress and control both the executive and the purse.

[Kytro]

I agree, if the president vetos what he does no like, he really cannot complain about lack of funding. It was offered, he didn't like the conditions.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thomez

The job of the Congress is to handle the purse and that is what they are doing. If they stand their ground it will be a huge victory for the restoration of equality between the branches of government and the Constitution.

[BigRob]

I stand by the veto 100% .

Having a "withdrawl" in the funding bill is one of the stupidist things I've ever heard of.

Of course there's also the issue of millions in pork the Dems added in order to get votes for the bill.

The problem with the war is that the Dems/liberals don't want to win. We are fighting a war and following "rules" and the enemy doesn't follow "rules." Despite our advantages in technology and training, we are fighting with one hand behind our back,blindfolded, and telling them what were planning.

While I think Bush is a dipshit, I also think that the Democratic Congress is passing a funding bill they know he will veto just so they have an excuse to say "we passed a bill, he vetoed it, it's his fault."

The only option is the give the military the money no strings attached.

Win the war first, worry about the partisan bullshit later.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thomez

A non-binding resolution at least gives a show of majority opinion for everyone to see, ....

But it doesn't.

How do you know people are voting the same way on non-binding issues as they would if it really counted?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

But it doesn't.

How do you know people are voting the same way on non-binding issues as they would if it really counted?

Exactly. The reason they do non-binding resolutions is because the pressure is removed and everyone can just vote down the party line.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by BigRob

I stand by the veto 100% .

Having a "withdrawl" in the funding bill is one of the stupidist things I've ever heard of.

Of course there's also the issue of millions in pork the Dems added in order to get votes for the bill.

So I take it you have problems with every piece of legislation the Republicans have passed over the past 6 years?

They were filled with pork and I don't remember seeing any threads made by you denouncing it.

The shoe is on the other foot now and you guys crying about it makes you look like hypocrites.

Originally Posted by BigRob

The problem with the war is that the Dems/liberals don't want to win. We are fighting a war and following "rules" and the enemy doesn't follow "rules." Despite our advantages in technology and training, we are fighting with one hand behind our back,blindfolded, and telling them what were planning.

The problem is that this is not a war for us to win. It's a war between factions in the ME.

Do you feel like you can win the Patriots/Dolphins game?

This "liberal don't want us to win" bullshit is stupid. Perhaps you have noticed that many people who aren't liberal or members of the democratic party agree.

Originally Posted by BigRob

While I think Bush is a dipshit, I also think that the Democratic Congress is passing a funding bill they know he will veto just so they have an excuse to say "we passed a bill, he vetoed it, it's his fault."

The funds are there. He is choosing not to take them. Yes, he is cutting off funding to the troops.

Originally Posted by BigRob

The only option is the give the military the money no strings attached.

After all the mismanagement that has already happened you want to write them a blank check? What a horrible idea.

Originally Posted by BigRob

Win the war first, worry about the partisan bullshit later.

The kind of war that armies fight is over. They are not a security force.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So I take it you have problems with every piece of legislation the Republicans have passed over the past 6 years?

They were filled with pork and I don't remember seeing any threads made by you denouncing it.

The shoe is on the other foot now and you guys crying about it makes you look like hypocrites.

There were tons of threads over pork. And the difference is there was pork in bills, but only because they had majority and the bills were going to pass anyway. They weren't buying votes to get a bill to pass, the bills that had pork were going to pass anyway. Most of the pork was added on to war supplemental bills which had virtually no chance of being turned down regardless if it had pork or not. Which is why they added it... free money for stupid things. While that was wrong, it was just wasting money, not buying votes.

I don't understand the point of that picture. Have you heard the speech he gave that day?

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't understand the point of that picture. Have you heard the speech he gave that day?

The banner hanging behind him in the picture says it all....

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

The banner hanging behind him in the picture says it all....

1. A mission was accomplished that day.
2. The Navy put that sign up without the order of Bush
3. If you listened to his speech it was all about it not being over, how there was going to be a need for security, and further hostilities, lots of more challenges that would take time and the endurance of America, etc.

That picture is used in various cheap shots at Bush, but they're usually very hypocritical cheap shots if you heard what he said that day.