GWB will Veto Defense Bill - why does he hate our troops?

Vortex · 12-28-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Dems protest Bush's surprise veto of defense bill

At the behest of the Iraqi government, President Bush will veto the annual defense authorization bill, saying an obscure provision in the legislation could make Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks vulnerable to lawsuits.
The veto startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a technical provision in the bill. The veto was unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.

Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out, but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, military pay raises may be on hold, as well as dozens of other programs.

"We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in a joint statement. �The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto."

A White House spokesman said the veto would officially be delivered later today.

At issue is a provision deep in the defense authorization bill, which would essentially allows people harmed by Saddam Hussein's regime to sue for damages. The Iraqi government believes such lawsuits could target up to $25 billion in Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks, even though congressional leaders dispute that. Iraq has threatened to pull all of its money out of the U.S. banking system if the provision remains in the bill.

The defense authorization bill is less well known military legislation because it does not appropriate the hundreds of billions for Pentagon affairs, but it is a critical annual bill because it provides the policy road map for the year and sets spending levels for the Pentagon.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the disputed provision "would permit plaintiffs� lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States."

What is so unusual about this veto is that the White House almost always telegraphs a veto threat while a bill is under consideration so that changes can be made to the legislation to avoid a veto. This defense bill passed the House 370-49 and cleared the Senate on a 90-3 vote. According to Democratic leadership aides, the Bush administration did not raise any objections about the section in question until after the bill was transmitted to the White House.

-snip-

Dems protest Bush's surprise veto of defense bill - The Crypt's Blog - Politico.com

mdmx96 · 12-28-2007, 02:21 PM

It does seem strange that the veto was not put out there before hand, but I still don't see why this would be a bad thing. Holding the new Iraq accountable for the horrors that Saddam committed will only hurt our relations with them, hold the new admin back, hurt our banks and possibly keep our troops on the ground there longer.

Vortex · 12-28-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdmx96

It does seem strange that the veto was not put out there before hand, but I still don't see why this would be a bad thing. Holding the new Iraq accountable for the horrors that Saddam committed will only hurt our relations with them, hold the new admin back, hurt our banks and possibly keep our troops on the ground there longer.

I disagree.

mdmx96 · 12-28-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex

I disagree.

And why would that be?

Pass the Bong · 12-28-2007, 02:52 PM

I guess he hates the troops in the same manner as the democrats and liberals do by protesting against the job they are doing in Iraq. Calling them Nazis and baby killers. Plus the cont time limit to withdraw put in the bill by the Dem's knowing that Bush will not accept a congress mandated exit.

Only an idiot tell the enemy when they are leaving....the democrat congress and senate is ate up with it.

Bourne · 12-28-2007, 02:54 PM

I believe that Bush acted appropriately and in the best interests of our banking industry and Iraq. I'm also curious as to why the Democrats didn't identify and fix the problem before sending it to Bush. In my opinion the Democrats were incompetant.

Vortex · 12-28-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne

I believe that Bush acted appropriately and in the best interests of our banking industry and Iraq. I'm also curious as to why the Democrats didn't identify and fix the problem before sending it to Bush. In my opinion the Democrats were incompetant.

The Dems don't see it as a problem. Curious as to why Bush has taken so long to qualify it as a problem now. He is the one that appears incompentent. (Oh and what a shock, you think the dems are incompetent, kinda like my thinking GWB is the boob here.

)

Vortex · 12-28-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pass the Bong

I guess he hates the troops in the same manner as the democrats and liberals do by protesting against the job they are doing in Iraq. Calling them Nazis and baby killers. Plus the cont time limit to withdraw put in the bill by the Dem's knowing that Bush will not accept a congress mandated exit.

Only an idiot tell the enemy when they are leaving....the democrat congress and senate is ate up with it.

Go back to smoking your stuff, if you can't deal with reality, you might as well enjoy the haze you live in. Nothing in your post deals with the defense bill passed and/or GWB's reason for the veto. And I don't know of a one here that has called the troops nazis or baby killers.

Think mellow, m'kay.

Pass the Bong · 12-28-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex

Go back to smoking your stuff, if you can't deal with reality, you might as well enjoy the haze you live in. Nothing in your post deals with the defense bill passed and/or GWB's reason for the veto. And I don't know of a one here that has called the troops nazis or baby killers.

Think mellow, m'kay.

I thought freckles made it clear threads like this one would not be tolerated any longer.

My response had about as much subtance as this thread you started.

And please stop with the personal insults.

Bourne · 12-28-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex

The Dems don't see it as a problem. Curious as to why Bush has taken so long to qualify it as a problem now. He is the one that appears incompentent. (Oh and what a shock, you think the dems are incompetent, kinda like my thinking GWB is the boob here.

)

Passing that bill as is would subject bthe Iraqi funds to litigation. Those funds are deposited in US banks and help prop up our already troubled economy. Allowing those funds to be frozen pending litigation would seriously and unnecessarily impact our banking industry and our allies, the Iraqis.

The Democrats don't see all of that as a problem? Well, of course they don't.