Bush Defunds the Troops in Iraq

[Fear_Itself]

President Bush hasvetoed the most recent defense spending bill through a pocket veto. Our troops are left in the field with no bullets while Dubya throws a tantrum until Congress gives him his way.

<What’s that? The troops still have bullets? I was misinformed; some suggested that failing to fund the war would leave our troops in harms way without bullets.>

So how does denying our troops the funding passed by Congress not “impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.”?

[John_Mace]

@Fear Itself

So how does denying our troops the funding passed by Congress not “impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.”?

Because:

Bush’s veto, expected by December 31, would not interrupt funding for the Pentagon and Iraq war since separate legislation provides more than $500 billion for the year.

[Malodorous]

If I were writing an article with the phrase “pocket veto” in the headline and like six other places in the text, I would include a definition of what the hell a “pocket veto” was.

Honestly Bush’s concerns seem valid here, though it does sound like he could’ve told someone ahead of time he would veto to stop the bill so that they could work out a compromise ahead of time instead of delaying pay raises for military personal and causing articles to be writen that force me to go to wikipedia and look up obscure political terms that I don’t know the meaning of.

[elucidator]

As above, a meaningless gesture of fiscal responsibility, penny stingy and pound bat shit pizza.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

As above, a meaningless gesture of fiscal responsibility, penny stingy and pound bat shit pizza.

You lost me on that. I didn’t read it as Bush trying to be, or claiming to be fiscally responsible, but being concerned about what the effect of that particular provision would be.

[Fear_Itself]

@John Mace

Because:

Well, that’s different; then, there will be no need to even reconsider the bill now, is there?

[John_Mace]

@Fear Itself

Well, that’s different; then, there will be no need to even reconsider the bill now, is there?

I don’t know for certain, but I would presume that these expenditures are for military operations not associated with Iraq and Afghanistan (since they seem to have been funded separately). Generally speaking, I find it best to actually try and understand the issue, rather than simply lashing out at Bush.

[Magiver]

@John Mace

I don’t know for certain, but I would presume that these expenditures are for military operations not associated with Iraq and Afghanistan (since they seem to have been funded separately). Generally speaking, I find it best to actually try and understand the issue, rather than simply lashing out at Bush.

It’s a reflex response triggered by breathing.

[Fear_Itself]

@John Mace

Generally speaking, I find it best to actually try and understand the issue, rather than simply lashing out at Bush.

I suppose it is easier to characterize it as “lashing out” than admitting there is some hyprocrisy going on, but I wouldn’t call it “understanding”.

[marshmallow]

No need to worry, Fear Itself. The occupation of Iraq will not be defunded. The troops will get all the bullets and bombs they need to, well, you know.

[BrainGlutton]

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Friday used a “pocket veto” to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

Waitaminnit. (1) A government has sovereign immunity – it cannot be sued except with its own permission or as expressly provided by its own laws. How can American legislation affect Iraq’s sovereign immunity? (2) The article says suits could be brought in U.S. courts – but U.S. courts would have no jurisdiction anyway over any Iraqi government assets that are not in the U.S.

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, “The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto.”

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages_ from the White House during the monthlong break.

A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.

In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk “to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”

That could get interesting, if it ever gets to court. From Wikipedia:

Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would “prevent” the President from returning a vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Pocket Veto Case that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with “reasonable promptitude” on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases[2].

[John_Mace]

@Fear Itself

I suppose it is easier to characterize it as “lashing out” than admitting there is some hyprocrisy going on, but I wouldn’t call it “understanding”.

You haven’t demonstrated any hypocrisy in this case. There is plenty of time for a new bill to be worked out before the $500B already authorized begins to run out. Even Bush isn’t burning money in Iraq that fast.

[Malodorous]

@BrainGlutton

Waitaminnit. (1) A government has sovereign immunity – it cannot be sued except with its own permission or as expressly provided by its own laws. How can American legislation affect Iraq’s sovereign immunity? (2) The article says suits could be brought in U.S. courts – but U.S. courts would have no jurisdiction anyway over any Iraqi government assets that are not in the U.S.

From what I’ve read, it’s Iraqi assets in the US (and I imagine a sizable chunk of the Iraqi gov’t total cash is over here right now) that they’re trying to protect from lawsuits.

That could get interesting, if it ever gets to court.

I can’t imagine it would be worth going to the courts over. If they really wanted to force Bush to regular-veto the bill, they could just pass the same legislation again while they were in session. But really I don’t see what they have to gain from a regular veto vs a pocket veto.

[Malodorous]

@Malodorous

I can’t imagine it would be worth going to the courts over. If they really wanted to force Bush to regular-veto the bill, they could just pass the same legislation again while they were in session. But really I don’t see what they have to gain from a regular veto vs a pocket veto.

Actually, reading the GQ thread about this, it seems to me that while Congress is unlikely to take it to the courts, someone in the US might try to sue the Iraqi gov’t under the grounds that the pocket veto wasn’t valid and the bill allowing such suits is infact the law of the land. Even if this doesn’t ultimately work, it seems it might risk causing what the Bush admin was trying to avoid, Iraqi assets in the US being frozen while a court works things out.

I’m starting to wonder if this was somehow an accidental pocket veto, that is the WH wasn’t sure what to do and by the time they decided ten days had passed. Apparently after the time limit had passed, Bush did try and return the bill in a manner consistant with a normal veto, and it seems that he doesn’t really gain anything by not just vetoing in the conventional manner, and it threatens to open up a bunch of weird technical legal issues about whether the bill is now law or not.

[RTFirefly]

@Malodorous

I’m starting to wonder if this was somehow an accidental pocket veto, that is the WH wasn’t sure what to do and by the time they decided ten days had passed.

The problem with this theory is that the tenth day would be today.

The bill passed Congress on December 19, and Sundays are excepted from the count, per the Constitution.

[Malodorous]

@RTFirefly

The problem with this theory is that the tenth day would be today.

The bill passed Congress on December 19, and Sundays are excepted from the count, per the Constitution.

OK, that kills that theory. But then after reading this:

@OP's link

In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.

I don’t understand why the bill is being said to be “pocket vetoed” rather then just regular vetoed. Isn’t sending the bill and a list of objections back to the House clerk within ten days percisely what a regular veto consists of.