Bush vetoes Iraq spending bill over timelines

[Player-X]

Bush vetoes Iraq spending bill over timelines


President warns withdrawing troops would be ‘prescription for chaos’

President Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he called a “prescription for chaos.” The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide more than $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
“This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said. “... It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.”
Bush blamed Democrats for trying to send an empty political statement and added: “They’ve sent their message, and now it’s time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds.”
Bush’s dramatic statement came only a few hours after Democratic leaders of Congress staged a festive ceremony at the Capitol to celebrate sending the bill to the president. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Bush of putting U.S. troops “in the middle of a civil war” in Iraq.
Override bid likely to fail
The House scheduled a vote to try to override the veto for Wednesday, but Democratic leaders were not expected to have enough Republican support to succeed. Congressional leaders will meet with Bush at the White House on Wednesday to discuss follow-up legislation.
Democrats are considering a bill that would fund the troops but still restrict the president’s leeway in Iraq. Democratic leaders told NBC News they expected such a proposal to drive away some Democrats who have come under intense pressure from liberal activist groups to accept nothing less than a troop withdrawal.
The officials acknowledged that such a strategy would force them to seek Republican support for any alternative, and Senate Republican leaders told NBC News that they might be open to legislation that would set benchmarks of progress for the Iraqi government to meet.
“There are some types of benchmarks that might well achieve bipartisan support and might actually even conceivably be helpful to the efforts in Iraq,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
But Republicans were reluctant to say whether they supported benchmarks with real consequences. Some said they would support tying benchmarks to foreign aid to Iraq totaling more than $5 billion but nothing that would tie the hands of military commanders.
“It depends on what the benchmarks are and what the consequences are,” said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.
Democrats go on the offensive
Democratic leaders accused Bush of disregarding the wishes of Congress and the public by refusing to consider ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
“The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after Bush’s speech. “If the president thinks by vetoing this bill he’ll stop us from working to change the course of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken.”
Reid contended that Bush had rejected a measure that would “fully fund the troops” and asserted, “Now he has a responsibility to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.”
The leading Democratic contenders for president also weighed in, calling on Bush to accept the need for a troop withdrawal.
“With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has stubbornly ignored the will of the American people, the majority of Congress and, most disturbingly, the realities on the ground in Iraq,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Noting that the bill also included $35 million for new homeland security initiatives, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., called on Bush to “stop disregarding the will of the American people and to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin redeploying our troops.”
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., put pressure on congressional Republicans to stand up to Bush, challenging them to “stand firm and strong.”
“Congress should answer the president’s veto by sending him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. And if he vetoes that one, Congress should send him another and another until we end this war and bring our troops home,” he said.
4th anniversary of ‘Mission Accomplished’
Bush has vetoed legislation only once before in nearly 6½ years in office. Last July, he killed a bill that would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Coincidentally or not, the new showdown comes on the fourth anniversary of Bush’s so-called Mission Accomplished speech aboard an aircraft carrier.
“It is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “It is very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and troops’ families and the resources that they need to try some PR stunt on this day.”
Pelosi denied that the timing was intentional. She told reporters that she was attending the funeral of Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., on Monday and was unavailable to sign the submission until Tuesday.

So much for the concept of Bush supporting the troops.

[Seta-San]

what are you talking about? he wants to support the troops. that's why he's asking for money from congress. congress wants to play politics and are trying to use legislation to in effect remove bush's executive powers. When/if the democrats take over the white house then they can end the war. The democrats are cowards though. They don't want a democrat to remotely touch the war. they want it all to be bush's war. it's a zero win for bush pulling out. if he pulls out then he'll be considered a coward and failure to those who still support him and iraq will definately be overrun by terrorists and iraq will become another terror sponsering state. if he stays the worst thing that can happen to him is that those who think the war is a failure will continue to think so. i think he's making the right move

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

what are you talking about?

Exactly what I said, he wants to stay in Iraq and further endanger the lives of the US troops.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

he wants to support the troops. that's why he's asking for money from congress.

Historically speaking that's what congress's traditional duties are, they give funding while the president does nothing more than deploy them.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

congress wants to play politics and are trying to use legislation to in effect remove bush's executive powers.

The office of the president of the United States originally doesn't have powers beyond the ability to veto congress, in recent history congress has been getting lazy and given most of their power to the president.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

When/if the democrats take over the white house then they can end the war.

I think that that would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

The democrats are cowards though.

Tell me how would having a new plan to make Iraq stable be considered cowardice, they were the ones that supported Truman's and funded plan to make a stable Germany while the Republicans opposed it.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

They don't want a democrat to remotely touch the war.

It's an unpopular war.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

they want it all to be bush's war.

It was, he ignored his generals, used outdated intelligence and insisted that the US go to war and stay in Iraq even though most people in the US doesn't support him at this point.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

it's a zero win for bush pulling out.

He has already won in Iraq, the US smashed Saddam's army and government that's already considered a victory.

If he stays then things will eventuaily collapse and right now according to some of the generals the US forces are spread too thin to counter a real threat without nuclear weapons so would you like a failure or a catastrophic failure?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

if he pulls out then he'll be considered a coward and failure to those who still support him and iraq will definately be overrun by terrorists and iraq will become another terror sponsering state.

The people who still support him are not the majority at this point (I check the polls), and besides it's not like they aren't already operating in Iraq right now, besides you seem to think terrorists are a single force rather than a intangible concept.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

if he stays the worst thing that can happen to him is that those who think the war is a failure will continue to think so.

And how about the money wasted and the lives that are put at risk in the short term and the national debt in the long term?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

i think he's making the right move

That's your opinion and mine is that he's not even close.

[Seta-San]

i'm not going to go to far into this other than this comment. The troops need to do their duty. Everyone in the US army are volunteers. those who were deployed at the beginning of the war might not have signed up for it but everyone there now signed up to go to this war. Soldiers are in the business of war and understand that before they sign up. And for those few morons who signed up thinking they were going to stay at some resort on Okinawa and get a free college education... well not much can be said of their intellegence. Everyone who I know who has been to Iraq believes in the mission. It seems like the only ones who want to pull out are the hippies at home who have no idea what's actually going on in iraq but take MSNBC's biased reporting as gosple without actually consulting someone who actually knows because they have been there.

Originally Posted by Player-X

Exactly what I said, he wants to stay in Iraq and further endanger the lives of the US troops.

[Player-X]

I won't argue that that fighting a war their job nor am I going to do that, I am arguing that keeping them there is diplomatically, economically and politically an extremely bad idea, while the US might be the biggest economy in the world they still have a very large and ever growing national debt to take of first.

If you think about it the US national debt technically mean that the US government has less money than some third world countries.

As far as having the Iraqis "stand up" I think that having a timetable for pulling out would force them to do so similar to taking the training wheels off the bike.

edit: and besides while I know that their job is hazardous pulling out is more like minimizing the risk so when the time comes they can still fight another war.

edit2:
This might be unrelated but here's a video outlining how Fox news covered the veto

Personally I think omitting the audio from a video of the opponent's response loses them quite a bit of credibility for their claim of being "fair and balanced" no matter what was being reported.

[Seta-San]

i think it's fair considering that ABC, CBS, NBC, AND MSNBC don't give bush a fair run at at all. not to mention the democratic response is pointless. they don't have enough votes to counter the veto and they will have to go along with bush in the end or risk looking like they don't support the troops which could doom them in 08

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

i think it's fair considering that ABC, CBS, NBC, AND MSNBC don't give bush a fair run at at all.

How are they not giving him a free run, they all ran the entire speech.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

not to mention the democratic response is pointless. they don't have enough votes to counter the veto and they will have to go along with bush in the end or risk looking like they don't support the troops which could doom them in 08

That depends on how you look at it and how it plays out, on one hand that might happen but on the other hand Bush and the republicans might be the one who will end up not looking like they are supports the troops by denying them a good plan.

Having a timetable would help get things going no matter if you are going to actuaily follow it or not, knowledge of it alone will encourage the Iraqis to prepare for not relying on the US troops all the time.

[Seta-San]

it's impossible for bush to look like he's not supporting the troops. Unfortunately democrats have done this to themselves by having a history of being against the military.

and a time table would get things going. if i had anything to do with the current iraq government i'd flee as far as possible for fear of my life. in it's current state it's not prepared to stand on it's own.

Originally Posted by Player-X

How are they not giving him a free run, they all ran the entire speech.


That depends on how you look at it and how it plays out, on one hand that might happen but on the other hand Bush and the republicans might be the one who will end up not looking like they are supports the troops by denying them a good plan.

Having a timetable would help get things going no matter if you are going to actuaily follow it or not, knowledge of it alone will encourage the Iraqis to prepare for not relying on the US troops all the time.

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

it's impossible for bush to look like he's not supporting the troops.

Wanna bet?
If he looks like he's supporting the troops I wouldn't say otherwise.
I think he isn't supporting the troops by putting them at a greater risk due to combat fatigue as he is keeping them there for an extended tour of duty rather than replacing them with fresh troops.

Originally Posted by Seta-San

i Unfortunately democrats have done this to themselves by having a history of being against the military.

You mean like the time they approved the funding for both fighting the war and for creating a stable post World War 2 Europe while the Republicans opposed them?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

i and a time table would get things going.

If you are having a class and the there doesn't seem to even be an exam would you be serious about your class compared to if they did even though it was false?

Originally Posted by Seta-San

if i had anything to do with the current iraq government i'd flee as far as possible for fear of my life.

At this point apparently life is so cheap there and the violence is so daily that the PM of Iraq doesn't even flinch during a rocket attack.

An example where he says "northing's wrong" right after the explosion.

As far as there being "a day where the Iraqis no longer fear the violence in their countries"(or something like it) goes I would say it's technically speaking "Mission Accomplished".

Originally Posted by Seta-San

in it's current state it's not prepared to stand on it's own.

Only because it's too reliant of the US, if they gradually scale back the occupation the Iraqis will probably stand up by themselves after the violence reaches an equilibrium (you can have only so much violence before everyone get tired of it).

[Fadingz]

Originally Posted by Seta-San

it's impossible for bush to look like he's not supporting the troops. Unfortunately democrats have done this to themselves by having a history of being against the military.

What type of bush are you talking about

I'm extremely anti-bush and there's a whole theory behind it. I think it might bring up some conflagration over the forum so I won't share it, I think.
My main question is, what does the other hemisphere have to do with US?
There are more unemployment population and people below the poverty line than deaths in Iraq, and all these numbers can be avoided or decreased if Bush is taking the right action.
However, according to the stat:


US-Iraq war began in year 2003, which is the peak of unemployment rate. Hence there is a strong correlation between the employment rate and Iraq war, disregard the possible lurking variables.
Yet Bush is putting even more spending onto the war effort rather than focusing on the economy.

[Player-X]

Originally Posted by Fadingz

What type of bush are you talking about

I'm extremely anti-bush and there's a whole theory behind it. I think it might bring up some conflagration over the forum so I won't share it, I think.
My main question is, what does the other hemisphere have to do with US?
There are more unemployment population and people below the poverty line than deaths in Iraq, and all these numbers can be avoided or decreased if Bush is taking the right action.
However, according to the stat:


US-Iraq war began in year 2003, which is the peak of unemployment rate. Hence there is a strong correlation between the employment rate and Iraq war, disregard the possible lurking variables.
Yet Bush is putting even more spending onto the war effort rather than focusing on the economy.

While I think the current Bush is unfit for the office of the President of the United States I also think your argument is flawed, there is a drop in the unemployment rate in July 03, while it is still far above the rates that Clinton managed to achieve it is a large exploitable hole in your argument based on the principle of "correlation does not imply causation".

[Fadingz]

Originally Posted by Player-X

While I think the current Bush is unfit for the office of the President of the United States I also think your argument is flawed, there is a drop in the unemployment rate in July 03, while it is still far above the rates that Clinton managed to achieve it is a large exploitable hole in your argument based on the principle of "correlation does not imply causation".

yeah that's why I said correlation, it's my theory and war began on March; and sorry I'm at school atm, so I can't type too much before I get kicked out of library XD...

I have more supports for the claim, just let me get back home and dig it out from my comp XP
The librarian is staring this way

[Proto]

Originally Posted by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Pirates and global warming
According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians.[2] Their image as "thieves and outcasts" is misinformation spread by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages. Pastafarianism says that they were in fact "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of good will" who distributed candy to small children.

The inclusion of pirates in Pastafarianism was part of Henderson's original letter to the Kansas School Board. It illustrated that correlation does not equal causation. Henderson put forth the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s."[2] A chart accompanying the letter shows that as the number of pirates decreased, global temperatures increased; this is a farcical demonstration of how statistically significant correlations do not imply a causal relationship (see confounding).

[Fadingz]

I said that I can't type much in library and that I can get more support when I'm back home
plus, I only mentioned correlation; I haven't mentioned causation yet, and I won't till I have enough evidence.

correlation between the employment rate and Iraq war, disregard the possible lurking variables

if you read my post all I did was showing the plot and making a brief summery.

[Proto]

The example I used was a little extreme, I accept it. However the way you word it one cannot help that you are implying some sort of causation between the two. Sorry if I misunderstood you, however as you can see I was not the only one, so maybe it wasn't my fault entirely

[Fadingz]

Here:

# According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion. In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion.
# Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation.
# Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next decade.
# Since 2001, the U.S. has deployed more than 1 million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
# Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.

Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.

Here're some support for my theory
Less spending on public goods impedes money cycle and increases unemployment rate as an impact
The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops