Bush Claims "I WILL VETO?!" - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Bush Claims "I WILL VETO?!"

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Bush Claims "I WILL VETO?!"

Postby BGbootha » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:39 am

cnn wrote: Democrats, Bush heading toward showdown on Iraq
POSTED: 8:49 a.m. EDT, March 29, 2007
Story Highlights
• Democrats: Votes ensure president would be handed measure with timetable
• Senators already agreed to uphold withdrawal language in $122 billion Iraq bill
• House has OK'd bill with September '08 withdrawal deadline for combat troops
• Bush renews veto threat for any legislation with timetable to withdraw troops
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats are moving unflinchingly toward a high-stakes veto fight with President Bush over the Iraq war as the Senate wraps up work on legislation ordering combat troops home from Iraq.

"This Congress is taking the responsible course and responding to needs that have been ignored by your administration and the prior Congress," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, wrote in a letter to Bush.

The Senate was expected Thursday to pass a $122 billion bill that would require Bush to start bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months, with a nonbinding goal of ceasing combat operations as of March 31, 2008.

The final vote on the bill comes after the Senate agreed 50-48 to uphold the withdrawal language, and the House of Representatives passed similar legislation last week.

The House approved a more sweeping measure, including a mandatory withdrawal deadline for all combat troops before September 2008.

The two sides still need to settle their differences and approve a final conference bill. But Democrats said the recent votes guaranteed the president would be handed a measure imposing some sort of timetable on Iraq.

"This war without end has gone on far too long and we're here to end it," Pelosi said.

Reid said the ball was now in the president's court.

"The Senate and the House have held together and done what we've done," he told reporters. "It's now in his corner to do what he wants to do."

The legislation is the Senate's first, bold challenge of Bush's war policies since Democrats took control of Congress in January. With Senate rules allowing the minority party to insist on 60 votes to pass any bill and Democrats holding only a narrow majority, Reid had been unable to push through resolutions critical of the war.

This latest proposal was able to get through because Republicans said they didn't want to block an appropriations bill needed for the war.

"I think the sooner we can get this bill ... down to the president for veto, we can get serious about passing a bill that will get money to the troops," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

Bush used a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting Wednesday to deliver his latest in a series of veto threats on the measure. Confident Democrats did not have the two-thirds majority votes to override his veto, Bush said Democrats would be the ones to blame if troops go without funding.

"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible," he said. (Watch Bush vow to veto the withdrawal bill Video)

But Pelosi and Reid didn't flinch.

"On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just to say to him, 'Calm down with the threats,' " she said. "There's a new Congress in town. We accept your constitutional role. We want you to accept ours." (Watch as Pelosi tells Bush to "take a deep breath" Video)

Democrats acknowledge they do not have enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto, but say they will continue to ratchet up the pressure until he changes course.

The looming showdown was reminiscent of the GOP-led fight with President Clinton over the 1996 budget, which caused a partial government shutdown that lasted 27 days. Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, the House speaker at the time, eventually relented but claimed victory because the bill represented a substantial savings over the previous year's spending.

Bush said the money is needed by mid-April or else the troops will begin to run out of money, but some Democrats say the real deadline is probably closer to June.
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2825
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Grading papers

Postby BGbootha » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:43 am

OK so now I have a question, or a couple of questions.

1. We are NOT at war, we have not declared war since December 8th, 1941.

2. The President cannot authorize an act of war without the permission of House and Senate. (he got this 4 years ago in order to start this whole fiasco)

3. The House and Senate no longer authorize the Presidents use of force.

4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?

5. How do I explain the process of 'checks and balances' to my students with this happening?
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2825
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Grading papers

Postby knapplc » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:43 am

This is just political posturing on both sides, all the while the troops are over there doing the actuall s**t work and are largely forgotten by these people, it seems. How nice to be in a country where you're getting shot at and having to dodge IEDs all the time, only to know that you're really just a political pawn in someone else's game. Yuck.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby Art Vandelay » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:46 am

I didn't read this particular article, but I've been following this pretty closely, and I have to say that this may be the first thing I've actually agreed with Bush on...I'd veto this as well. For one thing, there's more than $20 billion in pork added onto this because every congressman in the country fought to get their pet projects included so they can go back to their constituents and say "See...I was trying, I got it included in the bill, but the president vetoed it." Also, even though I think the Iraq war is a colassal failure and I would like to see the troops removed as soon as possible, I do not, under any cicrumstances, want to see a precident set that allows congress to tell the executive branch--and more importantly, commanders in the field--where and when to move troops.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby BGbootha » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:48 am

I am not saying that I think its a bad idea to Veto the Bill. I am not a huge fan of the idea of a cold pull out of our troops. I am just dumbfounded that he even has a choice to veto this.
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2825
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Grading papers

Postby Art Vandelay » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:48 am

BGbootha wrote:4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?


I don't have time to look up the actual number, but I think it takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. There's still enough support for the war to prevent that from happening.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RugbyD » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:49 am

BGbootha wrote:4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?

pretty much anything is vetoable unless there is a supermajority of the Senate (i think) vote.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Coppermine » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:50 am

BGbootha wrote:OK so now I have a question, or a couple of questions.

1. We are NOT at war, we have not declared war since December 8th, 1941.

2. The President cannot authorize an act of war without the permission of House and Senate. (he got this 4 years ago in order to start this whole fiasco)

3. The House and Senate no longer authorize the Presidents use of force.

4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?

5. How do I explain the process of 'checks and balances' to my students with this happening?


First of all, because we're not officially "at war" there are no treaties or cease fires to end this "conflict." The congress voted to send our troops to Iraq in support of the president and so both branches of government are liable, even though the legislative has changed ideology.

Bottom line is, you're right. Check and balances is undermined by the presidential veto when it comes to this sort of thing. So long as the president wants to stay in Iraq, we will regardless off what Congress passes. But, just as congress was required to authorize the president to use force in Iraq, the congress must work with the president to pass a bill getting us out. A veto can be overridden, but it takes a large majority of the Senate to do that.

None of it matters though; this is the bottom line... so long as George W. Bush is president, we WILL be in Iraq. I suppose the longer we stay, the better chance we have to "win"
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby knapplc » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:52 am

Art Vandelay wrote:
BGbootha wrote:4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?


I don't have time to look up the actual number, but I think it takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. There's still enough support for the war to prevent that from happening.


RugbyD wrote:
BGbootha wrote:4. How is it possible that he can Veto this? Why is it even Vetoable?

pretty much anything is vetoable unless there is a supermajority of the Senate (i think) vote.


I think what BG is getting at is, if the President did not declare war, and this "military action" is happening at the behest of Congress (as it is), how then does the President have the right/ability/authority to veto Congress' demand that the troops come home?

It's an interesting question. Allegedly this war is taking place under the auspices of the authority of Congress, not Bush, but now when Congress says it's time for them to come back, Bush says no.

I wish I could answer that, BG. I don't think I can, though. :-?
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby BGbootha » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:53 am

Coppermine wrote:I suppose the longer we stay, the better chance we have to "win"


I wonder how many people said the same thing about 40 years ago?
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2825
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Grading papers

Next

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 4:08 hours
(and 97 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact