Bush Claims "I WILL VETO?!"

[Geek]

Did Bush expect that they'd just write him a blank check so he could continue with his incompetent policies?

And how do we achieve 'victory' in someone else's civil war?

[Big Pimpin]

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

Why wouldn't it be vetoable? Isn't that what the whole checks-and-balances thing is about?

Yes, but the very idea that the President needs their permission to have troops over there, and now he no longer has that permission, by vetoing this, he is in essence vetoing checks and balances itself.

I don't see that as the case.

1) The President wanted troops in Iraq, Congress agreed. That was the "check and balance."

2) They (or some of them) want to bring them back. The President does not agree. That is the "check and balance."

They're not the same thing. I mean they sort of are, but they're separate "moves" if you will. Just because Congress failed to stop the troops from going in the first place doesn't mean they should have the ability to pull them back whenever they feel like upping their PR.

[Madison]

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

Why wouldn't it be vetoable? Isn't that what the whole checks-and-balances thing is about?

Yes, but the very idea that the President needs their permission to have troops over there, and now he no longer has that permission, by vetoing this, he is in essence vetoing checks and balances itself.

I don't see that as the case.

1) The President wanted troops in Iraq, Congress agreed. That was the "check and balance."

2) They (or some of them) want to bring them back. The President does not agree. That is the "check and balance."

They're not the same thing. I mean they sort of are, but they're separate "moves" if you will. Just because Congress failed to stop the troops from going in the first place doesn't mean they should have the ability to pull them back whenever they feel like upping their PR.

Nice post and agreed.

[Coppermine]

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

Why wouldn't it be vetoable? Isn't that what the whole checks-and-balances thing is about?

Yes, but the very idea that the President needs their permission to have troops over there, and now he no longer has that permission, by vetoing this, he is in essence vetoing checks and balances itself.

I don't see that as the case.

1) The President wanted troops in Iraq, Congress agreed. That was the "check and balance."

2) They (or some of them) want to bring them back. The President does not agree. That is the "check and balance."

They're not the same thing. I mean they sort of are, but they're separate "moves" if you will. Just because Congress failed to stop the troops from going in the first place doesn't mean they should have the ability to pull them back whenever they feel like upping their PR.

Yes, I think that explains it perfectly

The congress granted the president approval to use force already. Congress has changed it's mind, but now it needs the approval of the president. That's the check and balance.

I'll tell you this though, I really do not expect anyone to win the 2008 election on a platform of "stay the course."

[RugbyD]

another way to look at this is that is the president could not exercise a veto, then that implicitly give the legislature the ability to tell the president that he is no longer Commander if Chief. As far as I know that is impossible to accomplish without removing the president from office.