News & Politics - Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill

migamoo · 05-01-2007, 10:08 PM

Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill - Yahoo! News

Quote:

WASHINGTON -
President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech declaring that major combat operations had ended in Iraq.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring Americans' desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

"The president wants a blank check," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., moments after Bush's appearance. "The Congress is not going to give it to him." She said lawmakers would work with him to find common ground but added that there was "great distance" between them on Iraq.

The legislation amounted to a rare rebuke of a wartime president and an assertion by Democrats that Congress must play a major role in Iraq and the extent of U.S. involvement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said Bush has an obligation to explain his plan for responsibly ending the war.

"If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken," Reid said.

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democrats have already signaled they intend to approve a replacement bill stripped of the troop withdrawal timetable. Determined to challenge Bush's policy, they are turning their attention to setting goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it struggles to establish a more secure, democratic society.

The White House and congressional Republicans have also called for so-called benchmarks, but only if they don't mandate a troop withdrawal or some other major change in war policy.

Bush will meet with congressional leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — on Wednesday to discuss new legislation.

He said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.

He said the need to act was urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.

"Whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay," the president said.

Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.

Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar province.

Minutes after Bush vetoed the bill, an anti-war demonstrator stood outside the White House with a bullhorn: "How many more must die? How many more must die?"

Earlier at the Capitol, Democrats held an unusual signing ceremony of the $124.2 billion bill before sending it to the White House.

"The president has put our troops in the middle of a civil war," said Reid. "Reality on the ground proves what we all know: A change of course is needed."

For his part, Bush flew to Florida to meet with military commanders and said the Democratic proposal would turn Iraq into a "cauldron of chaos." With sleeves rolled up, Bush shook hands with troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq. Then Bush returned to the White House to announce his veto just before network news shows.

Democratic leaders refused to discuss their approach to Wednesday's meeting with Bush. Past meetings have not led to any compromises, although members said this time they hoped Bush would signal a willingness to negotiate.

"I don't want to get into a negotiation with myself," Reid said when asked about conversations with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky.

McConnell and other Republicans have said they would agree to provisions that lay out standards for the Iraqi government to meet in creating a more stable and democratic society.

"A number of Republicans think that some kind of benchmarks properly crafted would be helpful," McConnell said. Bush and GOP allies have said they will oppose legislation that ties progress on such standards to a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.

"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.

Some Republicans say they would support tying goals for Iraqi self-defense and democracy to the more than $5 billion provided to Iraq in foreign aid. But such an idea hasn't piqued the interest of Democrats.

When Bush announced a U.S. troop increase in January, he said Iraq's government must crack down on both Shiites and Sunnis, equitably distribute oil wealth, refine its constitution and expand democratic participation. He attached no consequences if these benchmarks were not met.

Tuesday's developments came exactly four years after Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln decorated with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner. At the time, Bush's approval rating was 63 percent, with the public's disapproval at 34 percent.

Four years later, only 35 percent of the public approves of the job the president is doing, while 62 percent disapprove, according to an April 2-4 poll from AP-Ipsos.

Bush has used his veto power only once before, when he rejected a measure last summer to lift restrictions on federal money for embryonic stem cell research.

Jacob1983 · 05-03-2007, 12:04 PM

I just laugh at all these Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else that wants to cut off funding to the troops. They're so stupid. I understand if you are against the war and you hate Bush but when you take money away that should help the troops then I think you are becoming anti-American.

The troops are American troops. They aren't Bush's troops or the Republican troops.

Nancy Pelosi needs to get off her soap box and power trip and realize that Bush ain't gonna budge. And it's wrong of her to take her hatred and disgust of Bush out on the troops. The troops didn't do anything wrong. They deserve whatever money we can give them. If you take away the money, do you think the troops will do a better job and will be safe?

These politicans are obviously putting their own agendas way ahead of the safety and welfare of our troops. That is unAmerican.

Stop trying to screw over Bush by cheating the troops out of what they need and just give them what they need.

quaist · 05-03-2007, 01:47 PM

The war in Iraq definitely made things down there worse, at least that's what you get to hear when you ask the people who live there at the end of the day.

But I think the veto from Bush was a sure thing from the beginning...

Ashleigh · 05-03-2007, 01:48 PM

No one WANTS to end all funding to the troops. However, we can't, as Pelosi has said several times, continue this free-for-all war spending. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes. Somewhere, there has to be an end to a war. In most situations, when you're out of money, you go home, but I don't think our bullheaded leader and his cronies get that.

ceilirose · 05-03-2007, 02:49 PM

Bush screwed the troops by sending them into Iraq with no long range plan and inadequate armor, supplies etc. Republicans blaming Pelosi is typical but other than the 30% hard core Bush supporters no one is buying it.

I have a friend who at one point had three nephews in Iraq at the same time. One finally wsa let out of the Army this past January over a year after his discharge date. One is still over there and one was sent back home last month with 3 vertebrae severly damaged and more than likely brain damage from all the IED's exploding around him. He's 22 and his short term memory is gone and that's the best scenario. They've been trying to arrange a MRI of his brain for about 2 weeks and no one can tell his parents when it will happen.

This war is all on Bush and his lack of concern for the troops is apparent.

Jacob1983 · 05-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Love or hate Bush, our troops shouldn't be screwed over because some politicans want to stick it to the president. And yes, I agree that Bush could have done a way better job in the beginning with giving the troops what they needed. However, if the troops need supplies, money, and whatever, I say give it to them.

Indian Summer · 05-03-2007, 09:05 PM

I don't think this is about sticking it to the president, Jacob. And seriously, how would withdrawing the troops and bringing them back home, to safety... put them in more danger? That doesn't make any sense. I think them being over there is a lot more dangerous than them sitting on their couches enjoying time with their family or attending their welcome home parties, but... that could just be me.

Ashleigh · 05-04-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

I think them being over there is a lot more dangerous than them sitting on their couches enjoying time with their family or attending their welcome home parties, but... that could just be me.

No, it's not just you - unless there are fundamentalist sofas out there waiting to terrorize innocent people with their sneaky cushions and thread. SERIOUSLY, if we brought our troops home, we cut spending drastically. How about we do that and then spend money where we truly need to be putting it, ie in our veterans hospitals and programs?

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 10:17 AM

I never said that withdrawing the troops would hurt them or put them in danger. It would obviously help them and relieve massive amounts of stress on them. However, it is possible to say that America may be put in great danger if the troops come home too early. And please don't tell me that America will be safer if the troops come home early i.e. tomorrow.
Our politicians need to realize that Bush is running the show and he ain't gonna budge. They should just put aside their hatred and disgust of Bush and think of the troops. The troops deserve all the money they can get in order to win this war or at least survive over there.

And don't turn this around on me and say "why aren't you fighting over there".

migamoo · 05-04-2007, 12:37 PM

The troops deserve to be safe and cared for. The best way for that to happen, is to bring them home.

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 02:48 PM

Fieryangel, that is true but will America be safe?

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 02:55 PM

America will never be safe, Jacob. If there's one thing we were supposed to learn from 9/11, it's that. But this talk about the Iraqis following us home is just scare tactics. They're in a civil war and on the brink of genocide... they're far too concerned with problems in their own country right now. And really, we have a much better chance at defending our borders than winning over there at this point.

edited because I can't spell.

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 03:11 PM

I meant to say will America be safer or more dangerous if our troops leave before the job is done. How do we know that the Iraqis will not terrorize us over here once our troops leave Iraq?

America will look weak if the troops are taken out too early.

Indian Summer · 05-04-2007, 03:19 PM

I just explained that, Jacob. The Iraqis have too much going on at home to worry about us and they're drained.

One of the best characteristics in a leader is admitting when he made a mistake and taking all steps necessary to fix it. We won't look weak by pulling out- we'll look humbled and smart. Being humbled isn't a bad thing, Jacob.

Jacob1983 · 05-04-2007, 03:29 PM

Well, a troop withdrawal ain't gonna happen anytime soon. We will just have to wait and see if nothing worse happens when the troops do come home. Besides, Bush has been defined by Iraq. He ain't gonna give it up without a fight. However, I do think that he could save a tiny part of his reputation, legacy, and presidency if he just caved and ended the war in Iraq. If Bush caved and ended the war, people might actually possibly maybe have some respect for him. Big if though.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill