Vetoed
As expected, Bush has vetoed the supplemental spending bill.
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.
In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
He vetoed the bill immediately upon his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq.
He was to comment on television at 6:10 p.m. EDT.
If the money runs out for the troops in the field, the Democrats will be in real trouble real fast. They have dragged this out for the sake of a political stunt. It will not go unnoticed by the voters.
By James, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 5:27 pm
>If the money runs out for the troops in the field, the Democrats will be in real trouble real fast.
Have to disagree with this. The public is on the side of the Democrats.
Bush just told the troops no more war funds.
Besides, the real timetable for withdraw is the end
of Bush’s presidency. The next president will pull the troops out no matter what.
The Bush veto will just show the public Bush is stubborn.
But this does clear Kerry of his vote on funding the troops years ago.
By Uncle Pinky, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 5:42 pm
They have dragged this out for the sake of a political stunt. It will not go unnoticed by the voters.
I sincerely hope that you are right. My skepticism is based on the behavior of modern Democrats (or is it Democratics, curse this pejorative labeling) and their ability to seem to take the high road while never taking a stand.
Soppy-gloppy, feel-good, I’m-Ok and you are too- hippie garbage is (in my estimation) what got us into this role of victim/oppressor.
I’ve got a high-school reunion coming up, and I’ve never really kept up with my acquaintances from that period. My sister did, and has reported that I was more popular than I thought: Mostly due to my tendency to call B.S. on push fights.
You recall these. Two people are scheduled to fight but hurl more imprecations than blows, with shoving interspersed. Piss-poor way to settle a question in my mind, but indicative of the Alan Alda-ish phantasy that our parents worshipped at the time.
I used to stop-punch the bastards: and am at a loss to explain why the current administration does not do the same. I’m not saying they should put Omar or Mikey Yon on the payroll, but they could, at no cost, put them out there in the mass media.
There will be kick-back, if’n the adminstration chooses to fight back. Always will be and always was, but the prevarications, semantic violence and plain old lying of this most open and honest Congress EVAAAAAAH call for retaliatory action: Tell the Truth and Shame Your Enemies. They have a great deal to be ashamed about.
By The Populist, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 6:46 pm
One word.
Impeach.
By Purple Avenger, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 7:29 pm
The public is on the side of the Democrats.
Polling that asks the right question - “do you want to lose in Iraq?” overwhelmingly goes against the democrat approach.
What the public is is unhappy - that does NOT mean they desire to lose. The democrats may be in for a rude surprise in 08′ because of this misread on the public’s actual feelings.
By Purple Avenger, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 7:29 pm
By Gaius, Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Two words: President Cheney. Or two others: Fat chance. Take your pick.
By syn, Wednesday, 2 May , 2007 @ 5:13 am
The Plantation Party is playing games with their base just to get power; they will never de-fund the troops, there is no basis for impeachment and Pelosi is aborting the entire Democrat Party.
If the public is ‘on the side’ of the Democrats why then is Rudy Giuliani leading the Presidential campaign?