May 2, 2007


Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit (SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JEFF ZELENY, 5/02/07, NY Times)

The veto added new punctuation to a major war powers clash between Democrats in Congress — buoyed what they regard as a mandate in last November’s elections and seeking to force an end to the fighting in Iraq — and a president working to defy what he regards as an incursion on his authority as commander in chief.

Democrats concede they do not have enough votes to override the veto. But, speaking in the Capitol shortly after Mr. Bush’s remarks, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they would not be deterred from pushing the president as hard as they could to bring the troops home.

“If the president thinks by vetoing this bill he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,” Mr. Reid said. He added, “Now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.”

The fight has been brewing for nearly three months, ever since Mr. Bush sent Congress his request for emergency financing for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including money to support his troop buildup. The next chapter begins Wednesday, when Congressional leaders are expected to meet Mr. Bush at the White House to open negotiations on a new bill. They are expected to look for ways to preserve the benchmarks for Iraqi progress that were included in the initial bill while eliminating the timetables for troop withdrawal that Mr. Bush has emphatically rejected.

Several Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were likely to support such benchmarks, and White House aides said Tuesday that Mr. Bush, who has supported goals and benchmarks for the Iraqi government, might back such a measure — but only if the benchmarks are nonbinding.

It's wise for the Administration to use Democrat Derangement Syndrome to present Congress to the Iraqis as the Bad Cop.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 2, 2007 10:50 AM

It's wiser for the Administration to use Democrat Derangement Syndrome to tag Democrats as defeatists who only care about their own power. They trade Iraqis' survival and the troops' well beings in return for peanut guarantees.

Posted by: ic at May 2, 2007 12:10 PM

If they're so concerned about bringing the troops home, they should put a date in the SorK FTA.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 2, 2007 4:37 PM

Spain their only victory? What about the New Congress run by appeasers

Posted by: Brian at May 3, 2007 2:50 AM

The Democrats were more useful to AQ as a bare minority. In that role they could hold up legislation, bend legislation to their requirements, snipe and snark all day long, and not have to put forth one useful suggestion.

Now, with a bare majority, they have to put together some sort of program - and their most vociferous supporters are demanding the most radical program possible. The Democrats can't do that radical program. They don't have enough radicals in their caucus to pass it and a watered down version gets vetoed and they can't get enough votes to override the veto. Remember Rep. Obay and that confrontation with the two people? "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket?"

A bare majority needs a deft touch to keep it together and on task and neither Pelosi nor Reid has that touch. and finally after six years the White House can do what is natural and bash a do-nothing Congress.

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2007 6:36 AM

The New Congress just voted not to appease.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2007 7:09 AM