Bush will veto House bill on Iraq withdrawal.
By on Mar 8th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Bush will veto House bill on Iraq withdrawal.
Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House adviser Dan Bartlett said that the White House plans to veto the the House Democrats’ bill to withdraw troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008. He said, “It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground. … Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looks like what was described today.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ok, I know that Congress can over ride the veto with a 2/3 majority. The Dems do not have that much of a majority.
Looks like someone is going to have to get in bed with someone……
Ladies and gents, get ready for the next round of “Politics as Usual”
March 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pmReady for some serious battle? George is such a nervous and cowardly wank that he’ll choke on his pretzel and fart at the podium before his first stammer.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:54 pmBush could care less about our troops it’s all about the money.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pmEven the group MOVE AMERICA FORWARD is on the pay roll. Sad to see parents take the money as their children are being killed based on Bush’s lies. As a parent I thought that was strange until my daughter serving in Afghan said everyone is paid to lie for the White House. Then I remembered the families of the kids Fingers Foley abused. They were paid to keep their mouths shut and it worked. Foley will continue to abuse more children and just pay the parents. How do christians and honest Ameericans support sending our troops to die knowing all this was a lie from the beginning and watching the conditions our troops live when they come home injured. Every elected Official and the White House knew about this and to the money for our troops and gave it to Halliburton. Yet this group of parents are will to let the kids die by marching to support Bush’s illegal invasion. I guess everyone does have a price that will make them evern turn against their kids.
This is exactly why the democrats can’t ever maintain a majority control. They talk big about flexing muscle to get us out of Iraq, when anyone who passed 10th grade government knows that it’ll never happen. We’re stuck there until Bush is out. That’s a fact. What we should be doing is out-toughing the Republicans. Dems should institute a upper class tax hike NOW, like they promised they would; in light of the Walter Reed issues, it’d be more politically facile than it will ever be. Then we need to ACTUALLY support the troops, because all of this talk about us getting out of there will go nowhere. They’re trying to stack their credentials for 2008 in terms of public pleasing, but we all know that the American public hasn’t know what it wants since Reagan. Get smart Dems. Your intellectual oafishness is beginning to piss me off.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pmAnyone who didn’t see this coming… raise your hands. This is why I wasn’t clapping in the streets when they won the house and senate. To get past Bush, they need 2/3 majority, which they can’t reliably get. Bush will just say “no” as often as he can and he wins. He can’t get any new legislation passed either, but he doesn’t have to. Everything he wants, he’s already got. It doesn’t matter what sort of good ideas the dems have. They have to sell it to at least some of the republicans to get past the veto.
Anyone have odds on that?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pmActually, that’s not a problem. Since the provision is attached to funding legislation, then the funding wouldn’t happen either. Then, all that congress needs to do is leave the provision in and reduce the overall funding by 10% and send it back to the whitehouse.
If the ignorant-in-chief vetoes that one, fine, reduce the funding by another 10% and send it back again. This would work perfectly.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI say bring it on. Let Bush veto the spending bill!
March 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pmExcellent point, Tuber!
March 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pmActually, that’s not a problem. Since the provision is attached to funding legislation, then the funding wouldn’t happen either. Then, all that congress needs to do is leave the provision in and reduce the overall funding by 10% and send it back to the whitehouse.
If the ignorant-in-chief vetoes that one, fine, reduce the funding by another 10% and send it back again. This would work perfectly.
Comment by Tuber — March 8, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Which won’t work because reducing overall funding leaves our troops that much less prepared for combat. Bush hasn’t been too choked up about getting our soldiers killed up till now… Why not blame the rising casualty rate on Democratic tight-fistedness. Don’t think the Republicans won’t score points on that.
That’s the quandry. We can’t put the leash on Bush again, but if we cut the funding across the board, we hurt the troops and the dems get political backlash from it.
Now we’re back to impeachment… Don’t think it will happen though, which means we’re screwed until after the 2008 election, unless Bush screws up in some major way (I mean worse than he has so far)
March 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pmFix the headline, please.
Bartlett said “plans to,” NOT “will” veto. Just like Al Gore has no “plans” to run.
Also, the “looks like what was described today” needs to be properly understood. It was probably described to Bartlett by Rove or some other dubious standard-holder of reliability.
Bartlett is just posturing, hoping the Blue Dog Dems in the House (taking their cues from this ThinkProgress headline) prevail upon the Speaker to water down the bill even more.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:14 pm#9-Swordsbane,
I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I can guarantee that I could review the legislation and find EXACTLY where to cut without harming the troops whatsoever.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pmBartlett is just posturing, hoping the Blue Dog Dems in the House (taking their cues from this ThinkProgress headline) prevail upon the Speaker to water down the bill even more.
Comment by Mimir — March 8, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Except Bush has no reason NOT to veto the bill. If I thought he cared enough about our troops to swallow his pride and do what he’s told, you might have a point. I think he’ll veto everything to do with Iraq until he gets what he wants and blame all the delays on the Democrats who are already catching flak for wanting to mess with the troop funding in the first place. There’s no good way out of this.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pmSwordsbane,
you’re correct. Bush could choose to continue to send troops into harm’s way without training nor equipment and blame the Democrats for failing to support the troops. Question is, is the American public stupid enough to buy that?
Alternatively, Bush could treat the Federal Budget as approved by Congress as merely advisory, to the extent it conflicts with his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief and a War-Time President, and gut all domestic programs to continue funding his war and Halliburton et al.
Until he is impeached or otherwise removed from office, he is, for all practical purposes, a dictator.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pmQuestion is, is the American public stupid enough to buy that?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — March 8, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I’m going to make believe you didn’t ask that question.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pmMimr – the headline is accurate. “will” is an accurate word substitute for “would,” the term used in the quote, and a better word choice than “plans to.”
Go back to 8th grade, learn about word substitution.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pm#9-Swordsbane,
I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I can guarantee that I could review the legislation and find EXACTLY where to cut without harming the troops whatsoever.
Comment by Tuber — March 8, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
And when Bush reads that, he veto’s that too.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm#13-BNF,
Actually, Bush couldn’t legally do that because it is not a “declared” war. He HAS to follow congresses directions on this and would have to capitulate to their will.
I’m telling you, this would work. The only thing that this approach would rely on is that everyone in congress whose constituency wants an end to the “war” then stay firm and stick with the strategy. Any other compromises and the strategy then would begin to collapse.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmTime to impeach.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmdoes he even know where the VETO pen is?? I hope he vetos the whole lot. it will secure our victory in 08. not to mention the gift of a libby pardon.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pm#16-Swordsbane,
If he is a fool, then yes. And if he did veto a couple of times then I can also guarantee that congress would be able to achieve the 2/3 vote to override the veto. At 29% approval, how long do you thing the American public would stand for his petulance?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pmLet him veto!! Let him threaten to veto every bill related to the war, to nuclear proliferation, to pollution control, to healthcare reform, to education, to any kind of progress that benefits America’s middle class! If he uses the veto, it means the Democrats are showing America’s citizens and the world the difference between what America can be and should be and what America has become under this administration. Any veto by this President is just one more nail in the coffin of the Republican party.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmAnyone have odds on that?
Comment by Swordsbane
Start investigating and prosecuting the republicans in the congress. Maybe the others will take the hint.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmAlso… not to sound alarmist or anything :) but the head of the National Guard was appointed by Bush and is apparently very loyal to the Whitehouse and since the Reps passed the ammendment to the Posse Comitus act, the state governments are out of the chain of command during Martial Law. If Martial Law is declared during a state of emergency enacted because of something drastic like oh…. like an “emminent attack” on the US when we don’t have enough money to pay the army… The law of the land becomes LEGALLY Bush and the head of the National Guard. You think we have a dictator NOW……
Of course Bush would have to fake some evidence that terrorists are going to attack and then make sure most or all of our non-guard military forces are otherwise distracted…… like with a second war or something…. but no… that’s just crazy talk… right?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmSo did this teach you anything? Just vote no to the Iraq spending bill. Bush can’t veto that so you end the war. Wake up and do what you said to get elected. the Dems new Bush would veto that crap. They did it because it sounds nice and it doesn’t end a war the Dems now support and wish to extend. Fricking sad.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pmActually, Bush couldn’t legally do that because it is not a “declared†war. He HAS to follow congresses directions on this and would have to capitulate to their will.
Comment by Tuber — March 8, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
You’re forgetting… the Military Authorization congress gave Bush was for terrorism. Iran qualifies more than Iraq does. In order to change that authorization, Congress has to act on it. Funding quibbles don’t matter. If Bush thinks he’s being backed into a corner he can appropriate the funds under that authorization and it’s all perfectly legal. Sure we have to pay for it somehow, but we’ll be playing catch-up. Congress ‘declared war’ or terrorists in everything but name with that military authorization. Before anything else can be done, they need to revoke that authorization or change the wording, and they don’t have the votes to do that right now.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#16-Swordsbane,
If he is a fool, then yes. And if he did veto a couple of times then I can also guarantee that congress would be able to achieve the 2/3 vote to override the veto. At 29% approval, how long do you thing the American public would stand for his petulance?
Comment by Tuber — March 8, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
They’re standing for it right now. Why no impleachment? Why no demonstrations to BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW? Because the republicans have sold the public on the idea that bringing the troops home now will make things worse, and there is actually evidence to back him on that one. The public already believes that the war will continue, even though we don’t like it because they think there’s no choice. Don’t think that because 80% of the public thinks the president is doing a lousy job that 80% of the public thinks the same way about Bush that you do. A great many of those people would still be behind the war if we were doing better, and a large portion think that if Bush just changed a little about his strategy, things will be just fine. God help the democrats if by some fluke conditions DO improve, even by a small measure in Iraq. That will be the end of their support for ending the war.
Bush is not running for election. He keeps the presidency until January 2009 unless he is brought to trial. Since that doesn’t look like it’s happening, he doesn’t have to make us like the Iraq war. He just has to make us think the alternatives are worse. So far, he’s doing a good job.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#1 – it is, therefore, Republican obstructionism and partisanship that prevents any improvement in Iraq policy.
Rather than handcuff the generals on the ground, let’s handcuff dubbie and dickie.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pm#5 Anyone who didn’t see this coming… raise your hands. This is why I wasn’t clapping in the streets when they won the house and senate. To get past Bush, they need 2/3 majority, which they can’t reliably get. Bush will just say “no†as often as he can and he wins. He can’t get any new legislation passed either, but he doesn’t have to. Everything he wants, he’s already got. It doesn’t matter what sort of good ideas the dems have. They have to sell it to at least some of the republicans to get past the veto.
What you describe here is political gridlock. This is a major flaw in our system of government requiring an alternative solution, say, revolution. Since the Democrats have no balls for anything and therefore not a viable opposition there exists a void. The people must take back their government by taking to the streets and overthrow this governement that no longer resembles the entity the founding father envisioned and eventually created.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pm…like, handcuff them to the floor in the middle of the room…?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pm(not a question anyone needs to respond to, Poindexter might be listening…;)
What you describe here is political gridlock. This is a major flaw in our system of government requiring an alternative solution, say, revolution. Since the Democrats have no balls for anything and therefore not a viable opposition there exists a void. The people must take back their government by taking to the streets and overthrow this governement that no longer resembles the entity the founding father envisioned and eventually created.
Comment by Jason Baddo — March 8, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Yeah… if you can pull them away from their X-boxes and reality TV and Paris Hilton bloopers… sure. We are so ‘not there yet’.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pmWell done Mr. President.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm#25-Swordsbane,
I understand what you are saying, but what you describe as bush’s options are EXTREME measures. Bush’s approval rating is below 30%! All the polls show that a majority of Americans want an end to the Iraq atrocity. You imply that he would have the public’s support, I am confident that he would not.
What I’m hearing here is that “golly gee we really want to do something but it seems that we just can’t so I guess we just have to wait until the next president in 2009â€. I mean no offense, but that’s a pathetic excuse. Especially considering public sentiment.
If you don’t think that we need to play hardball on this matter then I don’t believe that you’ve been watching the “game”. If the only political power that was gained in the 2006 elections was to put forth a non-binding resolution, then I can say with certainty that Americans will not lose the “war on terror”, they’ve already surrendered.
And I can assure you this, my nephew will not be the last soldier to die for this heinous mistake. Because if it happened, then I will make sure that my nephew’s death would represent the first in humanity’s war against the evil and murderous oppressors that so many have become comfortable with the US being. That’s a promise.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWhat I’m hearing here is that “golly gee we really want to do something but it seems that we just can’t so I guess we just have to wait until the next president in 2009â€. I mean no offense, but that’s a pathetic excuse. Especially considering public sentiment.
Comment by Tuber — March 8, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Oh I’m not giving up, by any stretch of the imagination and I’m not advocating that. But realistically, it’s not going to be as easy as it looks. Overriding the Presidents veto is a huge task for a party that has only a marginal majority in congress, and the Bush spin machine is working overtime. They know how they need to sell each move they make. They can’t always do it, but they know, and the don’t seem to have any problem with trying even when the odds are against them. The democrats make their move and then figure out if they can spin it. 9 out of 10 times, they get caught with their pants down when they make a mistake. The Republicans are better at the spin game. The only thing the Democrats have in their favor is the mistakes the republicans have made. The fact that their ideas are usually a little better get’s obscured by their lack of skill. Don’t underestimate what the Republicans are capable and willing to do. The Democrats make that mistake and that is usually why they lose. The Iraq war is unpopular for a wide range of reasons, somewhere below the top six or seven is “Bush is a bad president.” A lot of people are in the category of “I WOULD support the war but…” Those approval polls will change the moment the situation in Iraq does.
I believe only one thing will stop this war from continuing, and that’s revoking or changing the Military Authorization that congress gave Bush. I don’t think that the democrats can do it. The seem to think that it’s on the table as an idea they can try, but unless they give it all their effort, it will be obscured byt this funding muddle, which isn’t going to do anything but reduce the already meager supplies our troops are getting. I’ve already sent letters to all my congressmen and a few who aren’t mine. If I thought I could swing a demonstration to march on Washington, or if I saw one forming, I’d jump at it. The public will just isn’t there. When I objectively try to figure the odds of the war ending before Bush has left office, I find they are vanishingly small. Too many people thought that Bush wouldn’t be a problem after the Democrats won congress. There is nothing in government tougher to deal with than an outgoing president with nothing to lose.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pmThe majority of Americans want the troops out.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pmBush will veto whatever he wants, but doing that will demonstrate that he is the stubborn obstructionist.
We already know Bush’s 21,000 troops are actually 28,000.
We already know that his 3/6 month surge is really 10/12 months.
We already know that he has underfunded the original surge, and the revised surge will be even more underfunded.
He has been deceptive and manipulative throughout the entire process; he won’t stop now.
The Dems must work on Repugs to get a few of them to join them and handcuff Bush.
WHY NOT SIMPLY VOTE NO TO THE IRAQ SPENDING BILL???????
While it is fun to read all your grand plans, ending this war is really easy if you actually wanted to. Of course ending this war isn’t poltically the best move (you wouldn’t gain the optimum amount of power). So you will continue to argue about all these fancy plans and how to overright a veto and how tough that will be. Do you ever just listen to yourself and how foolish it all sounds when ending this war is super duper easy?
March 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pmLet the current, corrupt, criminal president veto the supplemental.
All Congress needs to do is pass nothing until the president gives in. After all, it will be hard to sustain the occupation and destruction of Iraq without the supplemental, or the supplemental appropriation would have not been requested.
If there is no supplemental passed, it is the current president who is not supporting the troops.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pmBravo Marie, another good post #34…Have you written your representatives today.? Like me I bet you have….Would bet they will know our name’s before all this is done, if nothing else… When will they get we are their employer’s, I wonder….Will it be the day I hold the constitution up in one of their faces and say “The donald’s ” favorite line ” your fired.” I hope sooner than that…..Blessings
March 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIs anyone really suprised by this?
Bush will veto this bill and he will pardon Libby becuase he belives he is above the law.
We need to impeach him so he rembers who he works for!
IMPEACH BUSH
March 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIMPEACH DICK
WHY NOT SIMPLY VOTE NO TO THE IRAQ SPENDING BILL???????
While it is fun to read all your grand plans, ending this war is really easy if you actually wanted to. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 8, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Why do you CONs hate america, and the troops so much? Are you working for Bin Laden, or are you just a sympathizer?
March 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmTo simply vote against the supplemental does not get our troops out safely. The supplemental with timelines is the way to assure that our troops can come home safely.
The problem is the current, corrupt president, not Congress. It is he who talks about “victory,” which as far as I can tell, means the total takeover of a destroyed Iraq by American interests. That kind of “victory” we can do without.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#33-Swordsbane,
“You miss 100% of the shots that you don’t take.”
Wayne Gretsky
I agree that the Authorization that the rubber-stamp nincompoops (including the cowardly and naive dems that voted for it) needs to be revoked. I believe that I’ve read before that you are former military. If so then you should know that you never commit all your forces to one front, especially where the enemy has the majority of its strengths and resources. You attack on all fronts, you flank the enemy, and you find their weak spots.
Too many here do not take this situation seriously because they have not experienced a loss, or seen a friend or relative come home in physical and/or mental tatters. Also, the lives of the Iraqis who have been murdered in this atrocity are discounted so that they are sub-human and irrelevant. I can guarantee that this will change. The only question is whether it is going to be a change of choice, or a change that is imposed. I prefer the former.
The time for excuses is long past.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pmSince when has legality stopped Bush? He can, and will, do whatever he wants until and unless removed from office through impeachment or other means.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWhy not attach the timetable/withdrawl plan to the funding? If they want funding, then they must set milestones and make clear progress. Why not do it like that?
March 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm#42-BNF,
No one can ever force themselves upon you as your master, one has to willfully surrender to servitude. Bush is not my “master”, but it seems that many here have given themselves to his service.
You defeat yourself when you will not even attempt something for fear of failure. That is a problem that seems to be rampant in today’s USA. Seems to me that everyone wants to give up without a fight and just hope that the next master is “nicer”.
That’s not my choice. And I definitely don’t shy away from an issue or a problem just because the right and just solution is “hard” or even dangerous. That’s not living in my view.
This situation is NOT beyond hope and I believe that the resolution is a whole lot more simple than many here want to acknowledge. Instead, there are just multitudes of “reasons” for not doing anything and plenty of whining about how difficult it could be.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm#43-Bob,
That is what they are doing.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pmhttp://www.peace-action.org/
———————————-
We give ordinary people
the tools to change the world.
About Peace Action
Peace Action, the merger of SANE and The Nuclear Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for nearly fifty years.
As the nation’s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries, and eliminating funding for new nuclear weapons, Peace Action and its 100,000 members have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the international movement for peace.
At Peace Action we believe…
…that war is not a suitable response to conflict.
For nearly 50 years Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long standing global conflicts require long-term solutions, and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new US foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We are against pre-emptive war, and call for a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
…that every person has the right to live without the threat from nuclear weapons.
There are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on hair trigger alert—ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition. The U.S. must lead the way to a safer world by taking our weapons off hair trigger alert, halting our research and development of new nuclear weapons and disarming and demilitarizing our warhead stockpile of over 10,000 nuclear warheads. We can reduce the threat to the world posed by nuclear weapons, but we must start by getting serious about getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction.
…that America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, school are using outdated textbooks, and millions of Americans are without basic health insurance.
For what the US will spend on the War in Iraq, 26,701,621 children could have attended a year of Head Start, we could have built 1,815,194 additional housing units for the poor, we could have hired 3,493,706 additional public school teachers for one year, and we could have provided 9,772,998 students four-year scholarships at public universities(source – National Priorities Project). We believe that these are priorities that should come before war.
What we do at Peace Action…
We are the nation’s largest grassroots Peace network, with over 28 state affiliates, and over 100 local chapters. We organize our grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizens lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading organizing member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals.
Through our Peace Voter awareness campaigns, we inform citizens about their choices for both local and national campaigns, by highlighting different candidates’ stances on issues relating to peace. Our annual Congressional Voter Guide gives credit to those in Congress who voted for a peaceful future, while holding accountable those who voted for larger Pentagon budgets, spending tax dollars on nuclear weapons, and voted for wars of aggression and occupation.
Given the right tools, ordinary people can change the world.
At Peace Action, we recognize that real change comes from the bottom up and we are committed to educating and organizing at the grassroots level.
When you join Peace Action you become part of an effective citizen movement. We work hard to keep you informed through our quarterly newsletter and publications about the most important news and issues in the peace movement. As a member you can join our Action Alert Network which allows citizens throughout the country to rapidly respond to important legislation online. As a member, you can become an important part of a fast growing national movement, and help us change the direction of our country and the world towards a more sustainable, peaceful future.
Together, we have the power to change the world.
Support Peace.
http://www.peace-action.org/
March 8th, 2007 at 5:35 pmrachel kinnardi – Be gone.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pmRachel,
You’re not supposed to post the same thing on every thread. You said you wrote it down. C’mon…
March 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pmA veto works for me. He will be vetoing his own appropriations bill. He won’t be “supporting the troops”. I can’t count the number of times that the Republics inserted things in the appropriations bill that they knew the Democrats would oppose, but they knew that the Democrats didn’t dare vote against it because they would then be accused of not “supporting the troops”. The Republics are finding out that Karma’s a bitch!
March 8th, 2007 at 7:07 pmYou can VETO, CHIMPya, BUT THERE IS THE OVERRIDE OF YOUR PATHETIC VETO WHICH WILL BE MORE EVIDENT TO YOU AS MORE OF THE repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderms DESERT YOUR SINKING SHIT Oops SHIP OF STATE!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm49. OK for me too.
No timeline = no more damned money!
March 8th, 2007 at 11:52 pmOf course you realize that Bush really will not Veto, but sign such a bill……..
Then he will claim right to ignore the timeline as part of a signing statement.
Just impeach his @$$ already.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:55 pm