Bush will veto new Iraq bill.
By on May 9th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Bush will veto new Iraq bill.
“President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said this morning.”
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
Why does Bush hate our troops?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:27 amIs he gonna veto everything?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:28 amI understand he’s the pres but damn you guys are gonna do something so these troops can survive in your bullshit war.You have them there now stop playing with there livlyhood bush.
Nancy said she’ll sue him. I don’t see that going anywhere unfortunatly.
Tables can be moved around, and placed under stuff Nancy.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:28 amWhy does Bush hate America?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:29 amGOOD!!!!!
Let him keep showing those 29%ers what Bush really thinks of our troops……
By this time in 4 months, Bush’s approval rating should be sitting at about 19%.
If this NEGLEGANT, INCOMPOTENT administration does not deserve impeachment for deralection of duty then I don’t know if we will ever impeach another president……
May 9th, 2007 at 11:30 amFine. The war is de-funded. Bring the f*cking bait home.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am“unacceptable language restricting funding”
In other words, the Congress is still refusing to surrender the power of the purse and write Chimpy yet another blank check.
That’s fine, Chimpy. Every veto only serves to convince more fence-sitters that the Emperor really is naked, like we’ve been saying since 2000.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am“Nancy said she’ll sue him. I don’t see that going anywhere unfortunatly.
Tables can be moved around, and placed under stuff Nancy.
Comment by ForTruth — May 9, 2007 @ 11:28 am”
IF he applies a signing statement saying that he would not follow certain parts of the legislation……
I believe he was going to do a signing statement before Pelosi announced that if he did she would sue him. So he just decided to VETO it instead….. This way there could be no court case…..
I hope he does add a signing statement rather than a VETO, because I would love to see the court strike down his notion that he can determine what laws in a bill he will follow……
May 9th, 2007 at 11:33 amScrew him… send it anyway… never back down… even if he vetos himself into not having the money to do anything, but bring them home.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:33 amPresident Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said this morning.
Building that permanent republican minority, one bloody, hubristic stone at a time.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:34 amHow’s this for unacceptable language : PHUCK YOU CHIMPY~!
May 9th, 2007 at 11:34 amWhy doesn’t the President want to support the troops?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:36 amA pre-emptive veto. Nice bargaining chip there….just push, push, push until your opponent folds [Dems]. And if they don’t, George? The republicans who want to still be in DC in 2008 must love this.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:42 am2 BILLION a week on borrowed money while we protect the Sunni genocide from the Shia majority and they kill us. We prop up an Iranian backed Shia theocracy and their militia kill us. The insanity continues. The water keeps getting heavier Rape-Public-Cans?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:43 amhe if dont approve spending for two months at a time – Then he dont support the troops for sure
May 9th, 2007 at 11:44 amNews flash–he’s going to veto everything except a completely blank check.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:44 amLet him. And send him a third, one a little more restrictive.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:47 amHe is like the little boy who always needs to get his way. And when he does he shits his pants.
> Bush simply does not want to be held accountable for his “surge” strategy. “Accountability:” Republicans keep using that word — I don’t think it means what you think it means.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:48 amIf this Congress cannot collectively agree to override this president we should start a third political party in the United States. The draft should be reinstated. It would be a real wake up call if every family in America were required to send one of their own children to fight in Iraq and Afhanistan. This White House administration has made billions for their personal friends with no bid contracts. Unprecedented. The president is not a stupid person. He is not a buffoon. He knows full well that his acquaintances, his VP’s acquaintances are making billions off this “war”. Impeach the entire White House administration. We need to take back America and get out of the middle east.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:48 amWhy do the stupid Democrats keep modifying the Bill? They already agreed on one and all they need to do is keep sending it back to Bush every time the idiot vetos it.
Why will that not work?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:51 amThe more funding bills he vetoes, the better the Democrats look.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:51 amThey should flood his desk with different funding options. Let him keep on stonewalling and see how far he gets. Right now the public is with him in regards of funding the troops, but they’re also with the Dems in setting a timetable. If he continues to refuse to budge, the nation will swing wide Left as they see it’s him alone keeping the troops from getting the funds they need.
Bipartitanship to Bushie: My way or the highway.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:52 amHow about you get nothing then?… stop your bitching.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:52 am“Comment by faith — May 9, 2007 @ 11:48 am”
WELL SAID!
May 9th, 2007 at 11:53 amFine. Go ahead. Democrats, call his bluff.
Bush has to fund the troops eventually, and the more this fight drags out, the better the Democrats look.
Better yet, they need to make each bill more “unacceptable” to Bush than the last.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:53 amBush simply will not back down. Not even when Laura and Barney abandon him. Bush, a remarkably simple person, sees this as his manhood on the line.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am#13 writes “A pre-emptive veto. Nice bargaining chip there….just push, push, push until your opponent folds [Dems]. And if they don’t, George?”
There is no Plan B. Plan B is to make Plan A work.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:55 amI wonder how Babs used to handle Georgie’s temper tantrums? I’ve heard throwing a glass of water on kids having tantrums will stop it – maybe Pelosi could take on this task.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:01 pmGood. Send him another one with restrictions. Either he will sign the bill, or he will run out of funding for his war that nobody else supports.
Bush no longer has any credibility or authority and should be dealt with accordingly.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThe man won’t even allow the simple flexibility that is absolutely vital in fighting and winning a war. I was a junior in high school when this war started, and everytime this man is called on to change strategy he gets on the defensive.
Note to Mr. Bush: When someone reminds you to change tactics, it’s not meant to be offensive. It’s strategically mandatory. You don’t have to bluff.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThis is a good thing.
Moderate Republicans in Congress are now on record against defunding the war, and they’re on record opposing the Democrats’ ideas of timetables and benchmarks. Now, they will have the opportunity to override a veto on the grounds that the troops need funding NOW (it’s actually pretty good political cover). In doing so, the Republican congressional support for the president will have collapsed, turning him into a complete lame duck.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pmAnd then send it to him AGAIN. Same form, same language, same everything. Two can play this game, and Shrub can explain to the country why he wants our men and women in Iraq to die in the service of his obstinancy.
Bastard.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pmEvery time he vetoes one of these funding bills more and more Republicans in Congress will swing over to the Dems side. This tactic is going to blow up in his face.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pmbush is a spoiled child who is president. It’s always been about GWB and it always will be. This isn’t about the best policy or the best compromise, it’s about “I’m the president, do it my way!”
May 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pmThis is very interesting, well maybe not…One self imposed, drunk, druggie, spoiled brat, boy king’s ego going against his own country and the world…How will it end.? I wonder…Blessings
May 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThe American people want our troops funded. The Democrats are offering to do that. The American people want a timetable. The Democrats are offering that, too. If the Dems keep introducing new legislation every time Bush vetoes a funding bill, the American people will see that the Dems are trying to work with Bush, but he is unwilling to budge.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:09 pmThe best thing the Dems can do is to keep coming up with new compromises to show they are trying to work with the president in a bi-partisan manner. They need to show they are willing to bend, but the president is not.
Let him continue to veto and look ever more the stubborn incompetent warmongering and reckless fool that he is.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:13 pmLet the Dems continue to support the troops — the public will finally get the message as to the real problem here.
It’s his way or the highway.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pmGet in your cars and drive away.
Let him get the fundng from Exxon, Halliburton and the rest of the war profiteers.
It looks as if nothing productive is going to get done between now and January 20, 2009. I know this is often thrown around, but if he doesn’t become more considerate, I would recommend his impeachment. I see it as by the book, not just typical democratic speak. Any company’s board would have ousted him long ago.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe problem is that Bush WILL leave 150,000 Americans in Iraq without equipment and ammunition to be killed by an Iraqi insurgency in order to blame the Democrats for his bad idea from the beginning. Sadly, the actually the best hope for his legacy – a scapegoat.
The Democrats are not equally stubborn, so there is the fear of them backing down. They do have the public on their side, so that can be more confrontational than they normally are. Still, they WILL find a way to fund the troops if Bush honestly will not bring them home, because leaving 150,000 ill-equipped soldiers in a combat zone is pretty unconscionable.
The key is putting pressure on congressional Republicans to override a veto. The Republicans in congress are fearful, because once they expose Bush as incompetent and neuter his war, it’s not a big step for the voters to see those same Republicans as just as incompetent as Bush (they have been with him for over 4 years on this). How it will turn out is anyone’s guess, but it’s going to be a real showdown.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pmI wonder how Babs used to handle Georgie’s temper tantrums?
Comment by ann — May 9, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Bab’s, handle Georgie. Pulease. She had people for that.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pmGreat post’s all, but, what we realy need is to dethrown this imposter….Put Impeachment back on the table Nancy and see how quick this nut bag start’s to work with we the people…Atleast start the investigation’s and announce the pending impeachment…Bull shit bush is not the only one able to threaten and get their way…Blessings, we need them.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pmLet him veto, then we defund his follies, and impeach this worthless box of rocks, empty suit, son of a bitch. The world will be better off with Dubya in jail with Cheney and Rove.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pmThis clown thinks this is a dictatorship. . . he has never compromised and his “signing” statements clearly indicate that he believes laws do not apply to him. Given the current state of affairs for bush, his reality must really suck!
May 9th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThe Democrats can send the same bill Bush vetoed or change the bill’s structure, as long as there is an exit strategy present, and let Bush veto those modified bills as well. The Democrats will show a willingness to compromise and, equally, conviction to the principle that the occupation should be ended soon.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:21 pmGeorgie boy kept using the word “compromise”. But when our Congress compromises, he vetoes. Keep it up, Georgie boy, show us just how much of a petulant spoiled brat you really are.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pmBenB raises a good point. However, one of the bills that Congress can pass is funding for the troops to be used ONLY for protection in the course of withdrawal and ONLY by presentation of a specific plan for doing so. I can see a Constitutional question here about the relative powers of Congress and the President in managing a war but IMO Congress is granted the power of policy and the President the power of execution of the policy. Whether or not we use our military is a policy decision. Congress declares war and Congress should then have the power to halt it. If need be, let the issue go to the Supreme Court. Let’s settle it.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:28 pmThe Democrats in Congress should negotiate with the “president.”
Sign a bill with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, or Impeachment is back on the table.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSo… not funding the troops will put them in harms way?? (as if they aren’t already in harms way)
De-funding the troops can do only one thing and that’s get them out of Iraq. Cry me a river Bush, I hope you never get your money ya whiney bee-otch.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:32 pmBush: “If this were a dick, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dickhead.†—
May 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pmPut on the table – impeach Bush and DC now!
Bush and crew never cared about the troops nor the American people. Money honey, that’s the bottom line.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmWhat useless Democrats! If you fail at first, just try and try again!
May 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pmDONT give him anything. Congress sent him a bill, he vetoed it. Game over.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pmHe vetoed the first bill, his approval ratings dropped further in the toilet bowl. Let him veto this one as well. That will make the Repukes squirm.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pmWhat useless Democrats! If you fail at first, just try and try again!
Comment by m12
____________________________________
Is the alleged failure of the Democrats, having been in control of Congress for only four months more or less of a failure than BushCo’s four year venture in occupying Iraq?
May 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAlleged failure? The Democrats know they are failing and are imploding.
Nutcase Obey is screaming profanity at nutcase Kucinich during caucus meetings. I wonder if he called Dennie a short ugly queer.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#56
The failure lies with the American President, and insists to continue failing.
Nice try m12. Why do you hate our troops?
May 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pmm12,
Wheres the implosion? You have several Republicans over the last couple days saying that they are ready to jump ship. The Democrats are trying to do the will of the American people, and the President is vetoing that will.
Sorry you find yourself in an obvious minority. It’s tough to be there isn’t it?
May 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pmStop playing games Dems! There was nothing wrong with the last bill!
May 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pmHere you go Crump’s.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0507/Obey_to_Kucinich_.html
The DefeatocRats are certainly angry and frustrated, and they’re eating their own.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:31 pmThis is Plan B in action: veto everything. Then say the war was lost because the Democrats wouldn’t fund it Bush’s way.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pmm12
Debate is something the Republicans can’t handle unless it is based in pure fantasy.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmBush said he will veto any bill that uses taxpayer money to harm human life. He’s just being true to his word.
Seriously, the only thing Bush will find acceptable is unlimited funds and unlimited war. He wants the power of a Dictator. He had it under the Republican Congress, and he doesn’t want to let it go.
Message to the Democrats: DON’T SEND BUSH ANY MORE FUNDS FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. HE ALREADY VETOED THE FUNDING. LET THE WAR END NOW!!!!
May 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBush will veto the bill, because it’s probably a bad idea to surrender.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWhy are people so afraid of the word “surrender”?
Surrender, surrender, surrender. There! I said it three times. Is it un-manly? Un-Rambo-esque?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#
Bush will veto the bill, because it’s probably a bad idea to surrender.
Comment by paul — May 9, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
#
This bill has NOTHING to do with surrender. It contains “unacceptable language”. It never mentions surrender, not even once. Bush will veto the bill because he has no strategy and wants to get out of Iraq, but has to blame the democrats because he does not know how to take responsibility.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pmAnn sez: I wonder how Babs used to handle Georgie’s temper tantrums?
I think we can surmise that she gave in every time. And when he got older, Poppa gave him what he wanted.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pmm12, you criticize Dems for not giving up when Bush vetoes, then call them DefeatocRats?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmSurrender what?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:41 pmTo whom?
Win what? Identify it.
Lose what? We never had it.
Don’t buy into false arguments from repugs. This is not a win/lose situation.
What is lost is the lives of 3400 soldiers and countless Iraqis, their society, their economy, and their homes.
We never had a mission there other than to protect oil wells – so I guess it could be argued that we lost that — but it wasn’t ours in the first place.
Time to go home. We have done enough damage.
#64
Dubya surrendered from the Texas Air National Guard when he went AWOL and deserted his duty station…he was selected for the presidency and is supported by dipwads like you. Get a fucking life. Who are we surrendering too? The Sunnis, Shiites, or the Kurds. This is a civil war, hero.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pmIraqi Union Set to Strike over Oil Law
Yes expect oil to go up in price
Iraq’s largest oil workers’ trade union will strike tomorrow, in protest at the controversial oil law currently being considered by the Iraqi parliament. The move threatens to stop all oil exports from Iraq.
The oil law proposes giving multinational companies the primary role in developing Iraq’s huge untapped oilfields, under contracts lasting up to 30 years. Oil production in Iraq, like in most of the Middle East, has been in the public sector since the 1970s. Continue reading ‘Iraqi Union Set to Strike over Oil Law’
http://priceofoil.org
IRAQIS TO VETO OIL BILL HA HA HA HA AH
May 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pmm12, you criticize Dems for not giving up when Bush vetoes, then call them DefeatocRats?
Well, when he vetoes again (and he has said he will veto the new bill in its current form), the Dems are going to be Defeated again.
2 years will go by, and the Democrats will have absolutely nothing done in Congress.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWell, when he vetoes again (and he has said he will veto the new bill in its current form), the Dems are going to be Defeated again. Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Then Bush doesn’t get funding…
2 years will go by, and the Democrats will have absolutely nothing done in Congress. Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
You mean Bush will veto all of the progress from Congress, thereby sustaining his miserable approval rating, and ensuring that an even larger Democratic majority is elected?
Sorry child, but the country is against you. The more you fight the will of the majority, the more you get marginalized. But hey. I encourage you to keep acting the way you are! That just *ensures* you lose bigger. George Bush is the biggest gift the democrats have had in a half century – just as 2006 showed! He has destroyed the Republican party. Your membership has declined, as the Democratic party has risen. You’ve lost the majority of independents. And the number of people that say they “lean” Republican is at a near historic low.
But that’s OK, child, if you need to live in your *delusion* – help yourself!
May 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pmI agree with John Edwards, with a twist. Just keep sending the same bill back to him over and over. But each time they send it to him, they should make the new allotment for less money than the one he just vetoed. Democrats….Now is the time to show some spine. The American public is behind you. This is a losing issue for the Republics and for Bush. People finally know who it is that wants to take care of the troops and it isn’t the Republics.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:37 pm#72
Uh huh. 35 years ago the lefties said Nixon destroyed the Republican party.
That lasted all of 4 years.
20 years ago the lefties said Iran Contra destroyed the Republican party after the (larger than 2006) election of 1986.
That lasted all of 2 years.
George Bush, the so called “worst President ever”, was supposed to get smashed in 2004.
That lasted all, oh wait, that never happened.
Good luck with your prediction this time around!
But you’re wrong. The Dims will cave soon enough and Bush will get his funding.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pmGeorge Bush, the so called “worst President everâ€, was supposed to get smashed in 2004. Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Says who? No polls showed Kerry ahead by more than a small number of percentage points (America doesn’t like to change leaders during what they perceive to be a war), and even then, we have two election officials in Ohio that have gone to jail over fraudulent recount procedures. You must have been referring to Rove’s prediction of gaining seats in 2006?
That lasted all, oh wait, that never happened. Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Nope, but you did get your *sses handed to you in 2006, because demographically since 2005 America has taken a huge step away from you wingnuts. But don’t let *reality* f*ck with your delusion – child!
Good luck with your prediction this time around! Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
You mean like all of the GOP predictions in 2006? Hendler was one of my *favorite* Wingnut predicticons!
But you’re wrong. The Dims will cave soon enough and Bush will get his funding. Comment by m12 — May 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
There’s always a price – child. The majority of the country says he was wrong to veto the bill – not exactly the sort of *leadership* your party needs to show in a *democracy* if you want to get elected in 2 years. Maybe that’s why all of your candidates already suck wind against a match up with either of the top 3 democrats. That’s a whole different situation than you had in 2000 – and Bush still lost by a HALF MILLION votes!
Once again, don’t let your *delusion* be affected by *history* or *reality*!!! It’s too much fun laughing at your ignorant *ss!
May 9th, 2007 at 9:23 pmNow more than ever we need to put libertarians in office. No more personal agendas.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:40 pm