Defunding

If George W. Bush vetos the Iraq supplemental the Democrats passed, isn't that him cutting off funding for the troops in the field? I mean, here's congress, appropriating some funds for the troops, and instead of letting the troops get the funds Bush is saying, no, he'll hold their well-being hostage to advance his own perogatives and ego.

Comments

If George W. Bush vetos the Iraq supplemental the Democrats passed, isn't that him cutting off funding for the troops in the field?

Yes.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 27, 2007 08:41 AM

On Monday morning's "Bill Bennett's Morning in America" radio show, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that there were parts of Baghdad where he and the host could go for a walk.

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today," he said, when asked to highlight something positive about what American forces have been able to accomplish in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tell you what John, put your money where your mouth is. I'll pay for the goddamned air fare and the taxi ride from the terminal to the Baghdad neighborhood of your choice (The Green Zone isn't included). Take that leisurely stroll (one hour minimum, consider it equal to a typical worker's lunch break) and report back. Oh, no Kevlar vest or helmet, we're going to have that big ol' caucasian mane of white hair bobbing through the crowds. Good luck!! P.S. I'll spring for Bennett too if his nutsack isn't the shriveled bag of rotten prunes I suspect it to be.

Posted by: steve duncan on March 27, 2007 08:45 AM

Exactly.

I'm not holding my breath that the MM will present this as such, but there is no doubt that a veto from Bush equals not supporting the troops.

Posted by: terraformer on March 27, 2007 08:52 AM

Matt may be right on a philosophical level, but these things often spin out of control. It's not too difficult to imagine a scenario where Bush and the GOP spin this as Democrats cutting the troops off at the knees; if the media buys in, all bets are off.

Think back to the government shutdown during the first Clinton term. Do you think the Republicans meant to hand Bill Clinton a huge issue to club them over the head with? No, but Clinton was able to paint it as GOP intransigence, and that was it.

All I'm saying is the Dems need to be very careful: if you play with fire, you may get burned.

Posted by: Dave on March 27, 2007 08:57 AM


If George W. Bush vetos the Iraq supplemental the Democrats passed, isn't that him cutting off funding for the troops in the field?

Of course. What's interesting is that Democrats have had a long time to work on clarifying such points, and have so far shown little if any interest in doing so. The Democratic leadership seems to have completely bought into the Republican framing on such matters.

Posted by: David Tomlin on March 27, 2007 09:05 AM

It doesn't work that way. The media acts like there are only two outcomes in relation to the Iraq funding legislation: 1. the current House bill with a troop deadline; and 2. a Bush-style funding bill with no strings attached. If Bush vetoes however, the Congresional Democratic Leadership can bring a third option into play, NO BILL AT ALL, which changes the nature of the game in unpredictable ways. For example, both sides could decide that the war is over--the Democrats because Bush refused to accept the deadline and Bush because that's the best way he can get out of Iraq and blame the "defeatist Democrats" for the failure of the war. There's also the chance that the Bush administration would accept a withdrawal deadline as a compromise and try to nullify the deadline with a signing statement. Of all the options, it doesn't seem likely to me at all that the Democrats would cave and come up with a bill that Bush would sign. Maybe if public opinion swings decisively in favor of the war. But how likely is that?

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 27, 2007 09:17 AM

I don't think the Dems have the balls to effectively pull off that framing.

Posted by: right on March 27, 2007 09:40 AM

"There's also the chance that the Bush administration would accept a withdrawal deadline as a compromise and try to nullify the deadline with a signing statement."

Ding - we have a winnah! Look at the date for withdrawl - March 31, 2008. Given the way Bush governs, he could very well sign the bill that gets in front of him and NULLIFY THE DEADLINE with a signing statement. If he weasel-words the signing statement right, Congress won't have standing to make any actions against him until the deadline passes - when we're months away from a presidential election and the media is in full-on partisanship feeding frenzy. Bush can then "run out the clock" and leave the repercussions for the next President to deal with (as has been the plan all along).

Posted by: NonyNony on March 27, 2007 09:41 AM

...he'll hold their well-being hostage to advance his own per[r]ogatives and ego.

Look on the bright side -- at last, we'll have from them some clearly defined and articulated war aims.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 27, 2007 09:42 AM

The best evidence for the "no-balls" argument is Matthew's formulation that Bush's veto would be a "fund cut-off." That's a semantic point rather than a way to use the debate over funding the war as a way to push forward an anti-war agenda. By the time a veto comes around, I think the argument within the Democratic Party will become more aggressive. With the deadline being approved by a 59%-34% majority, the Democrats will be in a position to tell Bush to take it or leave it, either take their deadline or not get funding at all. After that, things get unpredictable.

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 27, 2007 09:57 AM

Another vote for the signing statement. "Implement this bill consistent with my ultimate responsibility as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces," i.e. ignore the deadline.

In an irritatingly contrarian way, I'm wondering: does the fact that Bush isn't simply reaching for a signing statement here mean that we were wrong to be so worked up about his use of them earlier in his presidency?

Posted by: william on March 27, 2007 10:00 AM

steve duncan - I'd be delighted to chip in a couple hundred bucks to see that happen!

Posted by: RT on March 27, 2007 10:16 AM

If Bush does accept the funding and tries to get around the deadline with a signing statement, that would put off a potential showdown with the Democratic leadership until the next regular appropriation bill due in October. In that case, the success or failure of the surge would be having an impact.

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 27, 2007 10:17 AM

If George W. Bush vetos the Iraq supplemental the Democrats passed, isn't that him cutting off funding for the troops in the field?

That's what I've been thinking. I keep hearing journalists compare the Democrat's position to Newt Gingrich shutting down the government. But if Bush vetos the bill - he's cutting off the funds.

The implication is that there's no way the Democrats will allow troops to go without sufficient funds, so George Bush can do whatever he wants.

This is an unfortunate consequence of Nancy Pelosi's repeated assertions that Democrats will not use the power of the purse to resolve the Iraq issue. George Bush believes her.

Posted by: Mikef on March 27, 2007 10:32 AM

In an irritatingly contrarian way, I'm wondering: does the fact that Bush isn't simply reaching for a signing statement here mean that we were wrong to be so worked up about his use of them earlier in his presidency?

No, because he's only threatening a veto, in order to engage in political theater. He has never threatened a signing statement; rather, he has employed those when a veto turned out not to be feasible, because he wanted some provisions of a bill. The current version of this bill seems to make it harder to pull this trick off, which is why previous commenters have said that the White House will negotiate a "compromise" bill which will be easier to disregard.

And any time the executive says, "I'm attaching this note to say I won't enforce this statute as enacted, and neither Congress nor the courts has the power to tell the Commander-in-Chief otherwise," we have a good reason to get "so worked up."

Posted by: mds on March 27, 2007 11:35 AM

Wouldn't the signing statement route be a gift to the Dems? I can't imagine that the GOP wants the big issue a year from now in the middle of the Presidential campaign to be the Decider ignoring a Congressional deadline for withdrawal.

Posted by: just sayin on March 27, 2007 11:39 AM

You bet it is.

Do the Democrats have enough sense to play it that way. Sadly, no.

Posted by: The Fool on March 27, 2007 12:44 PM

I think the correct strategy, in the aftermath of a veto, is to just keep sending him new, slightly revised supplementals, all with the key underlying goals still intact (which, of course, Bush can't accept).

You can't just do nothing at all - that leaves you open to being painted as intransigent, the way Gingrich was. Instead, you just force Bush to keep vetoing bill after bill after bill. Then we can be like, "We keep trying to move the country forward but the president just won't listen!"

Posted by: JP on March 27, 2007 01:00 PM

Wouldn't the signing statement route be a gift to the Dems? I can't imagine that the GOP wants the big issue a year from now in the middle of the Presidential campaign to be the Decider ignoring a Congressional deadline for withdrawal.

I agree. Signing statements are more about PR than anything else. If Bush wants to flout duly enacted legislation, then he can do it with or without a signing statement. He uses the statements when he thinks they're helpful for spin. If they're not helpful for spin (as they're unlikely to be here), then he can just sign the bill and then quietly ignore it.

Posted by: JP on March 27, 2007 01:04 PM

You can't nullify something as high profile as the withdrawal deadline with a signing statement. It's just not going to work. The people would show up with torches and pitchforks.

Posted by: Steve on March 27, 2007 01:11 PM

Steve:

"Tell you what John, put your money where your mouth is. I'll pay for the goddamned air fare and the taxi ride from the terminal to the Baghdad neighborhood of your choice..."

Have you ever been to Iraq? Ever served in combat? McCain's done both. Unless you have done either one, you are really in no position demand McCain do anything.

Posted by: fred on March 27, 2007 03:20 PM

If Bush believes that signing that bill would prevent the troops from fulfilling their mission, he should veto it.

If the Democrats believe that not putting in benchmarks and withdrawal would also prevent the mission from succeeding, then they should put it in.

But neither side should be going around, pointing fingers, and attacking the other for not supporting the troops, or cutting funding, or not caring about the troops. Or accuse the other of any kind of malicious intent. There's no way to truly be sure of the motivations of the other. And from my observation, both sides are doing what they feel is necessary for the troops to have any type of success in Iraq.

Posted by: Jeff on March 27, 2007 03:40 PM

But he can explain that he was for it before he voted against it.

Posted by: Andrew on March 27, 2007 05:22 PM

very nice informations...
thank you very much...

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on October 26, 2007 02:04 PM

good job

Posted by: youtube on November 14, 2007 12:18 PM

thanks...

Posted by: bahariye on December 3, 2007 01:59 AM

thankssss

Posted by: oyun indir on January 11, 2008 11:43 AM

thank you man.

Posted by: youtube on February 6, 2008 06:12 PM

simdi biz bu siteyi kasarken cinsel sohbet birde sohbet odaları
olarak kasmaya calıstık guzel sozler de ilerleme var ona birde mirc yaptık gun gectikce
kelebek script olarak hit alamaya basladık oda olmadı birde kelebek
radyo muz olsun dedik iyi kotu muhabbet oluyordu ama baktık kadınca
çet cet üniversite odaları
nda is yok donduk mirc indir e ondada tat tuz kalmamıs rüya tabirlerine zipladık izmir de oturuyorum iste ..
sonra da yavas yavas ilerlemeye basladık operserv chanserv memoserv nickserv komutlarını yazdık .. bir sonraki hedefimiz sohbet yada chat olacak insallah ..sex seks demi kassak acaba :)

ask oyun itiraf link degisimi siir

Thanks for the great work. !


muhabbet - sohbet odaları - mirc indir - mirc indir - çet - kelebek - script - mirc indir - arkadas - chat - sohbet odaları - kelebek - sohbet - radyo - çet - cet odaları - portalsohbet ekle -


kelebek - kelebek - turk sohbet - çet - muhabbet - muhabbet - turkce mirc - sohbet odaları - sohbet - cinsel chat - mynet chat -

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

Posted by: kelebek on January 12, 2009 06:01 PM

Thanks

Posted by: sohpet on April 7, 2009 05:54 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif