Bush vetoes withdrawal bill; Dems drop timeline
"President Bush vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill on Tuesday, setting up a second round in his long battle with Congressional Democrats who are determined to use the financing measure to force the White House to shift course in Iraq.
The veto was only the second of Mr. Bush’s presidency. In a six-minute televised speech from the White House, the president called the measure a “prescription for chaos and confusion,” and said, as he has for weeks, that he could not sign it because it contained timetables for troop withdrawal.
. . . 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.' " [1]
"President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
. . . 'We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. 'But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.'
Bush said he is 'confident that we can reach agreement,' and he assigned three top aides to negotiate.
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense.
. . . House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid." [2]
sources
[1] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay & Zeleny, Jeff. (The New York Times). Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit. May 2, 2007.
[2] Weisman, Jonathan & Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable. May 3, 2007.
posted: sunday, may 6, 2007, 10:53 PM ET
update: monday, may 7, 2007, 12:06 AM ET
tags: iraq bush veto
The veto was only the second of Mr. Bush’s presidency. In a six-minute televised speech from the White House, the president called the measure a “prescription for chaos and confusion,” and said, as he has for weeks, that he could not sign it because it contained timetables for troop withdrawal.
. . . 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.' " [1]
"President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
. . . 'We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. 'But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.'
Bush said he is 'confident that we can reach agreement,' and he assigned three top aides to negotiate.
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense.
. . . House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid." [2]
sources
[1] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay & Zeleny, Jeff. (The New York Times). Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit. May 2, 2007.
[2] Weisman, Jonathan & Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable. May 3, 2007.
posted: sunday, may 6, 2007, 10:53 PM ET
update: monday, may 7, 2007, 12:06 AM ET
tags: iraq bush veto
Labels: congress, george bush, iraq, withdrawal
posted by eric at 9:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home