Bush vetoes war spending bill with pullout timetable
Law & Politics
[##_1L|1237133879.gif|width="135" height="114" alt=""|_##]U.S. President George W. Bush Tuesday vetoed a war spending bill that aimed to set a timetable for American troops to withdraw from Iraq, branding the bill "unacceptable." In a national television speech to explain his veto, the second during his six-year presidency, Bush said the bill "would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq."
"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing," he said.
The Democratic-led Congress sent Bush the bill on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech, during which he declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
The war, however, has dragged on, and has claimed the lives of over 3,300 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
The bill, which would require the Bush administration to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March, was designed to provide nearly 100 billion U.S. dollars for American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.
Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal "is setting a date for failure," and that was "a prescription for chaos and confusion."
Urging the Democratic-led Congress to give his troops buildup plan in Iraq "a chance to work," Bush also expressed his desire "to work with the Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible."
Bush and congressional leaders from both parties would meet at the White House Wednesday on the spending bill.
He warned that without a war-funding bill, the military "has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need" and to "consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment."
Democrats immediately rebutted Bush's veto.
"The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we're not -- and neither are most Americans," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid said the president's refusal to sign the war spending bill was "his right," but he "has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war."
"We had hoped that the president would have treated it with respect," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
"Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does," she said.
Acknowledging there was "great distance" between the White House and Congress, Pelosi also expressed the wish to work with Bush to "find common ground" on the war funding bill.
Without sufficient votes in both chambers of Congress to override Bush's veto, Democrats were considering writing a new war spending bill that would provide funding to U.S. troops but also set certain benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, news reports said.
Bush announced a reinforcement plan in January by sending over 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to help quell escalating sectarian violence there, but his plan has met strong resistance from Congress, and the Iraq war, now in its fifth year, has become increasingly unpopular with the U.S. public.
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in April found that 57 percent of respondents now felt the Iraq war was a mistake, against 41 percent who said it was not.
In a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, 56 percent of those interviewed said they agreed more with the Democrats on a deadline for troop withdrawal, against 37 percent who said they agreed with Bush that there should not be a deadline.
Related listings
-
Bush presses Japanese PM over beef trade dispute
Law & Politics 04/28/2007[##_1L|1115211297.jpg|width="110" height="128" alt=""|_##]President George W. Bush pressed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday over a beef trade standoff, telling the leader in an official visit that Japanese consumers should be eating U.S. ...
-
Virginia governor may close gun loophole
Law & Politics 04/26/2007[##_1L|1287362237.jpg|width="142" height="117" alt=""|_##]Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said during a Tuesday radio interview that he may be able to issue an executive order to close the loophole that allowed Virgina Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho to pur...
-
Democrats raise more money in 2007 first quarter
Law & Politics 04/20/2007[##_1L|1248060544.jpg|width="101" height="100" alt=""|_##]For the first time since the so-called passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, U.S. national Democrats have outpaced their Republican rivals in the race for campaign cash in the first thre...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.