Bush to veto defense policy bill
Hmmm. This is an interesting development. Dems have been caught off guard (via USAT):
The White House just announced that President Bush intends to veto a major defense policy bill, citing concerns over language that it claims could endanger Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks.
In a written statement just released, White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel says the measure “would significantly amend current law (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in ways that would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.”
A provision in the measure “would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States. Once in place, the restrictions on Iraq’s funds that could result from the bill could take months to lift, and thus Section 1083 cannot become law even for a short period of time,” Stanzel says in the statement.
Politico adds:
The veto startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a technical provision in the bill. The veto was unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.
Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out, but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, military pay raises may be on hold, as well as dozens of other programs.
“We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in a joint statement. “The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto.”
A White House spokesman said the veto would officially be delivered later today.
Hate to come anywhere near siding with the Dems, but it does strike me as odd that the White House wouldn’t have signaled its opposition to the provision so it could be fixed before the bill passed. There has to be more back story here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Iraq
Gay Patriot
» How John Hoeven Can Save America
JustOneMinute
» The Topless Ann AlthouseEd Driscoll
» The Bears Are Who We Thought They WereStop The ACLU
» Senate Approves Motion to Proceed on ObamacareStop The ACLU
» Glenn Beck: The Man With The PlanPundit & Pundette
» Reports of Broder's retirement greatly exaggeratedAmSpecBlog
» The Road Ahead in the Health Care Battle
They’ll whine, but what idiot would do this if they really care about a new Iraq – oh that’s right it’s all about Dems opposing Bush…
BLINDSIDED!!
I love it – they lack the credibility to make this statement. W has them in a bind.
Never did it cross Pelosi’s or Reid’s mind that they were supposed to think what might become if they sent such a bill to the President. Now they are upset that the President did their thinking for them.
I guess only the Executive branch is supposed to lay it’s cards face up on the table.
What I’d like to know is WHO inserted that “technical language” into the bill that was so controversial, and probably not very well read by anybody until it got to the White House lawyers.
I love the cartoon the other day on Townhall.com. Number of benchmarks reached by the Iraqi Government: 3. Number of benchmarks reached by the Democrat Congress: 0.
Priceless.
I only wish Bush would have used the Veto Pen a lot more — and a lot sooner.
“Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government”
Pound sand. Bush gave them their Government. If making that said government works by blocking lawyers from stopping it from working, I would not call that bowing. It’s called helping.
Someone in the White House was doing homework. I suspect the Dems tried to sneak a provision through and when caught, feigned surprise. It shows how much I trust that bunch in Congress. I’m disappointed that it was the defense bill.
Could it be the Prez is looking for opportunities to use the veto constructively – and improve his party’s standing as opposed to the dem’s in 2008? Kinda’ highlighting the differences between setting policy and obstructionism?
Congress is occupied by weasels. Just like them to put a poison pill in the legislation.
How many thousands of pages does this document have? Could the White House have spotted this in time?
I say veto it. Make the crapweasels come back to work and fix it. Darn lawyers.
It’s a good thing that Reid still has the Senate in session, isn’t it? Those Dems will get right on fixing this problem.
I agree with you rf. I can’t believe Reid or Pelosi had no idea Section 1083 was in the bill. Yet Reid is responsible for blocking the Executive Branch it’s Constitutional right to recess appointments and he feels blindsided? BullChips!!!
Why didn’t the Minority party hacks argue against this? Was it even brought up for a vote on the floor? Did they even know it was in there?
I don’t know which is worse…that the Dems tried to sneak this through or the that Repubs didn’t know about it.
Oh it’s probably worse than that mnmike. But I would get banned with the expletives I would use!!
We need a bit of research from the media on this… (but I won’t hold my breath).
Was this in the origional bill?
Who put it in?
Was it debated?
Or was it slipped in at the last minute on the conference report?
And an even bigger question… why is it in the DEFENSE bill?
The
Democrat’sDidiot’s would have come out with a fire storm trying to say Bush was holding back funding from the troop’s much like they try to twist everything else to their advantage this would have went on for week’s. Bush need’s to veto damn near every piece of legislation they send to his desk and let them wonder why. Bush stand’s out front on this one, get’s his jab’s in first instead of having to respond to Democrat stupidity.This is only the tip of the iceberg for the Dems. who knows what else they tried to sneak into the bill of, what, 3500 pages.
I, for one, am enjoying this. This also takes care of the immigration aspects of the same bill.
If only W had been doing this for the last 7 years *sigh*.
Better late than never, I say.
And who’s to say the dirty Dems didn’t try to sneak this in at the last minute?
Smells of a sneak by the Dems to me.
Lawyers = Democrats = Lawsuits = Big Bucks.
Lawyers/lawsuits and Dems go hand in hand.
Blame America Last #18, I never thought this day would come, but I’m going to defend lawyers. Please do not compare them to Democrats. It’s an insult even to those vile folks. (My lawyer not included)
JohnA,
As with lawyers, people hate all politicians, except theirs. “Throw the bums out — except my bum.”
Eh?
They slip things like this into bills all the time. Who has time to read 10,000+ pages of a bill? Looks like the WH did their homework and found this technical provision.
It wouldn’t surprise that most members of congress, including majority leadership were totally clueless about this.
That’s right, AC. But I’m a transplant from Illinois Living in California, The United States of Mexico. I will vote against these bums, and I’ll call for the people of Illinois to vote out Durbin. He’s up for election. Let’s start talking up the fine politicians running against that bum.
Hey Michelle, could you do that? Help talk up Dick’s running mates?
I wonder if H.R. 1640 (potentialy disarming verterans)and the following uproar might of gotten in Bush’s ear
Given how lazy and petty most of the reps and senators are this should not be a surprise. Most work is done by faceless staff, who are not immune from ‘gifts’ to help lobbyists???
Had the bill been done properly, passed by 10/1/2007 and less 10,000 earmarks, we wouldn’t be wondering that. I actually am glad to know that the bill was read before signing…
My lawyer is a staunch conservative. The majority of my attorney friends are conservatives.
They probably didn’t signal because it took them this long to find the obscure Iraqi money provision. Who knows what other stuff might be hiding there that hasn’t yet been read by human eyes.
Oh and by the way I’ve heard the MSM’s ask Bush thousand’s of stupid question’s, even the same stupid question over and over. Should he look at them and say “That is the stupidest question I’ve every heard David sit down and be quiet till you can come up with something more intelligent.”
I actually wish he would, but that’s not how it’s done you have to answer stupid question’s as POTUS.
oops wrong thread
Yeah, I have very “few” conservative lawyers as friends too…what I’m referring to are the John Edwards types of the world…sue the “big companies for everything they’ve got” kinds.
You know, big pharma, big insurance, etc., so the rest of us have to pay higher prices and higher premiums.
Since there are billions involved in Iraqi money, what better way to make a fast buck than off the US government taxpayers right?
THAT is what I’m talking about.
After a couple of minutes on thomas.gov, it looks like it was a Senate amendment. It was NOT in the engrossed House Bill.
In the Senate “Public Print”, the provision first appeared originally entitled:
In the final “Enrolled as Agreed to by both House and Senate” version that went to the President, that section was further modified and renumbered to 1083.
This will take you to the various versions of the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1585:
So, it takes two (Congress and Bush) working together to not get anything done. But before you go too far complaining about how this Congress doesn’t pass important bills, the last Republican Congress didn’t manage to pass a budget at all.
It’s correct to say that the Democratic Congress doesn’t look good. It’s wrong to say that it is worse than the last Republican Congress, or any Republican Congress in the past decade.
You may want to reconsider that opinion.
Unlike the current Pelosi/Reid clownship, the last Republican congress wasn’t intent on demoralizing and cutting off funding for our troops.
Is this the omnibus bill or were two bills thousands of pages long?
It’s one bill (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) that had the litigation provision added in the Senate (albeit in their special way, because all spending bills must originate in the House.)
From the Thomas.gov link:
This actually might’ve been a smart move, Michelle. I’m being charitable here (tis the season, y’know), but if the idea was to signal to Congress that the admin. is actually scrutinizing legislation and won’t let them get away with cute stunts like this, more power to em.
It was obviously a bone tossed to the trial lawyers.
I think the “back story” is just poor staff work in the White House. Not unheard of but in this case, inexcusable.
Here they had this great victory and now they have to backtrack on it which gives the dems another bite at the apple. And this time, there’s the excuse that the WH didn’t do their homework – an opening for the Democrats to work a little mischief into the bill.
Someone’s head should roll over this.
I am hearing is this was a little slip in measure that was not in the original bill and as was pointed out it got slipped in with the Senate version. It was a last minute change that was not noticed until they read the final version of the bill before signing it.
What is strange is Rep. Pelosi talking about this, when it was the Senate that changed it and she also knew nothing of this provision until the President stated he was going to veto it.
What this bill showed me is how the Democrats in the House and Senate are not working together. It is why they can not get any real legislation passed when they keep doing their own thing without informing the public.
It may also have to do with the slimy way Reid is holding the Senate in session to avoid President Bush making recess appointments.
As long as I get the back pay, and in its currently untaxed way, I am okay with this. Looks to me like someone tried to be slick. I am all for crushing them.
Hmmm, “Justice for Victims”. If that doesn’t have John Edwards signature all over it….
I guess ArmoredCav and I will have to worry a few more weeks to see if we will be getting enough beans, bullets, and band-aids that enable us to keep these islamic cult murderers away from the USA and US military protected members of Congress.
Shukran Nancy, for making make this war a lot tougher to fight than it needs to be.
Well, after 7 years it’s a tad late in the game, but I’m glad W’s administration lawyers have finally started reading the fine print on the final drafts.