Bush vetoes Iraq pullout timetable in clash with Congress (Roundup)

Washington - US President George W Bush, following through on his promise, vetoed Tuesday a war spending bill that would have forced him to start withdrawing US troops from Iraq by October. U.S. President George W. Bush announces that he has vetoed the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill as he speaks at the White House in Washington May 1, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

U.S. President George W. Bush announces that he has vetoed the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill as he speaks at the White House in Washington May 1, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua RobertsThe veto came hours after Democratic Party leaders sent the 124- billion-dollar measure to the White House with the pullout deadlines, capping a well-choreographed showdown four years after he famously declared an end to 'major combat operations' in Iraq. Speaking minutes after rejecting the bill, Bush said he cannot accept a 'rigid' deadline that would send the wrong message to US troops on the ground, encourage terrorists and place 'impossible conditions' on military commanders. The bill called for US troops to be out of Iraq by April 2008. 'Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible,' Bush said at the White House, while accusing Democrats of using the funding issue to make political hay. He called on Congress to send him a new bill quickly without deadlines. Democratic and Republican leaders were to meet Bush at the White House Wednesday to try to work out their differences. 'I'm confident that with good will on both sides we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need, as soon as possible,' Bush said. 'The need to act is urgent.' Bush warned that with money running out, the Pentagon will have to scramble from other accounts to continue fighting the war. He has sought to portray the Democrats as abandoning US soldiers locked in the middle of a war. But polls show most Americans have turned against the conflict and want the White House to set a timeframe for removing US soldiers. Democrats might persuade Bush to keep language in a new bill that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and political reconciliation. Both houses of Congress narrowly passed the defence bill last week, and Democrats vowed to continue fighting the White House to force Bush to change his approach in Iraq. Responding to Bush's comments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the president must now provide a plan for ending the US role in the war. 'If the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,' Reid said. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, accused Bush of failing to listen to the message sent by American voters who in November handed control of Congress to the Democrats. 'The president wants a blank cheque,' Pelosi said. 'The Congress is not going to give it to him.' Bush in January ordered an extra 21,000 US troops to Iraq to bolster the 140,000 already in place, seeking to curb sectarian killings and bolster the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki. Bush cited progress in reducing sectarian killing and breaking up terrorists cells, and urged Americans to wait at least until the end of the summer to determine if his revised strategy was succeeding. Earlier Tuesday, he travelled to the US military's Central Command in Florida, which runs US military operations in the Middle East, to make his case for a continued US presence in Iraq. Al-Qaeda 'is playing a major role' in the Iraq violence, Bush said in a speech that evoked the 20th-century struggles against Nazism and communism. 'We must stay on the offence. We must defeat the enemy overseas so we don't have to face them in our countries,' he said. On May 1, 2003, Bush, dressed in a military flight suit, flew to a US aircraft carrier off the coast of California and announced under a triumphant banner reading 'Mission Accomplished' that 'major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' Critics have held up the declaration as a symbol of US failure as forces struggled to halt the insurgency and bloodshed that would soon engulf Iraq. The veto marked only the second time Bush has exercised his constitutional authority since Democrats won control of Congress in November on a platform calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. He has used his veto only once since taking office in 2001, on a stem-cell research measure passed in 2006 when his Republicans controlled Congress. © 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

And Also

Look Back at the Worst Celebrity Breakups

Look Back at the Worst Celebrity Breakups - PopEater
Koobface using new tricks to infect this holiday season - The Tech Herald
Is Robert Duvall Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote? - Cinema Blend
Britney Spears and Lady Gaga Cover Up, Strip Down for Elle - PopEater
A&E series 'Hoarders' and 'Intervention' premiere Monday, Nov. 30th, preview

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in US

Older Talkback

page: 1 2

WillMay 2nd, 2007 - 15:07:33

SP4 - 'The Blitz' as such was over long before the yanks arrived. Any 'cry for help' of the IRA was to stop the Irish Americans sponsoring the IRA with money and weapons - thanks for the help !

Report this comment

Blue LadyMay 2nd, 2007 - 15:33:33

(lol) You forgot to mention all the pro-IRA depictions in movies.

Report this comment

willMay 2nd, 2007 - 15:36:09

Thanks Blue Lady. Just in case SP4 goes into one of his usual rants - actual dates are -
May 11 1941. Hitler calls off the Blitz
Jan 26. 1942 First US toops arrive in UK

Report this comment

pbMay 2nd, 2007 - 15:53:06

I see a lot on incoherent posting from the Bushies, who have run out of forums where they can support the imbecile-in-chief.

Asking what the Dem's can do, when the President is dead-set on his own failed course, is irrelevant.

Check the large post I put up on the first page of this thread, and reply to those points. This is no one's fault but Bush's.

The risks of 'terror' have been with us for years, and we now profit from the FBI, CIA and other agencies DOING THEIR JOBS, as well as Homeland Defense, airline screeners, etc. Bush has still NOT managed to find a was to have a unified terrorist watch list, or to protect our borders, or containerized shipping. Of food imported, only one percent is checked, because under the Republicans many inspectors were let go. Our defenses, in fact, have been stripped, in terms of food and environmental safety.

Report this comment

to pbMay 2nd, 2007 - 16:24:11

You have made some excellent points. So many things have suffered cutbacks in this country because of lack of funding, but there seems to be no lack of it for this 'Bush' war. I also understood that there is a great lack of checking on container shipping among other things. We need to concentrate on keeping our own country strong or we WILL be fighting terrorists on our own soil. Bush has gotten in so far over his head that it's unbelievable, and his stubbornness to admit it is pathetic. What on earth were his qualifications to be the leader of the free world - he owned a ball team? Will we survive for another l 1/2 years of his so-called leadership - an extremely upsetting thought.

Report this comment

pbMay 2nd, 2007 - 22:30:28

Re: What on earth were his qualifications to be the leader of the free world - he owned a ball team?

-----------

His basic qualification is his relationship to his father, and by virtue of that, all of his father's contacts. Remember that Bush Sr. was CIA head, and knew everyone. Bush got some ownership of the Texas Rangers by 'jumping the line' of other investors - this is again influence-peddling, because having the President's son as a partner in the Texas Rangers was a natural. He walked away with a lot more money from that deal than he invested.

Dubya has been a back-slapper and glad-hander all his life, and had zero qualifications for President - nothing he did as Texas Governor (again, purchased for him) qualified him for Foreign Affairs. He counted on Cheney and the Neocons for that - our first Presidential Sock Puppet.

Many of those who back him do so on the 'social' agenda (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) outweighing our real problems - the economy, the deficit, entitlements, care of those returning from Iraq, terrorism, the environment, etc. - Bush has contributed little to nothing on those issues, or the country has backslid.

Bush supports Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld because of the support that they gave him, not on merit. He considers blind loyalty a 'strength', because he'd have been a cipher without those people propping him up. To ask Bush now for 'judgment' is like asking Britney for morality. It's just not part of their makeup.

Report this comment

page: 1 2

US

US News

Bush vetoes Iraq pullout timetable in clash with Congress (Roundup)

And Also

Your Talkback on this Story

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in US

Older Talkback

From Sites we Like

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print