Bush vetoed a recent Iraq war spending bill because it would have forced the administration to begin withdrawing troops in the next few months. The veto was sustained. House Democratic leaders are now putting together a proposal that would pay for the war through September but come with a different set of conditions: About half of the money would be dependent on Bush reporting to Congress this summer on the Iraqi government's progress toward meeting security goals.
Following that report, Congress would have to vote separately to release the rest of the funds.
If the President is going to veto over that then we really are entering into some kind of wonderland. I don't think he can hold his caucus together on this veto. I'm not saying the GOP would override his veto, but there will be a lot more defections.
Bush and other authoritarian cultists claimed that the first bill was full of "pork." It has now been repackaged in a separate bill:
Mr. Obey said that measure would provide money for farmers in disaster areas and struggling salmon fishermen along the Pacific Coast, and he practically dared Mr. Bush to object to aid that will be popular in parts of rural America.
“I think it is going to be very hard for the president to explain why he has declared counties disaster areas and why he doesn’t support legislative action to keep those farmers from being driven off the farm and out of business,” Mr. Obey said.
The new legislative approach is being taken as a retired Army general is criticizing the administration’s war policy in advertisements that focus on more than a dozen Republican members of Congress. The retired general, John Batiste, the commander of the First Infantry Division from August 2002 to June 2005, appears in a television commercial to go on the air Wednesday under the sponsorship of Votevets.org, a group of veterans opposing the war.
The ad opens with video of the president vowing to listen to his commanders.
“You did not listen, Mr. President,” General Batiste says in the advertisement. “You continue to pursue the failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps.”
The ad (above) will run in the back yards of vulnerable Republicans:
Our ads are airing in states and districts of those Members of Congress who are very close to breaking with the President on Iraq, and joining the troops and American people. They are: Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu, John Warner, and Norm Coleman, and Representatives Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh, Heather Wilson, Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Johnson, Mike Rogers, Fred Upton, and Mike Castle. Mentioning them by name at the end, the local spots will call on them to "Protect America, Not George Bush."
Hardball. We like.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

zed?
Way to go dakine01
And for July and August, the Iraqi Parliament, who are supposed to gelling into some kind of real authority, are planning a VACATION!
Not good timing for this surge.
the post that dared not utter its name
I like this “compromise” though.
Georgesimian @ 3
They can all vacation at the Bush Brush Ranch, along with the Preznit.
The Unnamed Post is a good post. MGen. Batiste is a good man. And Little Boots is in a snit already with his threatened veto of actually having to answer to people. He really MUST think that he is a dictator, answerable to no one.
Tweety just mentioned the ad.
I wonder if General Batiste will be labeled a Cut and Run surrendering traitor?
This is the right thing to do in my opinion. I heard on NPR that Clusterfuck has already said he will veto it- they didn’t say what grounds he is giving.
Dems could keep serving up this same bill over and over and over and let the screwball in chief keep vetoing it- thus denying funding to the “troops”. I think Clusterfuck LOSES this confrontation. The public will say- “They GAVE you the money- TAKE it!”
I have to tell you, I DO NOT understand why someone in the House leadership doesn’t stand up and say “The President is asking for supplemental funds. He had a Republican Congress last year that passed two bills — Homeland Security and Defense and he overspent them both. This is a supplemental to cover funds he was afraid to ask for last year in an honest way. and if he wants more he has to ask nicely.” The issue should be framed to show that le dauphin is deceitful, cowardly and pig-headed.
IrishJim @ 9
Why the hell not? There is no element of unreality these people are not willing to express, loudly, in their quest for unlimited absolute power.
This ad does a lot of things that kook “Swopa” was yammering about here last fall — aligning Democrats with duty to our troops and defending America.
Frying wingnuts’ brain circuits: It’s not just fun, it’s good political strategy.
OT
TPM has some new info up on the USA scandal. Iglesias and McKay are saying there should definetly be criminal charges and that this is going to get worse before it gets better. Here is theLink.
IrishJim @ 9
Or something similar, the swiftboaters are probably talking as we speak.
Swopa @ 13
And it has the advantage of being the TRUTH.
Life is so very much simpler when you tell the truth as a matter of habit — look at how the Bushies have to tie themselves up in double-jointed knots in a vain attempt to balance their multiple self-contradictory lies.
I’m not sure I like this compromise. This is the part that bugs me:
So, Bush is required to report to Congress on the state of meeting security goals. Does that mean that if they’re in as bad or worse shape, he still gets the money to continue this disasterous occupation? If there is marginal improvement (say, only 5 American soliders a day being killed) then he gets to continue on with his folly?
I worry that this compromise enables him. I get the point that there needs to be some compromise (and I’m not sure why Murtha’s proposal – fund w/o conditions for a few months, in the meantime craft a follow-up bill with a timelines). I can’t see how we would have fewer votes for this strategy than we got for the vetoed bill. No, we might not be able to make a veto-proof bill today, but we might in a few more months, after hundreds more American soldiers are killed in this escalating disaster.
think Dave Obey should find two co-sponsors of this bill, namely David Wu and Paul Kanjorski. Then image the headlines:
Bush Vetos Obey-Wu-Kanjorski
“War is nothing but a series of blunders…” Winston Churchill
” Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Winston Churchill
Chetnolian @ 15
Shinseki (sp) anyone?
Gen. Batiste understands the Hatch Act. It required him to leave the army before he could commnet politically.
So what did he do? He left the army.
Why can’t the WH and DOJ understand the Hatch Act?
Hardball, Yes!
The title of this post: “MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE PLACED OUR NATION IN PERIL”
Love the Ad.. Loathe the congressional capitulation. Hate the war! Stop the madness now!
dakine01 @ 1
In answer to your question EPU’D, all those Firesign albums.
If the Democratic plan is to stall until Bush runs out of money for this stupid Iraq war, it seems to be working.
At this rate, the bill for funding will be ready 6 months after the war is over. ^_^
The sincerity and conscience really come through in Batiste’s ad – in his voice and in his face. We finally get to see the toll on someone who was responsible for carrying out the Mission for Multinational Oil Profits using American military lives and American taxpayer debt. It’s obviously a very heavy burden for those not members of the Corporate Raider Pirate Club.
[LithiumCola’s well-researched and insightful DailyKos diary and its links have finally helped me to realize the transformative quantity and therefore power of the untapped oil wealth that Iraq holds - and that Bush & Cheney & (apparently) Congress are determined to help their multinationals get legal rights to and their hands on, at taxpayer expense and at the expense of the victims of our invasion. Iraq’s rebuilding could be paved with gold if they were to retain the rights to their own oil, from what I can glean.]
Tom in AZ @ 24
There was a Firesign nut lived down the hall from me one semester. He wa also very much of a comic book collector/freak. First person I ever knew that bought two of everything, one to read, one to save.
IrishJim @14
Thanks for that. It made me look at the text of the Delegation Order to Sampson and Goodling. How truly transparent the text of the Order and the memo is. You do it. I’ll sign it off in case someone asks. Wow!
Hardball. We like.
Chris Matthews, though, not so much.
eya Jane.
Too little too late i’m afraid looking at this from a global perspective.
I’m disappointed that those concessions were made.
Wow. That would be 14 votes for the good guys if they all got their heads on straight. It might well convince some others to get with the program too.
Sunshine Jim @ 30
Obey’s still framing things though. I don’t like the concessions either. The thing is, it’s adding a bit more fuel to the pressure cooker. That’s already on high. He made the point that we comprimised, and that the Shrub refuses to just like a petty little child. A nice throwdown on the Repug talking points. Which we need, badly.
if my congress offers up something less binding than they did the first time, then they really ought to see if they can find jobs in the fast food industry.
the very idea of these people backing down is pathetic. to me it indicates they are profiting from the war and really could care less about ending it.
I think that perhaps all of our elected officials are spineless. remember, we haven’t seen one filibuster. they have soiled themselves to please a psychotic group of criminals.
step back for a second and realize we have never had a terrorist attack on this country. only cheney’s saudi pals, conveniently timed with both his shadow government’s requirements, and the need to get the iraqi oil and set up permanent bases.
doesn’t anyone get it yet? the corporation appears to own everyone we think is going to help. we must face reality. oceania has always not been at war.
Sometimes you like hardball, Jane and sometimes you prefer softball.
pow wow @ 26
Do you have a link to the diary, por favor?
OT. From TalkLeft, Keith Olberman given Molly Ivins award
oldtree @ 33 solid, like oak
Can someone explain to the Democrats in Congress that they won’t lose if they challenge Shrub on this and other incomptence, but they very well might lose if they don’t get some spine and stand up to him? I know some of them get it, but a lot of them seem to be listening to the @#$%^&* ‘consultants’ from inside the Beltway.
Bush is mad (as in insane). There is no rational action you can get him to take regarding his fantasy war. I don’t think the details matter much in the Iraq funding bills, if it’s not unlimited money for the Petulant Prince he’s going to veto it and further erode his and the GOP’s support. Dems just need to keep getting Bush the Lesser to use his veto crayon and not get any funding, that will start ending the occupation by September better than any “compromise” policy.
Eureka Springs @ 35
this one?
Sorry, but I’m just finding ol’ Winston so instructive today:
Bush being the croc of course,…
anyway, may I hope that our dems are just being clever with the language couching the terms but that the concepts of accountability are the same. Again, slow learner here
Eureka -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/8/11534/72040
[It’s been on the Recommended List for awhile, but has now scrolled off.]
There’s also news here of Iraqi oil workers fighting back (they plan to strike on Thursday, apparently, to protest the proposed oil law):
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/51632/
jayt @ 29
country hardball. nothing but gas. pure heat. a little chin music.
Chetnolian @ 28
You may also like the written response ABU has provided Congress in preparation to his testimony. Here is the link to Raw Story
IrishJim @ 9
yep
Thanks, pow wow and tw3k.
dakine01 @ 27
Excuse me, sir, is this your bar of soap?
I’ve gotta agree with Pow Wow about how sincere and sincerely pained the General looked.
These are straight arrows comming out of the woodwork now. Men who all their lives have obeyed authority and believed in the Office of the President.
To be forced to call bullshit must have been so hard for them.
Pow wow @ 26
So am I reading this right? when the hydrocarbon oil rights thingie gets passed in Iraqi parliament, everyone gets a new car? Happy Days are here again?
Why can’t we just let every sect have an oil field of their own, including the US? One for you, one for you, etc.
sigh.
OT – Charges may result from firings, say two former U.S. attorneys
-via ThinkProgress
Slothrop @ 34
Ever had a female softball collegiate pitcher hit you with a 130mph underhand rocket?
Chin music is chin music and both can be fatal.
do-si-do @ 49
I think that is actually what they want. If the US oil powers that be can work a deal to keep one oil field entirely for themselves, then it will be mission accomplished.
do-si-do @ 19
while Rummy says something unknowable about what is known, or unknown.
Bravo President Bush! The Democrats have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. He should veto any bill they pass if it deviates in the slightest way from his original proposal. This gives the Democrats a no-win choice: either they capitulate completely or they force President Bush to use emergency executive funding authority to rescue the troops from running out of ammunition in the middle of battle. Either way they face total humiliation and sideline themselves completely from any role in governing throughout the rest of the congressional term. Aw shucks, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch!
IrishJim @ 44 says:
I skimmed the statement and am now wondering just what is different from the statement he gave last month to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This one seems to be just rehashing the same old sh*t that he did previously, nothing at all new or different.
punaise @ 43
The Roquefort Rocket! The Brie Bullet!
Chris Matthews throws whiffle balls at the GOP.
jayt @ 29
Who’s we, exactly?
The media much prefers talkin about the stupid fuckin 08 election that’s two years away rather than the fuckin war that’s killin us now. Go figure!
twolf1 @ 50
At least Gonzo told them the true at least once.
Meantime- the Clusterfucker is in Kansas kissin an huggin victims. Nice job chowderhead!!
ccmask @ 56
MATTHEWS: Do you have any views on this war that are independent of the president, Congresswoman Blackburn?
BLACKBURN: Do I have any views…
MATTHEWS: That are independent…
BLACKBURN: … that are independent…
MATTHEWS: … of the president, yes.
BLACKBURN: … of the president? You know…
MATTHEWS: Or are you just completely with the president?
BLACKBURN: Chris, I love how you ask these questions and set it up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574745/
; )
Nate @ 51
I used to umpire the games of 12/13 yr old girls. That was bad enough – you pulled out every piece of gear you had for those games – can’t imagine being behind the plate for a collegiate game!
More hardball, please.
dakine01 @ 54
I skimmed the statement and am now wondering just what is different from the statement he gave last month to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This one seems to be just rehashing the same old sh*t that he did previously, nothing at all new or different.
Bingo! It is more stonewalling and obstructionism. He will protect the White House at all costs. Two things are needed: 1.)Monica Goodling testimony, 2.)The Email and correspondence from the White House needs to be turned over. Until these two things happen, he is sticking by his story.
Cozumel @ 57
I was just quoting Jane.
Out of context maybe, but still…
Okay Cozumel. He asked one hardball question and the rest were wiffleballs :)
jayt @ 64
OK, well it looked funny ; )
There’s a British group working against the multinational grab for Iraq’s oil, here:
http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/
Some excerpts from their site:
puppethead @ 39
Have you seen this from Talking Points Memo Cafe? House Liberals Entertain Alternate Scheme: Deauthorize The War
I don’t think the dems in Congress are capitulating, and I don’t think they’re stupid either. They’re playing a very delicate game with a madman, and they have to tread carefully.
My feeling is they’re putting out reasonable, compromise legislation, and peeling off republicans. Rs in Congress are in a mighty tight spot right now, and having the president hold his breath until he turns blue on national teevee only makes their trips home more difficult.
Bush obviously doesn’t care about their re-elections, as he didn’t last year. Democrats are putting up bills at a lightning pace, keeping it in the news, while all the time the president’s popularity swirls the drain and more soldiers die.
I would be thrilled if the dems could jam something down his throat, and make him sign it. But it can’t be done, not with the slim majorities we have now.
So let him rant and rave, and let the Rs sweat pools into their tighty-whities over it. We have the good guys on our side, and this ad campaign is going to help.
New Hamsher upstairs. I’m gettin’ almost as good as lolo!
FYI, new thread
pow wow @ 67
Powwow, thanks for posting this.
No wonder we don’t get any specifics about strategery. This is really why the war drags on. I guess I’m stating the obvious, but it is very helpful to get details like this, so thanks.
stop the nonsense- he will veto anything the dems send up. Just keep sending up the same ORIGINAL bill and each time the chimp vetoes it, go right to the printers and get a fresh copy of it and send it up.
And if any media type wants to ask what the hell is going on, simply tell them that the goopers keep stopping the funds that our troops desperately need!
Just bring the troops home George they have earned it! Here is some incentive.
OT
Iraqi parliment will not vacation in July and maybe they’ll cut back the August recess a bit according to Iraqi National Security Advisor
PBS NewsHour
Absolutely, do-si-do, @ 72.
It’s ‘obvious’ only in the sense that it’s been “hiding in plain sight” all along. We’ve generalized about the oil motive for so long, we’re actually in danger of missing how very central that point actually is (and how very, very valuable those Iraqi oil rights are), I think. Now the details are finally emerging with the public release and discussion of the oil bill, while we see Cheney hot-footing-it to the Green Zone and to Saudi Arabia, and the Congressional oil law ‘benchmark’ oh-so-casually included in must-pass legislation – and suddenly, for me at least, the dots are self-connecting into a scandalous, war-profiteering policy that consists of the most utterly depraved old-fashioned piracy and imperial exploitation of natural resources that may equal the worst the world has ever seen.
And not a peep against it or about it from our Congress or the media. It’s just American ‘business’ as usual… – aka war crimes.
billjpa @ 74
yes, Bush can’t allow the dems to know anything. To “score political points”. If action is what we want, then the Rs have to copy the bill, print it and deliver it. That’s how insanely stupid and stubborn and obsteperous this commander guy is. It’s all a game, not governance.
dakine01 @ 71
she’s cuter
pow wow @ 77
Hi Pow wow, you still here in EPU land with me? Yes your first paragraph above is what I mean to say in my post to you above. And the rest of what you said is unfortunately how I see this all going down in the logs of history and wikipedia.
I like this approach. It shows the Democrats are making a good faith effort to compromise and it fixes some of the problems with the first bill. I just hope it can make it through the Senate, there seem to be a lot of Democratic Senators who think that this doesn’t give Bush enough (they ought to just switch over to being Republicans if you ask me).
If Bush vetoes this one too, all the better. Just that much closer to when the money runs out by itself.
Let’s be blunt. Why should George Bush concede anything, given his goals?
As Obey says, the Dems have conceded two key points, Bush has conceded nothing. Today’s Doonesbury was a joke, but it’s what’s coming next: Bush is going to play chicken, because he believes (with some evidence) that Congress lacks the stomach for a fight.
Today’s Doonesbury might be a joke now, but I’m afraid that it’s what’s coming down to: if the showdown persists, Bush will keep vetoing bills, accuse Congress of cutting off money, and feed story after story of desperate, starving troops.
Answer:
Question: What is getting played, Alex?
What happens after he vetoes this? … And the next one? … And the next one?
How much are you going to give up Speaker Pelosi?
What is the final bill going to look like?
You’ve already taken, “the troops will be fully finded off the table,” which means a $100 billion. When he says, “there will be no time lines,” what else do you have to bargain with? What happens when he says “no benchmarks”?
What else is there?
Why does anyone think that he cares what anyone thinks? He’s only concerned with his base. And he knows he can play you by continuing to say, “they don’t support the troops”. So you cave in and give him what he wants because you’re afraid of being an appeaser. You paint Bush into a corner by doing this because it’s Bush’s unpopular war and you can hang it on him as his polls continue to drop. But by doing this, you find yourself right next to him.
You may think this is great politically, but what happens if the Republicans stand up and refute everything Bushian? And you find yourself out-flanked.
Let me give you a scenario: August 2007, John Boehner and what’s his name from the Senate call a press conference on the steps of the Capitol to call for the end of the fighting in Iraq, saying it’s unwinnable and the “surge” is horrible strategy and as you look behind them they have Batiste (after all he’s a lifelong Republican and it doesn’t have to be him) and the rest of the Generals.
What do you do then?
Where’s the edit button? ;-)
This
“the troops will be fully finded off the table,”
Should be
“the troops will be fully funded“ off the table
Sorry about any other spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors
Let’s add one more name: Arlen Specter. His record is abysmal, and every time his public statements resonate, you find out that one of his flunkies has inserted language into, say, the Patriot Act renewal whereby US Attorneys do not need to be approved by Congress. Look up hypocrite in the dictionary: it’s Arlen’s picture.
nabalzbbfr @ 54
What’s this “emergency executive funding authority”?
Swopa @ 13
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
pow wow @ 26
“Legal rights” takes on something of a novel shade, when considering the situation was crafted out of a patently illegal invasion. One might think the Iraqi parliament might later renegotiate, or void, such “revenue sharing” agreements; perhaps therein lies one of the prime considerations of the permanent bases?
What’s this “emergency executive funding authority”?
It means that President Bush simply dedicates existing federal revenues to buying the necessary equipment and supplies to support our troops. I suppose you expect him to stand helplessly by while our troops get defenselessly slaughtered in Iraq?
The adds should also run in the districts of the Republican-ass licking Blue Dog Democrats (Liebermantarians?) who are supporting Bush on the war. Ellen Tauscher’s district for example.
Perhaps Mr. Obey should spend less time pointing out how much Democrats have conceded to Bush and more time, you know, NOT CONCEDING THINGS TO BUSH.
George W. Bush doesn’t seem like a smart guy, but he knows not to negotiate with himself.
David Obey doesn’t seem like a *dumb* guy, but he *doesn’t* know not to negotiate with himself.
Is it *possible* for the Democratic leadership to resist the urge to talk about how much they’re compromising with Bush?
Better yet, is it *possible* for them to resist the urge to compromise with Bush?
Look, you can compromise with Bush, but don’t go telling us you had to unless you’ve got a damn good reason – and “I didn’t want the Republicans to say mean things about me” is not. A. Damn. GOOD. *REASON*.
I heard on Air America today a quote by Dick Cheney while in Iraq that he was there to push some political issues through the Iraqi legislature.
Hmmm, political issues? Through the Iraqi legislature?
Could Cheney be talking about the Iraqi Oil Law that the Iraqis just can’t seem to find time to pass?
Cheney (and Bush) are desperate to get that Oil Law passed, to lock in the Iraqi oil resources and revenues for the next several decades for their pals in the Western oil companies.
So, Democrats have a wedge if they are willing to use it.
Democrats in Congress should link the passage of the Iraqi Oil Law by the Iraqi legislature to our troops withdrawing from Iraq in six months.
Hell, I heard today that a majority in the Iraqi legislature just passed a law demanding that our troops get out.
Thus, all that now needs to be done is get Bush and Cheney on board, which will require offering them something they really, really want…like the Iraqi legislature passing their Oil Law, while throwing a bone to the Iraqi legislators…a set time for U.S. troops to leave Iraq (like in six months).
(Note: of course, once foreign forces are gone from Iraq, there’s no guarantee that the Iraqis will honor the Oil Law, but may instead decide to scrap it and sign oil contracts with whomever they want, not only Western oil companies. Will Cheney and Bush want to risk this? Are they gambling men? On the other hand, odds are increasing that the Iraqi legislature won’t do anything about the Oil Law by the time Bush and Cheney leave office, which can’t happen a minute too soon).
There’s no way to spin it that we didn’t surrender though, and we’ll surrender again when it comes to it. Bush has to “report to Congress”. He’ll have no problem at all lying about the Iraqi gov’t’s “progress”.
Absolute gutless fucking cowards. They should have sent him the same bill back and said “think again”. Or an even tougher one, saying the first troop to leave leaves tomorrow.
nabalzbbfr @ 54
Dude, when it’s your boy saying no to what the people voted for last year, it’s not our boys that are “humiliated”. If they sent back the same bill and he kept vetoing it, Gore would win in a landslide in ‘08.
Hardball?
HARDBALL?
Are you people on crack?
Congress should have re-upped the exact same fucking bill and sent it back to Bush.
On Thom Hartmann’s radio show yesterday, a caller made the point that the real reason Bush vetoed the last bill was because there was specific language prohibiting the use of these funds for permanent military bases and for protecting oil resources. Said something about “clause 13 eleven.”
Doesn’t sound very wingnutty to me.
power is ALL the bush boys understand.
no power brought to bear against them,
no movement on their part.
for anything
anything at all.