HR 1585, the Defense Appropriations Bill passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support

In the House it passed 370 - 49
In the Senate is passed 90 - 3

Hi, Jonah.

Welcome to the DNC Kicking Ass family. I noticed a new name but didn't realize you were from the office.

This is a well-researched piece. I look forward to more from you in the future. Drop by and share your thoughts with us on the open thread.

So it appears that Bush has no problem withholding support of the troops. No raises for the troops on repeated deployments and their families, no guarantees of quality medical care for the wounded, nor any contingency allocations for equipment replacement as it breaks down.

He's been lying all along. And his Republican Congressional contingent continues to give him cover. It's their record to run on next November.

Does the GOP really think it's going to be easy to explain this? I suppose they figure people are still on holiday mode or worrying about the dismal domestic situation.

We'll be happy to remind them when the time comes. File it away under Republican hypocrisy on national security and keeping our military strong.

Save our country impeach Bush/Cheney NOW!

Bush has left a bread crumb trail in the memo about why he's doing this.

The first claim has to do with Section 1083 of the bill, which he asserts "would expose Iraq to new liability" i.e., being sued. However, as Marcy Wheeler notes, the Iraqis are already protected by law:

Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.

The second clue is buried in the very last paragraph of the memo:

Although I continue to have serious objections to other provisions of this bill, including section 1079 relating to intelligence matters....

What is Section 1079?

A provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to make available to the Congressional intelligence committees, upon the request of the chair or ranking minority member, "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion," within certain conditions.

Ruh-roh. I wonder what that would be?

In what is shaping up to be President Bush vs. fourth grade civics class, the President is declaring Congress not in session and this bill vetoed on December 31 despite the Senate being in pro forma session intentionally to prevent his shenanigans.

It's you who might need the civics refresher class.

Beginning in 1929, several judicial decisions attempted to clarify when an adjournment by Congress would “prevent” the President from returning a veto. There has never been any definitive judicial ruling to clarify the meaning of "adjournment" and all efforts to legislate it have been unsuccessful. The issue of the pocket veto and the president's right to use it has largely been defined by limited court rulings and understandings between the executive and legislative branches. I doubt Bush wants to be drawn into a Supreme Court challenge of the pocket veto, which could significantly affect the president's ability in the future to use it.

First I want to know what party drew down our military to the levels that now we have to build it back up. I lived through that.
I don't know exactly why he'd veto this and you have not mentioned why he might veto this, but I imagine he has a good reason. The negative is great from you, but what about the other side, what effect would it have on us if he veto's this? I know, just raise taxes, that's the answer, right?
The military WILL get their raise, you're obviously oblivious to what's going on in the military healthcare system, great improvements, been there, worked on it, experienced it first hand. There were problems, been there for 30 years, not Bush's fault, the government's fault, he's doing something about it now and you can't see that, just want more so you look good. Sure he's not perfect, I wish someone perfect could take over, but that's not going to happen until you know who comes back. If you have been in the military and can tell me how things have gotten worse under our current president compared to others I'd be glad to listen.
Please don't bash me as a Bush backer, I am open to all sides, but ALL sides, not just one. The military was great to me and my Commander in Chief was always my boss, not some congressman/women speaking his/her mind, and I was always faithful to my Commander and will be tell the day I die, regardless of their beliefs because they represent America. Unfortunately our congress represents us to, and I am ashamed that is the case today, 29 Dec 2007.

I don't know exactly why he'd veto this and you have not mentioned why he might veto this, but I imagine he has a good reason

SaveT06,

Did you not read the articles that explain WHY he suddenly decided to veto this? The Iraqi Gov threatened and blackmailed him into this, by saying the $25 billion dollars in US banks would all get withdrawn should this go thru,( with the ability of people to sue the Iraqi Government )!

And as for whichever CIC is in charge, HE is merely a temporary figurehead, and is not the military's boss ! America and it's people are the boss ! What a mistaken idea that one must blindly follow someone who has been proven to be a liar, someone who does not care about the troop's lives, NOR their benefits when they get out, NOR their care in VA hospitals when they lose limbs in his ill-begotten illegal invasion! If you REALLY support the troops, love your brothers, then you will join Vets against Iraqi War, and fight FOR them, not to prolong this lie.

ps, When Bill Clinton found it expeditient to cut back on troops, if you were old enough at that time, then you remember that he also helped the world to be almost at peace, and our enemies few. Isn't that ultimately the goal of all people? PEACE ON EARTH, GOOD WILL TOWARDS MAN ?

Bush is an obnoxious Chimp. He should be impeached.

Pam,
Did you get my name, SAVET06, that stands for San Antonio Veteran as of 2006. I retired from the military, does that make me old enough?? We have been under attack since the 70's from these same terrorists, guess it doesn't count though since it didn't happen in the U.S. until 9/11 and Bush was president. Open your eyes. I lost 19 fellow Air Force members in Saudi while Clinton was president, you call that world peace? Attacking the USS Cole while Bill was pres, is that world peace? How many more attacks should I mention? Please tell me when the U.S. was going to start fighting back? George is fighting back, it has and will come at a price but please don't act like we had (almost) world peace.
I worked in the medical field, still do on a military base. I worked with the returning soldiers and their families, I know first hand what is being done, funny thing the media will only show the bad things and people like you believe it, that there is no good things being done for them.
I know things with the VA were bad, have been so for ever, but who is doing something about it? I believe it is president Bush, may not be immediate but this is a system that has been broken for so long it can't be fixed in a day.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents and look at your almost world peace you thought there was.

What we have here is a President that is playing politics as usual. He knows full well that "his fellow Republicans" need help from his seven years of bungling, and the American people finally see through the obstruction game being played by the Cong4ressional Republicans. Henceforth, we get a "pocket veto" by our genius President in which will be overturned by the Congress (remember the vote tally?).

This is another Bush, Blunt, McConnell ploy to make the voting public realize who's really in charge. However, just like their stupid little obstructionist game, this game too is easy to expose.

SAVET06,
Well, I don't know about you boys down there in San Antonio, but up here in WI when I have a few beers with Vets many of them --well, let's just say they don't praise the way Bush has handled the "war".
And, really, I have to say that anyone in the military would be a fool to take orders from any president over the Pentagon when it comes to tatical actions. Bush hijacked the Pentagon like no other president we've ever had.......that was the first real mistake.

Lets just say I'm glad someone had the balls to go to war with these scumballs. No one else would, otherwise they would be the ones considered the no good loosers your making George Bush out to be. Bill wouldn't have been popular, but he could have stopped 9/11 if he'd of just started the war against TERRORISM in the first place.
I'd like to know anyone who has handled a war well. It just doesn't happen that way. History tells us that.
Ask Japan or Germany if what we gave up was worth it. Lots of World peace coming out of those countries.

If you don't change to these Terrosists Beliefs than you need to die. That is the only belief they have, you either change to their religion or you are an infidel and you must die. I'm sorry to say that is the way these people believe. I'm not changing my religion.

Lets just say I'm glad someone had the balls to go to war with these scumballs. No one else would, otherwise they would be the ones considered the no good loosers your making George Bush out to be. Bill wouldn't have been popular, but he could have stopped 9/11 if he'd of just started the war against TERRORISM in the first place.
I'd like to know anyone who has handled a war well. It just doesn't happen that way. History tells us that.
Ask Japan or Germany if what we gave up was worth it. Lots of World peace coming out of those countries.

If you don't change to these Terrosists Beliefs than you need to die. That is the only belief they have, you either change to their religion or you are an infidel and you must die. I'm sorry to say that is the way these people believe. I'm not changing my religion.

SAVET06--

You've got some points there. War is war. Fighting it in hindsight's no good, except to prepare for the future.

But you say you're glad someone had the balls to go to war with these scumballs.

That makes sense. On September 11th, we got bloodied pretty bad, a sucker punch that really took the wind out of us. I was right there with the thousands of others that day, with the dust in our faces and the garbage and fear swirling in the air like a hurricane. But in our responsibility to the history and the future of this great nation, to our forebears, to our children, to those we honor to fight in our names--- we owe it distinctly to each of those groups to strike back intelligently and diligently--- AND HIT THE RIGHT TARGET. Not just a convenient local baddie that Daddy hated.

Don't grant your ardent patriotism to a politician because he has 'the balls' to go kill some folk. With Bin Laden still at large, and for him to NOT have been the focus of our attention for the past 5 years--- how can you still justify your support for Bush? Because he had the temerity to wave a big stick and beat whoever he wanted? That's the worst charicature of America, not us at our best.

In SPITE of Bush, I still believe in America. And I hope--- desperately hope, that we can claw our way out of the mess (Constitutional, international, economic, and otherwise) that he's dug us into.

For your selfless service in the Armed Forces, you're to be saluted and genuinely thanked. But it's the honor of the sacrifice of those that have fallen that Iraq-objectors don't want to diminish by being in the wrong fight.

Your patriotism is a powerful and inspirational tool--- use it, don't let others make you a tool by flaunting it.