LibriumArcana.Games

Telegraph

[quote]Senators in the US have angered President George Bush by endorsing a deadline of next March for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Under the bill, US forces would start to pull out of Iraq this year
The Senate, the upper house of Congress, voted by 50-48 to reject an amendment that would have removed the troop withdrawal clause from a military funding bill.

Under the bill, which is subject to a final vote later this week, US forces would start to pull out of Iraq this year with the goal of leaving completely by March 31. 2008.

Yesterday’s decision was a victory for Democrats, who failed to pass a recent resolution calling for troop withdrawal, and comes just days after the lower house of Congress, the House of Representatives, also voted to get troops out of Iraq by next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “This war is not worth the spilling of another drop of American blood.â€

Bush may veto; he needs this money, though. This is not Random Bill 53721a paragraph b. It's the supplemental he begged for his pet war.

What I suspect will be another case of 'I'll sign this into law but I will happily break any part of it I don't like, nyah' signing statements. Line-item veto? Why bother getting anyone to vote on it when you can declare you have it?

What I suspect will be another case of 'I'll sign this into law but I will happily break any part of it I don't like, nyah' signing statements. Line-item veto? Why bother getting anyone to vote on it when you can declare you have it

Expect he has flated out and repeated said he'll veto the whole thing. And his base may very well lynch him if he doesn't.

frigidmagi wrote:

What I suspect will be another case of 'I'll sign this into law but I will happily break any part of it I don't like, nyah' signing statements. Line-item veto? Why bother getting anyone to vote on it when you can declare you have it

Expect he has flated out and repeated said he'll veto the whole thing. And his base may very well lynch him if he doesn't.

His base happily swallows the idea of 'Personal Responsibility is needed!' and 'It's all the fault of the commies!' in the same breath. They are deluged in Doublethink. They won't even stop the crazy's in Jesus Camp from praying to idols of him.

As for what he says? Yea, since when am I gonna beleive this chimp?

By your own logic, his ego will demand he Vetos not to mention his few remaining bits of support will see anything but a Veto to be a surrender. To be blunt I believe you to be mistaken to say the least.

frigidmagi wrote:By your own logic, his ego will demand he Vetos not to mention his few remaining bits of support will see anything but a Veto to be a surrender. To be blunt I believe you to be mistaken to say the least.

From our other conversation, I think you don't quite grasp what he has done with the method I'm suspecting he'll use. He can simply write 'The Executive Branch can redefine benchmarks and adjust the dates within this law at it's discretion, according to the chief executive's constitutional duty to preserve national security'.

Then he can scribble on a napkin in crayon that the 'benchmarks to be met' are now 'Get the Iraqi's to tie their shoelaces' and the withdrawl date in 'Febuary 32nd, 4003 AD'.

From our other conversation, I think you don't quite grasp what he has done with the method I'm suspecting he'll use. He can simply write 'The Executive Branch can redefine benchmarks and adjust the dates within this law at it's discretion, according to the chief executive's constitutional duty to preserve national security'.

Then he can scribble on a napkin in crayon that the 'benchmarks to be met' are now 'Get the Iraqi's to tie their shoelaces' and the withdrawl date in 'Febuary 32nd, 4003 AD'.

And I'm telling you bluntly if he does that Congress will simply make it's own benchmarks (likely 'have no one die for a whole month') and start yanking funding on it's own. There is no manuever room. He is going to Veto.