Despite threats by Democratic leaders the House of Representatives was unable to gather enough votes to overturn President Bush's veto of the War Spending Bill. This means that Congress will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new bill instead, in hopes of crafting one that the President will sign... or that the House can find enough votes in to overturn a Presidential veto. Democrats claim that they will accept no bill without a deadline for troop withdrawal.
I suspect we will find ourselves back here in a month or so, and Congress will find itself increasingly unpopular with the people. The White House is already at its low point in popularity, but Congress still has a way to go. And unyielding stubbornness could easily lead to a reversal of Democratic gains in 2008.
veto etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
veto etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
3 Mayıs 2007 Perşembe
2 Mayıs 2007 Çarşamba
GWB Vetoes War Spending Bill
We caught the president's speech yesterday explaining his reasoning for vetoing the Democratic spending bill for the War in IRaq. Essentially, he gave two reasons: (1) giving a date for withdrawal only telegraphs to the enemy how and when to plan the next attack, and (2) the bill is so laden with pork that in many ways it is less a war spending bill than a homeland appropriations bill. The Democrats in Congress have immediately mobilized to contain the political damage (hardly suprising since they knew this veto was coming) but already seem a but shrill in their feigned shock and outrage.
While I understand the Democratic need to pander to their base, I do not see how they hope to win this one. Do they really want to open themselves to charges of sending the troops into battle with insufficient armor or weapons or ammunition? The commander-in-chief already has them over there, and the Constitution only gives Congress power over the purse. It seems to me that it would be more logical for them to threaten to not vote on any Judicial Appointments or some other priority of the president's until he agrees to concessions, rather than punishing the troops. Well, we shall see.
While I understand the Democratic need to pander to their base, I do not see how they hope to win this one. Do they really want to open themselves to charges of sending the troops into battle with insufficient armor or weapons or ammunition? The commander-in-chief already has them over there, and the Constitution only gives Congress power over the purse. It seems to me that it would be more logical for them to threaten to not vote on any Judicial Appointments or some other priority of the president's until he agrees to concessions, rather than punishing the troops. Well, we shall see.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)