Redstate

How is this not a total f-up by Team Bush? You don't send signals that you'll sign a heavily-negotiated* bill funding the war effort, and then, a full two weeks after the bill is passed, suddenly reverse course and veto it. This kind of nonsense should have been caught well before now -- preferrably, before the Senate and House passed (what everyone had thought to be) Bush's version of the bill. Given the inside-baseball basis for the objection, Bush is now open to the charge that he's obstructing his own war effort.

What idiots.

*With most of the important points going to Bush, to the Administration's credit.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

than AFTER signing it...no?

My guess is that some Iraqi lawyer caught this and threw a shiate fit. Maybe he should read the rest of our bills before the President signs them... ;)

Let's see, we sneak this little bit in bill for the trial lawyers, the trial lawyers then give us, how much do you think would be our fair share, Nancy?

Corruption, it's what it's all about, and we elected the pros now. Move over you lame nickel and dime Republicans, let the Democrats take it from here.

The funny thing in the Internet age, big money for TV spots may not be that effective anymore.

he vetoes their bill. So much for bi partisanship cooperation;) Even the AP reported the concerns that Bush aides communicated to the Congress over the last few weeks, and the Iraqis have a friend with Bush. Pelosi still can't help the Iranians, that's tooo bbbaaddd.

first in the hearts of the Democrats. You can't let a little thing like a war get in the way of the sharks in the water or the contributions derived from big settlements. Just another one of the Democrats finest moments.
But they are soooo concerned with the suffering in Iraq.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.

The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.

Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages from the White House during the monthlong break.

A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.

I guess the House Dems should have been holding daily pro forma sessions too, so that would not have been "out of session".

Quote - (".....That's the way the Democratic led Congress punishes Russia for providing sophisticated air defense weapons to Iran and Syria, not to mention providing nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility.")

What's that you say? How do you propose "we" punish Russia for engaging in the arms trade? Drop bales of worthless US currency on their heads? The S-300 system is strictly defensive in nature... much like the Patriot missile system we provided to Israel (the technology of which, according to Sec'y of Defense Cheney, was transferred to China by the Israelis).

Maybe you're so focused on Iran that you didn't notice when the Russians sold the even more advanced S-300PMU to the red chinese (along with the R-77 and the Moskit). What do we do about that...? Stop buying lead-based toys at Wal-Mart in order to punish the chinese?

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

As in, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who slipped in a provision intended to benefit trial lawyers people who have been affected by terrorist actions in the US.

The idea is that if you bring suit in an American court against a foreign country, it will be a lot easier, under the Lautenberg provision, for the judge to freeze US-held assets of that country for the duration of the trial.

The language doesn't specifically mention Iraq. What seems to have happened is that someone happened to notice that this could be used to totally disrupt Iraq's economy, by anyone with a political axe to grind. (Like, say, Moveon.org or Code Pink.)

The vulnerability arises because the state of Iraq is holding some $30 billion or more in assets, including central-bank reserves, in the US.

So imagine Moveon.org identifying a couple of dozen firefighters who died in the 9/11 attacks and having their widows bring suit in US District Court in Manhattan against Iraq. And they petition the judge to shut down Iraq's economy pending the outcome of the trial.

Never mind the incredible irony that the hard-Lefties have always denied that Saddam Hussein ever harbored or aided terrorists. That won't stop them.