Posted on 12/28/2007 11:16:11 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Press Releases Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami 202-226-7616 For Immediate Release 12/28/2007 Pelosi and Reid Condemn Bush Plan to Veto of Defense Authorization Bill
Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement today criticizing President Bush's expected veto of H.R. 1585, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, in response to assertions by the Iraqi government that one section could expose assets in U.S. banks to requests for compensation for American victims of Saddam Hussein.
"Despite the Administration's earlier support for the Department of Defense authorization bill, it appears that President Bush plans to veto this legislation, which is crucial to our armed forces and their families.
"The Defense bill passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming bipartisan margins and addresses urgent national security priorities, including a 3.5 percent pay raise for our troops and Wounded Warriors legislation to remedy our veterans' health care system. It is unfortunate that the President will not sign this critical legislation.
"Instead, we understand that the President is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed.
"The Administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto. The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the President vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."
Background
On December 19th, Congress sent H.R. 1585, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, to the President for his signature. The Bush Administration had worked closely with the Congress in the development of this legislation and gave no indication prior to its passage that one section of the bill could generate a presidential veto.
Subsequently, the government of Iraq raised objections to Section 1083, in which Congress strengthened the ability of victims of the brutality of Saddam Hussein to seek compensation. The Iraqi government has warned that plaintiffs, including former U.S. POWs who had been held captive during the first Gulf War in the 1990s, might cite this section in seeking compensation from its assets currently in U.S. banks -- reportedly $25 billion. The Iraqi government has threatened that, unless President Bush agrees to veto the Defense Department legislation, Iraqi leaders will immediately move assets out of U.S. banks.
Congress and the White House have been engaged in discussions about reviewing the effect of Section 1083 and considering whether additional action is warranted. Congressional leaders have indicated a willingness to consider technical corrections to resolve the Administration's new objections, if justified.
The Administration, however, reportedly intends to move ahead and announce that the President intends to veto H.R. 1585, placing in jeopardy the military pay raise and the Wounded Warrior program endorsed by the Congress, and complicating efforts to address concerns raised about Section 1083.
Bush should have vetoed the omnibus appropriations bill instead.
Bush should have vetoed the omnibus appropriations bill instead also.
Whiny Assed Liberals! OUT OF THE GENE POOL!
I love it when Harry’s eyes cross and spittle flies out of his mouth.
Gee, maybe this means that all those useless DoD civilian employees will get furloughed after all.
Wonder why this was inserted to begin with?
Wonder why this was inserted to begin with?
So Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can play the political demagoguery game?
Wasn’t this bill the one that shut down monies the security fence?
Pelosi is a Traitor by the Constitution by having visited Syria and meeting with Assad who are dirctly responsible for deaths and injuries to United States forces in Iraq.
Would now be a good time for Bush to ask for the Line Item Veto Back?
It’s very simple, Pelousy - REMOVE the offending section and resubmit it. But of course, that would be counter-productive to your inserting it in the first place.
I always love this two-faced tap dance. Load a bill with unrelated pork, earmarks and provisions that the President has promised he will veto, then call the whaaaambulance when he does.
What does Defense Authorization have to do with civil lawsuits anyway, Pelousy?
Flashback: PGW POWs Sue Iraq For US$900 Million http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter23/in022403pgwsuit.html
War heroes v. U.S. on Iraq assets Tortured ex-POWs find they must sue Uncle Sam to collect damages from Saddam
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070340/
You're kidding... Right?
I thought Bela and Squint and all of the other congresscritters split DC and were on their Federal Hanaramakwansmas Break.
Bush can’t have a line item veto, alas, without amending the Constitution.
Gotta toss a fish to the Dem trial lawyers constituency
Yeah. :o)
Best laugh of the day was your reply.
I do not say this lightly. I hate these two faced lying people.
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.