Posted on 05/02/2007 8:09:57 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Bush showed little appetite for compromise Wednesday, hours ahead of a session with congressional leaders aimed at crafting a new bill to fund the war in Iraq.
Fresh from his Tuesday night veto of spending legislation that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals, Bush stuck firmly to his demands on what a follow up bill should look like. The Democrats who control of Capitol Hill, and their Republican counterparts, were due at the White House Wednesday afternoon for discussions with the president, just after a planned attempt in the House — sure to fail — to override Bush's veto.
The 1 p.m. EST vote was primarily procedural, as Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," the president said in a speech in Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.
Of the original bill pushed through Congress by Democrats, Bush said: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."
The president defended his argument that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq to help stabilize that country, even as he predicted that "casualties are likely to stay high."
"If I didn't think it was necessary for the security of our country, I wouldn't put our kids in harm's way," Bush said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Concession!? How about funding our troops you collective POSs!
To be honest, having gone to DC several times for business, and having rubbed elbows with folks in Government, I'd say that most of that cr*p is contrived..
Well……..how about, if Bush had any cojones, he would start a “Bond Drive”. Like during WW 2 people bought U.S. bonds to help pay for the war effort. If the democrats won’t pay for it, I’m sure a lot of people would be willing to help out……. Wouldn’t that make the democrats / liberals look like the snakes they really are.
I don’t know how my response was posted as a reply to AU72. I was just making a comment on the article.
Another SFGate pantload. SHOULD read, “Soros-funded, American-hating, treasonous lunatic leftists showed little appetite for compromise Wednesday, hours ahead of a session aimed at funding our troops in Iraq...”
Bush may as well go talk to a post as talk to those idiots. They hate him and any compromising is beyond them.
A bill that actually does anything more than fund the troops will be vetoed, and the Dims will not be able to over-ride the veto. The President might let them throw in some non-binding language that’s in agreement with previously established administration goals, but that’s it.
So, what’s to compromise?
I thought that the Dems were going to jam the bill down the President’s throat???
An interesting thesis, but the dems can't placate their base by backing down, and they knew they'd have to back down.
The President is not going to get a "clean bill." If he continues to veto any bill except a "clean" one, he will not get the money for the troops, which is what the Dems want. The Dems will say that it is Bush who is blocking the money for the troops.
Bush will have to make some compromises if he wants to get the funds. It is just a matter of negotiating them so both sides can declare victory.
The Dems hold the better cards in this game of chicken.
I think that what I posted makes for a reasonable alternative bill. They can even call it a compromise if they want.
But I disagree that the Dims have the upper hand. President Bush is a Master Poker Player.
This is your corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" at its best.
I would support a Bond Drive in a heartbeat. Count on me to help in ANY way
If you don't hold the best hand, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them. The Rep Congress forced Bill Clinton to sign the welfare reform bill after several vetos. Again, it is not a matter of if Bush will compromise, but when. It is the nature of those compromises that will make the difference.
I suspect that Bush will allow the pork to go thru, or at least most of it. He may also promise a quid pro quo for something else the Dems may want. Bush could increase his pressure for comprehensive immigration reform [aka as amnesty] to placate the Dems.
If you live there for any length of time you really get a feel for the "inside the beltway" culture. In many ways, it truly is like another country/culture. The people that live there, not just the elected ones, honestly have very little understanding of those out here in the hinterlands.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Did you read or hear President Bush’s veto objections? He told the Dims the bill is unconstitutional. Unless they modify it to remove that objection, there’s nothing to compromise on that issue.
I also agree with savinggrace, the president has made it clear that there can be no withdrawl date and like usurptions of presidental power. He’ll sign any amount of pork they want, but it cannot come with a surrender date, period.
It’s nice to see him hold firm on this.
Freep this POLL.
Do you support Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill?
http://www.nbc5.com/index.html
Scroll down right side of page.
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.