Congress challenges Bush to veto pullout

The BBC is reporting that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have joined forces by taking a vote to link future funding for the so called War On Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq with troop withdrawal. The report also says that President Bush will Veto any such legislation.

My question is, how can the President of the United States defy the will of Congress?

How can one person, irrespective of which side of the House he or she comes from, decide that he or she is right and Congress is wrong?

I now that most, if not all politicians do not really represent the people they allegedly work for, and most have their own agendas but, does not your Constitution start with: We, The People.

Are not the wishes of the voted representatives more powerful than your Preseident?

If the President goes ahead and vetos this legislation - against Congress, what else will this failling Despot try to get away with?


Tiscali News Link

BBC News Link


[edit on 27-4-2007 by fritz]

__________________________________________________________________

mod edit: cut down length of link to correct page width
Please use this in the post creation window in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: [url=www.urlhere.com]link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is ATTN :Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 27-4-2007 by UK Wizard]

He can defy congress because he, regardless of our feeling about him, is the man who runs the foreign policy of the United States, not Congress. The President can veto any bill he chooses, irregardless of congress' opinion on the matter. Congress, or rather the senate can override. If they have enough votes. That's the way it should work.

While I agree with seagull, I'm very disturbed by Bush's stance that Congress' insistence we pull out of Iraq is a move against HIM and not his policy. The fact he's involved his own personal ego with what is a national issue frightens me. It tells me that he feels above the will of the people who elected him and that he will be completely unable to see reason on the issue. It's become personal to him and that is not going to do the country or the world any good whatsoever. He doesn't defend the policy with any real political reasoning, he says that Congress is testing his will. His will? Has he stopped believing he talks to Jesus and believes he's actually BECOME Jesus? A true and effective leader bows to the opinions of the rest of the country. Bush is neither.

Yep, like Seagull said, the President can veto whatever he wants,
regardless of what the Congress or people in general think.

It's all about checks and balances.


Personally I think the whole idea of a single president is a bad idea
though, an Executive Council that has to have a majority agrrement
to do things seems like a much better idea.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
It's become personal to him and that is not going to do the country or the world any good whatsoever. He doesn't defend the policy with any real political reasoning, he says that Congress is testing his will. His will?

While this is a frustrating situation, it is politics at work the way it should be. And while it may seem that Bush is taking this personally, he is not.

Certain fundamental truths do not change, regardless of the latest public opinion poll. Among those is the fact that if we anounce a pull-out date, the insurgency will merely go underground, recuperate, and wait for us to leave.

Many politicians, knowing that an election is due next year, will play to the tune of the latest opinion polls. If they manage to gather the 2/3 votes necessary to override a presidential veto, then they can implement their cut-and-run policies. If not, then the presidential veto will stand.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Certain fundamental truths do not change, regardless of the latest public opinion poll. Among those is the fact that if we anounce a pull-out date, the insurgency will merely go underground, recuperate, and wait for us to leave.

And how is this our problem? We have no business there. NONE. This is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is because we're after the oil, and that disgusts me. If our "fearless leader" were at least honest with us about his true motivations I might understand, if not condone. But I do not like liars and I do not like hypocrites and Bush is the biggest one of each I have yet to see.

the Middle East has been a mess for thousands of years, long before there was ever an America. We haven't invaded the Sudan, we haven't invaded Libya or Syria, and they have insurgents too. What about Hezbollah? We aren't responsible for what they do. Even if we managed to tame Iraq into a facsimile of Anytown, USA, there would still be insurgents, lurking, waiting their turn. The Middle East is factionated with us there or without us there. There are going to be hot head terrorists no matter what the state of affairs over there is, and whoever is there (or has just pulled out).

At least if we bring the troops home, American youth will stop being killed for the greed of our corporate masters. And maybe we'd get some of our respect back in the world -- though the hope of this is rapidly fading for me.

Our time is passing. We are not the kings of the world, or the police of the world, or even the babysitters of the world. We need to pick up our toys and just go home and let the Iraqi people deal with their own problems.

Just IMO.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

Originally posted by jsobecky

Certain fundamental truths do not change, regardless of the latest public opinion poll. Among those is the fact that if we anounce a pull-out date, the insurgency will merely go underground, recuperate, and wait for us to leave.

And how is this our problem? We have no business there. NONE. This is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is because we're after the oil, and that disgusts me.

Many people say "oil" with disdain while looking down their nose, yet they love their fancy automobiles and appliances. They don't care where the power comes from for these devices, as long as it is relatively cheap. They will condemn the methods and the men who deliver this oil to them, and at the same time live a life of "entitlement" for the finer things in life.

Now that to me is hypocritical.

the Middle East has been a mess for thousands of years, long before there was ever an America. We haven't invaded the Sudan, we haven't invaded Libya or Syria, and they have insurgents too. What about Hezbollah? We aren't responsible for what they do. Even if we managed to tame Iraq into a facsimile of Anytown, USA, there would still be insurgents, lurking, waiting their turn. The Middle East is factionated with us there or without us there. There are going to be hot head terrorists no matter what the state of affairs over there is, and whoever is there (or has just pulled out).

It's true that there has been sectarian violence over there for centuries, and that it will continue. But that has nothing to do with having sectarian violence under a brutal dictatorship or a cold theocracy.

Iraq is very strategically located in the mideast. Allowing it to fall to the hands of terrorists would be disatrous for the region and for the world.

And yes, I said terrorists. There are thousands of al Qaeda in Iraq. Why do you think that is?

At least if we bring the troops home, American youth will stop being killed for the greed of our corporate masters. And maybe we'd get some of our respect back in the world -- though the hope of this is rapidly fading for me.

If we cut and run, our respect would take a major hit. We'd be seen as the defeated superpower who does not have the stomach to see things through. The thinking would go something like this: "If you want to defeat the US, all you need to do is wait them out. Their people and their leaders are too weak and impatient to do what is necessary to win. If you just wait them out, they will leave and you will win".

Originally posted by jsobecky
Certain fundamental truths do not change, regardless of the latest public opinion poll. Among those is the fact that if we anounce a pull-out date, the insurgency will merely go underground, recuperate, and wait for us to leave.

(friendly sarcasm)
I agree JSOBecky, the last thing we need is for this new and dangerous kind of enemy with its decentralized structure and its seemingly endless supply of suicidal fanatics that we can't find to gain control of a country after we leave and become just like Saddam, who was so incredibly easy to get rid of that it almost felt wrong.
If we announce we are leaving, the terrorists will stay underground, right where they are now, and when we finally leave, they'll come out of the underground and take over Iraq. Then they can be a real national threat, with bank accounts that can be frozen and a population that will riot if they don't keep the schools open, and an army that wears uniforms and congregates in big, bombable bases... that would be positively awful.(/friendly sarcasm)

Ever since 9/11, Republicans have been saying that they wished there was a country called "Terroristan" to make this easier on us... Now George Bush is on the brink of achieving that goal, and he doesn't want it. What gives?

[edit on 29-4-2007 by The Vagabond]

I get it, but I don't understand it.

You The People have empowered your government (Congress) to act on Your behalf, yet the President can ignore Congress any time he or she sees fit? What sort of democratic government is that?

I would go so far as to say that what you have in America at present is not a duely elected democratic government, but a one man Dictatorship!

Originally posted by fritz
I get it, but I don't understand it.

You The People have empowered your government (Congress) to act on Your behalf, yet the President can ignore Congress any time he or she sees fit? What sort of democratic government is that?

I would go so far as to say that what you have in America at present is not a duely elected democratic government, but a one man Dictatorship!

Well, like I said, it's supposed to be a series of checks and balances,
the executive for the legislative, the legislative for the executive, and
the judicial for both.

It is not a dictatorship, as the definition of such is a single person with
absolute power who stays in power as long as they live, and was not
placed in a position of power by a democratic system.

The president is elected by the people (well, technically the electoral
college, which I disagree with, but that's a discussion for another time),
and he can only be in power for eight years.
He can be taken out of power if the majority of people want it, and his
vetoes can be overridden if the majority of the Congress decides to.

Thank you iori_komei for enlightening me.

It does seem to this humble Brit, that GWB is flouting his powers somewhat and ignoring the will of the people and Congress, both.

Unfortunately, President Blair and his successor Gordon Brown are apparently still happy to bumble along behind him, dragging the British people through the mire whenever the opportunity arises.

Originally posted by fritz
You The People have empowered your government (Congress) to act on Your behalf, yet the President can ignore Congress any time he or she sees fit? What sort of democratic government is that?

The Veto was never supposed to be this kind of a problem. It was intended as a negative action- the ability of one man to keep us from doing something- not the ability for one man to do something and then protect it against the majority.

This is what happens when we let our congress hand the president a blank check- they illegally handed off the final decision about the war to Bush on the eve of the war. Though there's no removing the blame from the Republicans, I also think it's important for Democrats like myself to acknowledge (and remind our elected leaders) that they did have the votes to stop the war resolution but they were afraid to do so on the eve of a midterm election (kinda stupid in retrospect eh? A Dem candidate can't be anti-war enough now.). Congress does have a considerable amount more authority than the last few years would lead us to believe. One of the primary lessons of Iraq for the party in opposition is, "Don't you EVER do ANYTHING like this AGAIN!"

All the same, I do believe it is time to fine tune the War Powers Resolution. This war alone, not to mention others in history, have seen so many loopholes and bypasses of the law that it's not even funny, and that does have to be prevented in the future so that congress can remain relevant where, according to the hawks, international law failed to do so.