grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
CRAWFORD, Tex. For months President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
And then on Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Mr. Bush announced that he was vetoing a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraqs new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Husseins rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it would work with Congress to quickly restore dozens of new military and veterans programs once Congress returns to work in January.
Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect on Tuesday, and improvements in veterans health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen opposing.
Mr. Bushs veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House had failed to raise its concerns earlier.
And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Mr. Bushs support-the-troops oratory against him, which they did with relish.
Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it, Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement, reworking a familiar Republican attack during his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2004 that he supported the war in Iraq before he turned against it.
The veto was an embarrassment for administration officials, who struggled on Friday to explain why they had not acted earlier to object to the provision, Section 1083 of a 1,300-page, $696 billion military authorization bill. It would expand the ability of Americans to seek financial compensation from countries that supported or sponsored terrorist acts, including Libya, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
It was unclear how the provision had been overlooked by White House lawyers. A senior administration official told reporters in a hastily arranged conference call that the bills consequences for Iraq came into acute focus only a week to 10 days ago after Iraqi officials complained to the American ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan C. Crocker. The White House said President Bush had recently spoken with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq about the consequences of the provision.
It was also an embarrassment for some in Congress, including Republican senators who sponsored the provision, like John Cornyn of Texas and Ted Stevens of Alaska. Republicans joined Democrats in overwhelmingly approving the broader military bill, but they backed the White House on Friday. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who led Republicans in drafting the military policy bill, said that he was now swayed by the administrations arguments that it could endanger Iraqs new government.
The White House prepared a very detailed legal memorandum, and I am convinced that they are correct, Mr. Warner said in a telephone interview.
While removing the provision would involve only a minor amendment, the veto could reopen many of the contentious issues that stalled the legislations approval in the first place, including efforts by Democrats to impose conditions on spending for the military operations in Iraq.
At a minimum, the veto will provoke a fight over an issue that was put into the legislation after no public debate. The Senate sponsor, Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, expressed strong support for the provision on Friday, saying it would help plaintiffs in lawsuits against Iran and Libya, including relatives of Americans killed in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and in the bombing of a Berlin disco in 1986.
My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable plain and simple, said Mr. Lautenberg, who has long championed expanding legislation to let victims sue foreign governments.
In a statement of disapproval, or pocket veto that lets the bill expire on Dec. 31, Mr. Bush said that the provision could result in preliminary injunctions freezing Iraqi assets in American banks $20 billion to $30 billion, according to a senior administration official and even affect commercial ventures with American businesses.
He also warned that it was written to revive dormant legal claims, including a $959 million judgment won by American pilots who were prisoners of war during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. The administration had declared the new government exempt from claims dating to Mr. Husseins government, which the United States overthrew in 2003.
Exposing Iraq to such significant financial burdens would weaken the close partnership between the United States and Iraq during this critical period in Iraqs history, Mr. Bush said in his statement.
A senior administration official said, The Iraqis certainly did raise very serious and strong concerns about this, which were confirmed as we really dived into this and gamed out the consequences. The White House allowed the official to speak only if not identified.
Mr. Bushs aides have already begun negotiations with Congress to remove the provision or rewrite it to exempt Iraq and enact the bills other provisions. The White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, spoke with Republican lawmakers in a conference call on Friday to explain the presidents decision and to build support for quick Congressional action next month, Mr. Warner said.
The White House also said it would make an added raise Congress approved for service members a half-percent above the 3 percent increase that will take effect regardless retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, no matter when a final bill is approved.
The final military spending bill was adopted by overwhelming margins, 370 to 49 in the House and 90 to 3 in the Senate.
It was Mr. Bushs eighth veto, an executive power he has used with greater frequency with Democrats in control of Congress. Because he used a pocket veto allowing the legislation to expire 10 days after it was passed by the House his decision cannot be overridden. Adding to the uncertainty, Brendan Daly, a spokesman for the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said Friday evening that the House was reserving its right to schedule an override vote anyway, arguing that the presidents pocket veto was not legally viable.
Mr. Daly said House officials believed that, under their interpretation of the rules, Mr. Bush technically could not use his power to pocket veto the measure.
Still, Ms. Pelosi and the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, indicated that Democrats hoped to move swiftly to address the concerns of the White House and get the bill back to the president for his signature. The House returns on Jan. 15 and could send a revised version of the bill to the Senate by the time it returns a week later.
Some lawmakers accused the administration of siding with the Iraqi government over Americans who had suffered in terrorist attacks, a sensitive charge for a president who has made the fight against terrorism the central theme of his presidency.
It is a shame, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, that the White House has taken this step to satisfy the demands of the Iraqi government for whom our troops have sacrificed so much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801531.htmlCRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.
In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."
The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent authorized by the bill.
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.
In a message to Congress, the president said he was sending the bill and his outline of objections to the House clerk "to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval, and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed."
Democratic aides said they have not ruled out any legislative options, including dropping the language on lawsuits against Iraq and sending the rest of the bill back to Bush.
The sponsor of the contested provision, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the provision would allow "American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable _ plain and simple."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called on lawmakers to "move rapidly to fix this section" when Congress returns in January so that the underlying bill can be signed.
Democratic congressional leaders complained that Bush's move was a last-minute stunt because he had never indicated his intention to veto the bill.
Bush aides said they had signaled concern about the controversial provision for weeks, although there had been no formal veto threat. They said their concern grew urgent recently after a legal review and feedback from U.S. diplomats in Iraq and Iraqi leaders.
The disputed section of the bill would reshape Iraq's immunity to lawsuits, exposing the new government to litigation in U.S. courts stemming from treatment of Americans in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Even cases that had once been rejected could be refiled.
Bush's aides warned of a dire scenario _ a rush of litigation that could freeze tens of billions of dollars in Iraqi assets being held in U.S. banks. Money at the heart of the Iraqi rebuilding effort would be tied up in court, potentially halting the very stabilization efforts that could get U.S. troops home faster, the aides said.
Yet Democrats fumed that Bush could have worked out the technical fix sooner if he had wanted, without rejecting an entire bill that contains extra help and money for troops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/w...em&ex=1199077200&en=76827bf3c9613f93&ei=5087