Bush Will Veto Defense Policy Measure, Spokesman Says (Update2)
By Lorraine Woellert and Roger Runningen
Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush will veto a measure giving pay increases to U.S. troops because it has a provision that would open up the Iraqi government to lawsuits for crimes committed under Saddam Hussein, the administration said.
The provision ``would potentially tie up billions of dollars in Iraqi assets in lawsuits for crimes committed in the prior regime,'' White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said. ``It is not in the interest of the U.S. or Iraq.''
***************************************88
Well isn't this just peachy. After all the rants and raves about Democrats holding up money for the troops and wounded vets The Defense Appropriations Bill still doesn't suit The Decider. Or more accurately, doesn't suit the Iraqi's. Seems some Americans might want some compensation from being tortured by Saddam and instead of standing up for our guys, the Bushies sell them out to a foreign government. Damned bloodsucking trial lawyers anyway.
Does anyone else out there think this is beyond strange even for the Bush Administration. A foreign government essentially given defacto veto power over American lawmaking. You'd think the wingnut nativists would be all over this demanding America sovereignty or some such. But then again Iraq is their special project for Americanizing the Middle East. Nothing is to good for Iraq. No amount of American blood nor treasure shall be spared to achieve their glorious victory over the Islamofascists. Who cares about the constitutional rights of a few, no doubt liberal, bellyaching torture survivors.
Of course the Democrats will fall all over themselves to give His Highness whatever is demanded. The whole bunch are making me more ill every day.
UPDATE: From Flopping Aces-predictable as always
"Trial Lawyers Rear Their Ugly Heads
For months, hell years, they have done their best to derail any progress in Iraq and now they've slipped in a provision they surely must of known would cause a veto.
Why would they do that?
To score political points. A pathetic attempt to say "hey, it's not our fault, it's his."
Nancy and Harry say that the President should of said something earlier and then make this idiotic statement:
"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."
Bowing to the demands? The freakin gall of these people. Iraq is on the right track, violence is down, and they are now doing their best to reconcile but Nancy and Harry want much needed money to be frozen in place....to score political points.
We cannot let the reconstruction of that country be stopped by hundreds of trial lawyers.
The Democrats who bowed to the trial lawyers and slipped this in should be ashamed.
**********************************
Aside from the odious viewpoint that the Iraqi government should have anything to say about our countries legislative actions, the Bush administration was micromanaging every detail of this bill from the beginning, threatening a veto if they didn't get everything they wanted. To blame this on dems is beyond pathetic.
*******************************888
UPDATE 2;
From the WAPOIn a "statement of disapproval," or pocket veto that lets the bill expire Dec. 31, Bush said 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 U.S. businesses.
********************************
So we get the real reason for the Bushies angst. It could be bad for American Bidness. It never ends, it seems.
