Democrats predict they can win Iraq vote

Source: Associated Press

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, as the House planned to vote on legislation that would order troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.

Democrats predicted the bill would pass, albeit narrowly, while Republicans said setting a timetable on the war would hand a victory to terrorists.

Several House members said they would not try to block the bill negotiated with the Senate in a bid for party unity despite their desire for an earlier, binding withdrawal date.

"We need to claim victory for our soldiers," said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas. "They have done their job. It's time to bring them home now."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

How long do Democrats think Herr Decider will hold out before he finally buckles?

Hell I hope he does veto it.

The likely resolution will be that another bill will be sent to him but if they (Pelosi) can get this back through they may be able to give yet another on to W to veto and so and so on. Let him veto it. Pelosi is just getting stronger by the day and it is clear that the people want it.

I want to hear Bush utter three words to Congress: "Okay, you win."

it would be my suggestion to the House and Senate to send him one with even more restrictions, and with each veto, ratchet up the restrictions. Eventually, * will get the picture that he's not working with a rubber-stamp Congress anymore.

can't he just use one of his famous "signing statements"? I'm not a constitutional scholar, but don't signing statements provide him cover while allowing him to skirt the actual law in question? I realize he wants a showdown with Congress so he can try & regain some leverage in this fight.

I'm not a lawyer, but I took Constitutional Law in college, and know quite a bit about it. There is no precedent whatsoever for the President signing bills passed by Congress with his fingers crossed behind his back, and adding a "statement" that the law doesn't apply to him and his regime. It is plain tyranny. It is illegal.

It's possible he doesn't want to kill this bill that way because it will bring all his "signing statements"--hundreds of them--into question. Congress could end up passing a law against them, that would put Bush/Cheney & Co. in more jeopardy of prosecution (for torture, for instance).

That is only one of MANY Constitutional crises that are possible with this regime. In the past, Presidents have tried to act in the spirit of the law, or have at least tried to obey the letter of the law. And when they don't, it's quite obvious. Nixon conspiring on a hush fund for political burglars. He had to resign. Reagan running an illegal war against Nicaragua. Congressional investigation; some of his underlings were jailed (--but were then pardoned by G. Ford). On major war, both LBJ and Bush II felt obliged to take the matter to Congress in some fashion (even if it was bogus--and, at bottom, unconstitutional--no Congressional declaration of war, as there should have been). But the Bush II regime has gotten so out of line--so tyrannical--that they have OPENLY broken the law, and have furthermore spat upon the law--showed open contempt for it. One example is domestic spying without court oversight. Another is the "signing statements." Another is the use of RNC web servers for official business, and then--apparently--erasing 5,000 emails so that nobody can review what they did. Another is use of the Dept. of Justice for political purposes--hiring and firing in order to politically influence prosecutions (that is obstruction of justice). They have furthermore defied the Supreme Court on the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. They have basically shredded the Bill of Rights.

And any of these actions--and many more--could bring about a Constitutional crisis at any time. (Defiance of Congressional subpoenas is one that is heating up right now.)

So all this may be why he's going to veto the bill. His power to veto is real. Congress can't challenge it directly, except by overriding it, which requires a 2/3 vote--iffy, with this Diebold/ES&S-shaped Democratic majority.

I'm not at all happy with the bill. Really, he could just sign it--then ignore all the soft language about "timelines." What's to stop him? But if he does veto it--which is likely--Congress should come back with a stronger bill, with hard timelines and very short term funding. He's going to use whatever funding them give him to ESCALATE the war. Hard timelines and short term funding gives them stronger power to curtail him, and to impeach him, when he defies the will of Congress.