this does not fit handily into any of the media's prewritten narratives, so i expect it will be largely ignored.

I wonder what it is that George has against a fair judiciary.

The provision that is causing problems would have allowed the victims of the executed Iraqi dictator Saddam to seek compensation in court, Democrats said. The Iraqi government has warned that former U.S. prisoners of war from the first Gulf War might cite this legislation in an attempt to get money from the Iraqi government's reported $25 billion in assets now held in U.S. banks, they say


See peons, justice is only important if it doesn't lessen the amount of money our new client state has invested in our banks...

veto the bill Friday.

Was wondering what the asshole would bury on a Friday. Shrub sure has the nation's priorities in order.

flavor of the month: this does not fit handily into any of the media's prewritten narratives, so i expect it will be largely ignored.

No, it'll be "Obstructionist Democrats hate America" lines again with no explanation.

Iraqi government to damage suits stemming from the Saddam Hussein era would derail Baghdad's efforts to rebuild the country.

So the Iraqi's don't have control over their own OIL -to rebuild their country. I wonder who does?

Any legitimate reason, other than "we want the money?" Wait. I better RTFA first...

I think we have come across the secret way we were going to fund the war! no not really, just kidding

I do see a reason not to let them sue. That money is rightfully Iraq's. That is if you believe he stole it from them.

Ummm. I call Shullbit (rotsky).
1) The assets are still Iraqi assets.
2) The banks are making the profit, not our govt.
3) The assets aren't frozen, unless lawsuits occur.
4) Iraq won't be able to rebuild using that money if they do occur, unless we further foot the bill.

Some well-meaning nitwit probably added the language in there. They should have redacted it before putting it to vote. There's not a really good reason for it in there.

Afternoon_Delight: FTFA: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. ``The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.'


Well then you can save the day liberals. Strike the language and be done with it. Do it for the military that you care so deeply for. Or you can keep whining, blame it all on Rush Limbaugh or whatever.

Your big-money trial lawyer donors are watching...

Yeah, Bush and Co. just LOVE the troops.
FTFA: After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.

NightOwl2255: FTFA: After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.

yeah 'cause the judge had no grounds to award another countries money. The law sucks some times.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:
yeah 'cause the judge had no grounds to award another countries money. The law sucks some times.

FTFA: Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.

The soldiers had a legal right to sue, did so, and won. Then AFTER the fact Bush and Co. decided that Iraq should now, 2003, be exempt. Cause the fact of the matter is Bush and Co. don't give a shiat about the troops. Of course this is a man that actively insured that he would never see a second of combat. And didn't even bother to serve his time in the guard. Instead he spent his guard time in Florida snorting coke off the breast of hookers.

NightOwl2255: Cause the fact of the matter is Bush and Co. don't give a shiat about the troops.

They're props to shrub and friends. Like Schiavo, like the 3000 dead in 9/11, like the rule of law.

Afternoon_Delight: Yeah, so did the Clintons and B. Hussein Obama. Of course, for Bill, Hillary and Barak, they just skipped the military part altogether and went straight to the hookers and blow.

Liberals are are just smarter like that.

Oh man, you're hilarious. I love clowns.

Can you imagine what it would look like if trial attorneys got turned loose on these assets?

It's past time to nut up and cut off the money the Texas dumbass is wasting. This his way or the highway bullshiat is tired. He obviously couldn't care less about our people over in Iraq.

Dancin_In_Anson: Can you imagine what it would look like if trial attorneys got turned loose on these assets?

Good, perhaps they can use them to rebuild Iraq.

FTA: Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.

After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.

The Justice Department also sought to defeat a lawsuit brought by U.S. citizens held hostage during Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. That case has been taken over by lawyers for the new Iraqi government and is ongoing in a Washington federal court.

Can anyone explain why Bush II and the previously Republican Congress hate Americans held hostage, tortured by Saddam? Shiat, we've already spent billions for their country, as well as lost over 3800 military personnel and thousands more wounded and/or disabled.

/Could it be ... SATAN!?!

I guess this means he doesn't want the bases kept open. Cool. We can bring the troops home while the shiat is hitting the fan.

Afternoon_Delight: Say, DIA, what's the deal with a Houston Fark party?

Why don't we have one? You up for it?


A little beer, a little whiskey, crack a few jokes, watch some NFL, shoot some pool - that kind of sh*t.

We need a Houston Fark party. We need it now.


Afternoon_Delight will BE THERE... in person.

Man, you and DIA? Whole bunch of boredom there. I really find it hard to believe you can be an interesting dude. :)

If they are in Iraq and they want money then they should get it like everyone else does: from US taxpayers on bad government contracts gained through connections in the executive branch.

Afternoon_Delight: Say, DIA, what's the deal with a Houston Fark party?

Why don't we have one? You up for it?


A little beer, a little whiskey, crack a few jokes, watch some NFL, shoot some pool - that kind of sh*t.

We need a Houston Fark party. We need it now.


Afternoon_Delight will BE THERE... in person.

Um. Watch out for roofies, DIA?

Afternoon_Delight: Afternoon_Delight will BE THERE... in person.

If I actually believed your profile pic was real, I'd fly there and hump your leg.

Yeah, I agree, reluctently, on this one. Juries would be handing out billion dollar awards like they were candy.

Afternoon_Delight: FTFA: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. ``The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.'

Well then you can save the day liberals. Strike the language and be done with it. Do it for the military that you care so deeply for. Or you can keep whining, blame it all on Rush Limbaugh or whatever.

Your big-money trial lawyer donors are watching...

Um...they can't just "strike the language and be done with it". They have to reintroduce the bill in the House, debate it for several days, when Congressmen can add amendments to it that may need to be also debated and voted on, pass it, introduce it in the Senate, debate it there, where Senators can add admendments that need to be debated and voted on, then pass it in the Senate, then if there are any differences between the bills in the two houses of Congress, they have to send the bill to committee to come up with a new version of the bill, send that to the House to be debated and voted on, pass the combined version in the House, then send it to the Senate to be debated and voted on, pass the combined version in the Senate, then send it to the president, who then signs it (or vetos it, if he finds something he doesn't like in it).

All of this takes quite a bit of time, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.

flavor of the month: this does not fit handily into any of the media's prewritten narratives, so i expect it will be largely ignored.

It will get spun this way and that.

Marcus Aurelius: I wonder what it is that George has against a fair judiciary.

I think the theory is that civil disputes should be settled with small arms fire. That's what we have the Second Amendment for.

Afternoon_Delight: Say, DIA, what's the deal with a Houston Fark party?

Why don't we have one? You up for it?

A little beer, a little whiskey, crack a few jokes, watch some NFL, shoot some pool - that kind of sh*t.

We need a Houston Fark party. We need it now.

I'm 8 hours away! You should make the next TXTFBBQ...This year rumored to be somewhere other than San Antonio...

boomaze: Man, you and DIA? Whole bunch of boredom there. I really find it hard to believe you can be an interesting dude.

Same goes for you...The phrase stated most often by people meeting me for the first time was..."You're really not him..."

Boredom is not an option.
Leishu: Um. Watch out for roofies, DIA?

No worries here...Chances are he's fun people too.

He's pocket vetoing it, even though the Senate's still in session. Bush just loves starting shiat, doesn't he? Why can't he just normal-veto it, and not make a big fight over whether or not he has the power to do this?

Afternoon_Delight: Alright, dude; maybe a Texas Fark party then, with plenty of advance notice.

I don't know, SA or Austin might be a good central location.


We need this thing at some point before Fall '08...

Dude, I've never lived in Texas, but I've driven through plenty of times...you'd need like 40 Fark Parties if you don't want people to be driving for 6+ hours to reach that "central location."

/Texas is farking huuuuuuuge.

I've been contemplating a West Texas party as well...Probably Lubbock...Only 2 hours from there but finding time to organize is a biatch.

You know, there's something that's always struck me as funny... and wasteful... and lazy.

You know the whole furor over line item veto and the furor over pork spending, but no one ever complains about the bill creation themselves (other than seeming pork).

From what I can surmise, items in bills are included as compromises for congress people on the fence about voting, amounting to vote bribes. But what you get are these bloated packages that allow wiggle room and reasons for vetoes and nay votes. It makes the process itself wasteful. Make compromise about promises on future bills or something, not shoveling these comprehensive hodgepodge law wannabes.

Number41: He's pocket vetoing it, even though the Senate's still in session. Bush just loves starting shiat, doesn't he? Why can't he just normal-veto it, and not make a big fight over whether or not he has the power to do this?

Actually, now that I'm reading the article of the constitution, he's probably right on this... he has to return the bill to the House, since it's where it originated, but the House isn't the one in session, so he can pocket veto it.

Could be wrong.

I think A_D should join me at the YearlyKos (*ahem* "NetRootsWhatever") '08 bash, which is going to be in Austin.

/would even think about paying for your $250 fee
//but you'd have to promise to stay the whole time
/and argue with Sam Seder at least once

Number41: He's pocket vetoing it, even though the Senate's still in session. Bush just loves starting shiat, doesn't he? Why can't he just normal-veto it, and not make a big fight over whether or not he has the power to do this?

Ugh. Constitutional crisis, ahoy! Bush is such a douchebag.

I love how bushco has little respect for our Constitution but doesn't hesitate to hide behind it for one second.

Number41: He's pocket vetoing it, even though the Senate's still in session. Bush just loves starting shiat, doesn't he? Why can't he just normal-veto it, and not make a big fight over whether or not he has the power to do this?

Since congress is officially in session, he either has to sign it or veto it. If he doesn't do either, it is enacted even without the president's signature. If congress was out of session, then it would be a pocket veto (pops).

He's pocket vetoing it and in the alternative regular vetoing it so Congress can't retroactively declare that they were or were not in session to counter his choice.

In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, 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.

(link)

Because it's a House bill the Senate's claim to be in session may not matter.

DoWhatNowToWhat: I love how bushco has little respect for our Constitution but doesn't hesitate to hide behind it for one second.

This

/enough with illiterate hillbillies in the White House... the last 7 years for America has been like being Ned Beatty in Deliverance...

ilambiquated:
Marcus Aurelius: I wonder what it is that George has against a fair judiciary.

I think the theory is that civil disputes should be settled with small arms fire. That's what we have the Second Amendment for.

Well, actually, that's largely the method used in Iraq these days.

PlantMan: enough with illiterate hillbillies in the White House

Illiterate hillbilly today, evil genius tomorrow...Whatever it takes.

Afternoon_Delight: needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise,

besides, it's not like the raises won't be retroactive.

And the way he's pocket vetoing it is pathetic. His rationale is essentially "I consider you in adjournment and hence I can pocket veto it, but I'm writing in a note of objection that I'm NOT pocket vetoing it."

So he's basically letting it become law. I don't think the precedent of 'not doing shiat' is going to negate everything else. Is he going to try recess appointments as well?

Man, the Republican Party must be loving their little figurehead right now. Right before a harsh election and their pride & joy is basically giving America another taste of what another four years of a retarded Jesus president is going to do for the nation.

US Constitution: If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

This is important. It says "unless the Congress by their Adjournment." Not the individual house.

Geotpf: Um...they can't just "strike the language and be done with it". They have to reintroduce the bill in the House, debate it for several days, when Congressmen can add amendments to it that may need to be also debated and voted on, pass it, introduce it in the Senate, debate it there, where Senators can add admendments that need to be debated and voted on, then pass it in the Senate, then if there are any differences between the bills in the two houses of Congress, they have to send the bill to committee to come up with a new version of the bill, send that to the House to be debated and voted on, pass the combined version in the House, then send it to the Senate to be debated and voted on, pass the combined version in the Senate, then send it to the president, who then signs it (or vetos it, if he finds something he doesn't like in it).

All of this takes quite a bit of time, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.

They could have if Bush had identified his concern before the bill was passed in Congress.

Seriously: WTF?

This is just asinine. This smacks more of Bush playing politics and trying to make the Democratic Congress look hapless than anything else.

This is NOT the way to handle a minor policy difference.

MisterBill: Since congress is officially in session, he either has to sign it or veto it. If he doesn't do either, it is enacted even without the president's signature. If congress was out of session, then it would be a pocket veto (pops).

Constitution:

If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

[...]

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

It doesn't look like it's relevant that the Senate is in session, since Bush has to return the bill to the House, being a house resolution.

Because People in power are Stupid: Iraqi government to damage suits stemming from the Saddam Hussein era would derail Baghdad's efforts to rebuild the country.

So the Iraqi's don't have control over their own OIL -to rebuild their country. I wonder who does?

Also, where are the actual efforts to rebuild the country?

Bush didn't tell Congress about his concerns before the veto:

Update at 12:29 p.m. ET: Democrats are saying this is the first time they've heard of any administration objections. "The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."

This is douchebaggery of the highest order.

Douchebaggery we wouldn't have to deal with if the goddam Congress would just do what they should do and ITMFA.

I'm so sick of this arsewipe in the White House.

There are only two things that make me think a Dubya visit to Pakistan, sticking his head up through a sunroof would be a bad idea.

One thing is my sense of human decency. The other thing is Dick Cheney.

GWB hates America. He hates Americans unless they give him money and votes. He is a criminal and should be treated as one. 3900 dead American GIs (so far) for no farking reason.

Rot in jail, you farking piece of shiat.

Dancin_In_Anson: PlantMan: enough with illiterate hillbillies in the White House

Illiterate hillbilly today, evil genius tomorrow...Whatever it takes.

Wait... what? Please clarify your point... are you saying W will be acclaimed as an evil genius, or that it takes an evil genius to run the country, or that we should elect an evil genius to the White House?

/ no more evil geniuses in the White House either
// pissed at both parties