Dependable Erection

Friday, December 28, 2007

Who makes our foreign policy?

President George W. Bush intends to veto defense legislation after Iraq objected to a provision that could freeze its assets in the United States if Americans sue the country, the White House said on Friday.

Iraqi officials raised their concerns with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about 10 days ago and when administration officials took a closer look at the provision they agreed that it could pose "grave financial risk" for Iraq, tying up assets needed for reconstruction, the White House said.

. . .

Congressional Democratic leaders House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the administration should have raised its objections earlier.

"It is unfortunate that the president will not sign this critical legislation," they said in a statement. "Instead, 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."

. . .

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who sponsored the provision, said it was aimed at allowing American victims of terrorism to take countries responsible to court, such as Iran for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Bush's veto, expected by December 31, would not interrupt funding for the Pentagon and Iraq war since separate legislation provides more than $500 billion for the year.


Link

Two things.

First, since when does the POTUS take his foreign policy decisions from foreign nations?

And second, i knew that the Iraq War was funded via a separate, off-budget line. But since when does the Pentagon get its funding from something other than the Defense appropriation?

UPDATE: Sweet Jesus, this is even worse than it appears at first glance.

UPDATE II (1/3/08): Today's "must read" over at TPM delves deeper into this.

Labels:

posted by Barry at 6:32 PM Digg this

12 Comments:

  • 1. You misapprehend the issue. Yes, the President makes our foreign policy, not the socialists in congress.

    2. Interesting you need DailyKos to tell you what to think about this issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 PM  

  • 1)The president is vetoing a bill because the Iraqis think it's a bad idea.

    2)If there's good info at dKos, what's the problem with that?

    I'm sure that Captain's Quarters approves of the President vetoing a spending bill at the request of the Iraqis, right?

    Tell me, what part of the issue am i misapprehending? According to WaPo, this bill passed the Senate 92-3, and the House 370 - 49. I wasn't aware that many members of the Republican Party had become Socialists.

    Unless you're just a fucking moran with dick for brains who's run out of Cheetos.

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:37 PM  

  • In fact, if i had taken a few extra minutes to be a bit more precise in my headline writing, i would have noted that this is an appropriations bill, not a foreign policy bill.

    Last i checked the Constitution, apporpirtions were very clearly part of the Congress' job, which makes it doubly appalling that the president would veto this bill at the behest of a foreign government; but not at all surprising that our anonymous friend wouldn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about.

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:47 PM  

  • As I recall, if the president fails to sign a bill while Congress is in session, it becomes law automatically. So we'll have Congress saying that the bill is law, and the president saying it isn't. This could be headed to the Supreme Court.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 AM  

  • This sounds even stupider than when Bush issued his pardon for Scooter.

    By Blogger Joseph H. Vilas, at 11:25 AM  

  • The idea of the Supreme Court making this decision does not exactly fill me with confidence. And of course, that assumes that the Democrats (or Socialists, for you mouth breathers) in Congress actually develop the balls to make a case of this.

    It is absolutely stunning to me that there remain any Bush supporters, no matter how far to the right your politics, who are comfortable with this evisceration of Constitutional government.

    By Blogger Barry, at 12:16 PM  

  • Well, it doesn't fill me with confidence either. Here's how I call it (assuming it goes that far): Siding with the Bush administration, as usual, are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. On the side of the law, the Constitution, and Congress, we have Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. So it comes down to how honest Anthony Kennedy chooses to be.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:13 PM  

  • pocket veto - The Constitution grants the President 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the President has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law.

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/pocket_veto.htm

    This instrument of presidential power, known as the “pocket veto,” was first used in 1812 by President James Madison. Unlike the regular veto, which is subject to a congressional override, a pocket veto is “absolute” because it is not returned to Congress.

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf

    Firmly established since about forever. SCOTUS doesn't get into it at all.

    Maybe, if it were important enough to them to do their job, Congress could get their work done in a timely fashion or care enough to stay in session so the pocket veto can't be used. Or, if support is so strong, they can bestir themselves for 15 minutes and pass the thing again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 AM  

  • Except that the Senate has been in session during that time. The whole purpose of the pro-forma session was to prevent adjournment and nullify the possibility of any recess appointments.

    Under those conditions, the pocket veto is simply not applicable.

    By Blogger Barry, at 9:15 AM  

  • The whole purpose of the pro-forma session was to prevent adjournment and nullify the possibility of any recess appointments.

    Both recess appointments and pocket vetos go back to the founding of the country and are the well-established Constitutional prerogative of the President.

    Using a maneuver claiming to be "in session" for an extended period of time when you're not actually in session and conducting the nation's business is the Democrat's new and abusive-to-the-Constitution practice.

    Let me repeat. Instead of resorting to petty little partisan tricks, the Democrat Congress needs to do what they promised and quit screwing around and do their work in a timely fashion.

    Their approval rating is substantially lower than the President's and sometimes approaches the single digits. And deservedly so.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:31 AM  

  • No one is denying the consitutionality of either the pocket veto or the recess appointment.

    similarly, no one, at least from my side of the fence, denies the need for the Democratic congressional leadership to grow a pair and stand up to the more odious policies of the Bush administration.

    However, neither of those is the issue here.

    The Senate remained in session, therefore, the pocket veto is not applicable. There are three possible outcomes now. Either the Senate caves, Bush caves, or the Supreme Court decides. Bush probably isn't going to back down. If it goes to the Supreme Court, who knows what happens.

    By Blogger Barry, at 10:43 AM  

  • So you admit that the Constitutionally questionable problem is the Democrat's new tactic of pretending to remain in session while not actually remaining is session in an attempt to prevent the Prez from exercising his Constitutionally granted prerogatives. Got it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home