Bush attempts to pocket veto defence bill.

[Beowulf]

Original Presidentally proposed pay raise: 3.0%
Pay raise as passed by Congress: 3.5%

Yeah, he's really vetoing it over the pay raise.

[SirNitram]

Original Presidentally proposed pay raise: 3.0%
Pay raise as passed by Congress: 3.5%

Yeah, he's really vetoing it over the pay raise.

I'm just listing what he's on record for 'strongly opposing'.

[quote=""Statement of Administration Policy" on H.R. 1585, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,""]Military Pay: The Administration strongly opposes sections 601 and 606. The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase is unnecessary.[/quote]

[Ritterin Sophia]

A look over of the bill itself says that he might be vetoing it because it also contains a pay raise for the troops(Which he's opposed before, back in May), and limits on putting up antimissile sites in Europe.

Good, I hope it doesn't pass without the removal of that ABM limitation, but considering he's opposed troop raises before, that's his reason.

Ghetto Edit: Good, I hope it doesn't pass without the removal of that ABM limitation, but considering he's opposed troop raises before, that's one of his reasons, alongside the Iraqi Assets part, which is bogus.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well it's not like sire power trip hasn't lied before...

[Ryan Thunder]

This sweeping abuse of executive power is beyond absurd. Now Bush says that, essentially, he has the power to declare Congress in or out of session.
Fund the military.

That's it? So he's just vetoing stuff for the hell of it now?

Pathetic...

The claimed reason for the dual-veto is that the bill would threaten Iraqi assets in US banks to being claimed in civil suits. Except that that only is possible with state sponsors of terrorism, and a specific law already prevents this from happening with Iraqi funds(Detailed in the thread I made earlier). This obviously is a lie.

A look over of the bill itself says that he might be vetoing it because it also contains a pay raise for the troops(Which he's opposed before, back in May), and limits on putting up antimissile sites in Europe.

Well the ABM stuff I might agree with but the rest just reeks of bullshit to me.

[Beowulf]

So where, in the official statement, is there mention of any reason other than section 1083 being the reason why the bill was vetoed?

Note: the difference in pay between the bill, and what has already previously been authorized, amounts to about $10/month for the lower enlisted ranks.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well we know the neo-con's definition of "support the troops" is to use them for propaganda, and then dispose of them after they have ceased to be usefull.

[SirNitram]

So where, in the official statement, is there mention of any reason other than section 1083 being the reason why the bill was vetoed?

Note: the difference in pay between the bill, and what has already previously been authorized, amounts to about $10/month for the lower enlisted ranks.

Wow, Beowulf. It's like you haven't read the thread. Because the reason given for the veto has been pointed out to be a flat-out lie. Why don't you go try again.

[Beowulf]

(c) Application to Pending Cases-

(1) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by this section shall apply to any claim arising under section 1605A of title 28, United States Code.

(2) PRIOR ACTIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- With respect to any action that--

(i) was brought under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division A of Public Law 104-208), before the date of the enactment of this Act,

(ii) relied upon either such provision as creating a cause of action,

(iii) has been adversely affected on the grounds that either or both of these provisions fail to create a cause of action against the state, and

(iv) as of such date of enactment, is before the courts in any form, including on appeal or motion under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

that action, and any judgment in the action shall, on motion made by plaintiffs to the United States district court where the action was initially brought, or judgment in the action was initially entered, be given effect as if the action had originally been filed under section 1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code.

(B) DEFENSES WAIVED- The defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and limitation period are waived--

(i) in any action with respect to which a motion is made under subparagraph (A), or

(ii) in any action that was originally brought, before the date of the enactment of this Act, under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division A of Public Law 104-208), and is refiled under section 1605A(c) of title 28, United States Code,

to the extent such defenses are based on the claim in the action.

(C) TIME LIMITATIONS- A motion may be made or an action may be refiled under subparagraph (A) only--

(i) if the original action was commenced not later than the latter of--

(I) 10 years after April 24, 1996; or

(II) 10 years after the cause of action arose; and

(ii) within the 60-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) RELATED ACTIONS- If an action arising out of an act or incident has been timely commenced under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or section 589 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of division A of Public Law 104-208), any other action arising out of the same act or incident may be brought under section 1605A of title 28, United States Code, if the action is commenced not later than the latter of 60 days after--

(A) the date of the entry of judgment in the original action; or

(B) the date of the enactment of this Act.

(4) PRESERVING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS- Nothing in section 1503 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11, 117 Stat. 579) has ever authorized, directly or indirectly, the making inapplicable of any provision of chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, or the removal of the jurisdiction of any court of the United States.

You = wrong.

[SirNitram]

Right then. We're to believe, in your brain-damaged view, that he ignored this when he sent his goons down to help craft this bill, then suddenly developed a pressing need to perform a double-veto of dubious legality? No, not buying it, Beowulf.

It helps that there is already quite a bit in the way of such lawsuits, for those who spend ten seconds checking. Like the AP

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.

And it's not like the legality of these existing-measures haven't already proven themselves.

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.

So in short, you're full of shit. But you apparently think you can just say 'Nu-uh', quote legalese, and use freakin' script-kiddie speech as rebuttals.

[Beowulf]

It's obvious that he's doing it this way to secure more power to the executive branch. However, that in no way implies that his stated reason for vetoing the bill is a lie. It's a 690 page bill. Have you tried reading through it? It was caught by the Iraqi government shortly after the bill was passed by Congress. Your own source disagrees with you, BTW:

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.

Unless Bush vetoes the legislation, the Iraqis have threatened to withdraw all of their money from the U.S. financial system to protect it from the lawsuits, Democrats said. The White House contends the legislation subject to the Bush veto would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.

The bill specifically overrides the previous exemption. But, of course, it's just a bunch of meaningless legalese.

Nothing ... has ever authorized, directly or indirectly, the making inapplicable...or the removal of the jurisdiction of any court

Suck it, hatfucker.

[SirNitram]

It's obvious that he's doing it this way to secure more power to the executive branch. However, that in no way implies that his stated reason for vetoing the bill is a lie. It's a 690 page bill. Have you tried reading through it? It was caught by the Iraqi government shortly after the bill was passed by Congress. Your own source disagrees with you, BTW:

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.

Unless Bush vetoes the legislation, the Iraqis have threatened to withdraw all of their money from the U.S. financial system to protect it from the lawsuits, Democrats said. The White House contends the legislation subject to the Bush veto would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.

The bill specifically overrides the previous exemption. But, of course, it's just a bunch of meaningless legalese.

Nothing ... has ever authorized, directly or indirectly, the making inapplicable...or the removal of the jurisdiction of any court

Suck it, hatfucker.

Except that there's also legal precedent to take into account, a Presidential 'decree'(For once, the media being honest about Bush), and so forth. And of course, let's not forget what happens when Bush finds a single provision he doesn't approve of:

Bill's language: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Signing Statement:Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Pattern recignition suggests he is, in fact, lying.

[Beowulf]

The bill, as currently written, invalidates the precedent set by the dismissal of those cases, and in fact, allows them to be refiled. Executive Orders can be overridden by legislation, such as, oh, this bill. Any further meaningless objections? Oh, and feelings aren't evidence.

[SirNitram]

The bill, as currently written, invalidates the precedent set by the dismissal of those cases, and in fact, allows them to be refiled. Executive Orders can be overridden by legislation, such as, oh, this bill. Any further meaningless objections? Oh, and feelings aren't evidence.

I did not attempt to put in 'feelings' as evidence, so thanks ever so for hallucinating words into the posts. It's nice to know that when you have nothing to contest a simple analysis of his observed actions, your rebuttal is a flat-out lie.