by James Oliphant
This is what happens when you read the fine print.
President Bush Friday vetoed the massive Defense Authorization Act that hit his desk earlier this month because of a provision that would allow Iraqis to sue their government in federal court in the United States for damages over injuries suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. This didn't sit well with the current Iraqi government which, of course, would have to pay the tab.
"The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Friday from the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. The White House says the provision would imperil Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks (and indeed, even perhaps force the Iraqi government to pull those assets out of the country).
The provision, said a senior administration official, "would expose both the assets of the Development Fund for Iraq and assets of the Central Bank of Iraq to prejudgment attachment, potentially tying up billions in core Iraqi assets while lawyers go about arguing the merits of cases and the reasonableness of the actions in courthouses."
The problem is that the bill also contains a pay raise for those serving in the armed forces. And since the president doesn't have the power to veto line items, the entire bill has to be scratched.
Congress can't fix it because its members are scattered for the holidays, so the bill won't be resubmitted to the president until some time in January. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pick up the pieces.
They say that if the White House had just informed them that the president had a problem with the bill, they could have fixed it while members were still in Washington. “Despite the administration’s earlier support for the Department of Defense authorization bill, it appears that President Bush plans to veto this legislation, which is crucial to our armed forces and their families,” Reid and Pelosi said in a joint statement.
The White House says it will work to make the pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1. White House officials said that congressional leaders knew the administration was unhappy with the language in the bill, but conceded that no veto threat was ever made on the issue.
Plaintiffs have used the federal courts in the past to sue the governments of Iran and Libya, among others, for state-sponsored terrorism. A key sticking point in the negotiations that restored Libya's diplomatic relationship with the United States was the settlement of lawsuits stemming from the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. But because Iraq is now an ally, it becomes a thornier issue.
(Incidentally, the Senate remains technically in session. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has been banging the gavel and holding seven-second sessions each morning in an empty chamber to prevent the White House from making recess appointments. No word yet whether he shouts "I'm the king of the world!" when he does so.)
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Why does George Bush hate America??? Why does he hate the troops???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | December 28, 2007 3:11 PM
"The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States," deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Friday from the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. The White House says the provision would imperil Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks (and indeed, even perhaps force the Iraqi government to pull those assets out of the country)."
The new Democratic government of Iraq?
What a flipping joke, Iraq doesn't even have a funtioning government or a funtioning military a good 5 years after the Neonuts pre-emptivly invaded, that's why W. has 160,000 of our troops over there.
How many more days does this village idiot from Crawford, Tx. have left?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushclock.htm
Posted by: John E | December 28, 2007 4:08 PM
Too bad those "Iraqi assets" aren't paying the tab for the 160,000 troops and Blackwater mercenaries we are providing them.
"...a provision that would allow Iraqis to sue their government in federal court in the United States for damages over injuries suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime."
Huh? Any links out there that would explain this and why OUR courts would be used for this purpose?
Posted by: DD | December 28, 2007 5:02 PM
"BUSH SPEAKS"
BAH HUMBUG AND BAH HUMBUG TO YOU TOO.
IT WASN'T THE RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE NONE DONE SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH TO MAKE NOTE OF.
IT WAS THE MILITARY PAY RAISE THAT DID IT AND BUSH KNOWS IT. THAT WAS THE STICKLER IN HIS MIND. HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THE VETS, BECAUSE THEY COULD OF GONE AWOL LIKE HIM. HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE A UNITED STATES GUARDSMEN OR GUARDSWOMAN A PAY RAISE BECAUSE THEY COULD OF GONE AWOL LIKE HIM AND VALIDATED HIS SHORT LIVED STAY IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.
HE DID IT BECAUSE HE IS THE VETO MAN WHO HEARS THE VOICES RELATING TO DOMESTIC SPENDING AND DOMESTIC WOES IN AMERICA.
NOT MY PROBLEM. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNNELING EVERY DIME IN THAT AMERICAN TREASURY.
HE DID IT BECAUSE CHRIS DODD CAME BACK AND RUINED HIS IMMUNITY DEAL WITH AT&T AND VERIZON WIRELESS AND NOW THEY WILL HAVE TO STAND TRIAL, AND THE WHITEHOUSE WILL HAVE TO GIVE UP THAT INFORMATION.
HE DID IT BECAUSE HE CAN BREAK THE LAW, AND SAY HE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW, BUT GIVE ME IMMUNITY BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE YOU WILL SEE THAT HE ACTUALLY DID BREAK THE LAW. YES I RAPED YOU, BUT GIVE ME IMMUNITY AND THEN I WILL ATTEST TO RAPING YOU, EVEN THOUGH I AM TELLING YOU I DID.
HITLER DID THAT TOO, AND EVERY DAY HE WOKE UP IN AMAZE HOW THE AVERAGE PERSON AGREED WITH THE LOGIC OF AFTER THE FACT!
SO DOES THIS MEAN SEC. GATES IS GOING TO LAY OFF ONE AMERICAN FOR EVERY IRAQI? SO DOES THIS MEAN SEC GATES IS GOING TO FINALLY FIND OUT WHO THE REAL AL QUEDA IS. SUNNI ON MONDAY, SHIITES ON SUNDAY, AND SAUDI ARABIA THE REST OF THE WEEK.
YEA YOU GO BIG POPPY, I'M THROWING MY HAND IN THE AIR AND WAIVING THEM LIKE I JUST DON'T CARE. BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY CALL HIM BIG POPPY.
JIM WEBB! TRUE STATEMAN
Posted by: Roger Morris | December 28, 2007 5:39 PM
This article neglects to mention that the President is not technically vetoing the bill (sending it back to Congress with objections), but is rather attempting a "pocket veto.' However, Bush is ignorant of the provisions of the Constitution. Congress has to adjourn for a pocket veto (Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 2). As long as at least one house of Congress is in session, Congress can not adjourn (Article 1, Section 5, paragraph 4). Since Congress isn't adjourned, by not signing the bill and not vetoing it, Bush will in fact make it law (Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 2). This is what happens when the American people let people who are ignorant of the Constitution even get close to being elected.
The fact at hand remains, however, that the President would be attempting to take a pay raise away from military members, if he could figure out how. What an @$$.
Posted by: Patrick | December 28, 2007 6:40 PM
Considering that this defense bill passed the House 370-49 and cleared the Senate on a 90-3 vote, I expect an adequate explanation from the Bush apologists as to why this executive "oversight" was foreseen sooner?
Between the do-nothing Congresses of 2001-2006 and shenanigans such as this latest debacle, I am amazed that any Republican can hold their head up.
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | December 28, 2007 6:57 PM
Frank Lautenberg is and old jerk. The sad truth is the Dems know it too.
Bush is using a pocket veto which goes back to Harry Truman days to show Lautenberg for what he is an---!
Lautenbergs stunt couldn't have succeeded without partisan playboys Dickie Durbin and Dingy Harry Reid the dynamic duo read it and weep stupid Dems you brought it on your selves.
I am never surprised at what these Dems will do to wreck our nation and our troops. Lautenberg is like 75 had a nuff fun idiots--Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 28, 2007 8:31 PM
George Bush does not hate America or the troops, he detests them. There is a difference, you know. But not as much as Dick Cheney does.
Now just who in Iraq told GW to veto this bill? He was on the verge of signing it until the Iraqis saw something THEY did not like. Imagine that!
Posted by: GW | December 28, 2007 9:13 PM
Pelosi and Reid are lower than pond scum.
These two will do anything to destroy our relationship with Iraq and subvert our military.
No wonder the dem controlled Congress has an 11% approval rating.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 28, 2007 9:59 PM
Bush first sold out when he took Libya off the list of nations that sponsor terrorism before they had completed the compensation to the families of the Pan Am 103 bombing. All he cares about is padding the wallets of his oil buddies. He is the worst kind of traitor---one who sells out his country and it's citizens for money.
Posted by: Bob | December 29, 2007 10:33 AM
Patrick,
Not that it matters much, but you are wrong.
First, it is simply untrue, as you have stated, that “As long as at least one house of Congress is in session, Congress can not adjourn.” Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.” The language implies that: 1) either House, during the Session of Congress, can adjourn for more than three days if it has the consent of the other House; and 2) either House can adjourn without the consent of the other if Congress is not in session. So, yes, either House can adjourn even if the other remains in session.
Second, it is also untrue that the entire “Congress has to adjourn for a pocket veto . . .” as you have suggested. The entire Congress doesn’t have to adjourn. It is enough that the House in which the bill originated has adjourned.
The President is required to return a vetoed bill “with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, . . .” (U.S. Const., Art. I., Sec. 7, Cl. 2.) Thus, if “Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return” – meaning its return to the house in which the bill originated – “it shall not be a Law.” (See the Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 679-82 (1929).) That means that the House to which the bill must be returned has to be “in session.” (Id., at 682-83.) So, for example, if the bill originated in the House of Representatives, and the House in recess due to an adjournment, a pocket veto will operated to kill the legislation even if the Senate is in session. The same is true if the bill arose in the Senate and only the House is still in session.
Consequently, if the defense authorization bill arose in the House of Representatives, it is dead. The House is not in session, meaning the President can’t return the bill to the House like the Constitution says he must.
Furthermore, even if the bill arose in the Senate, it is arguable that Harry Reid’s sham arrangement – having Senator Webb show and gavel a mock session every day – isn’t enough to defeat a pocket veto. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the “House” to which a vetoed bill must be returned, under Article I, Section 7, must be one “sitting in an organized capacity for the transaction of business, and having authority to receive the return, enter the President's objections on its journal, and proceed to reconsider the bill; and that no return can be made to the House when it is not in session as a collective body, and its members are dispersed.” (Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. at 683.) A quorum call in the Senate right now will return 1 member present, all others being absent on vacation or out campaigning. That is not sufficient to constitute a quorum. (See U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 5, Cl. 1, stating that a “Quorum to do Business” is a majority of the members..) Thus, Webb’s presence and mock sessions couldn’t defeat a pocket veto even if the bill arose in the Senate.
Posted by: John W. | December 30, 2007 8:21 AM
BLACKMAIL
I guess, because of our debt, that foreign countries can now dictate our foreign policies. Whats next, will China tell us to give up Taiwan or they will cash in their US treasury notes? It would bankrupt the US overnight. Maybe it has already happened just a bit more subtle. Russia said they would defeat us without firing a shot and failed..... now Red China can and our republican friends want more tax cuts!!!!
Posted by: sam | January 6, 2008 4:34 PM
Regardless of the all the bantering back and forth, the bottom line is that Pres. Bush needs to look at the needs of our military first and foremost, men and women with families to support. I think he's given enough to other countries and really needs to look at his own country and give OUR people support. Does he have any idea how our own military families are seeking out food stamps, applying for WIC just to put food on the table for their families? What the heck is wrong with this country!!
Posted by: Donna DeAngelis | January 16, 2008 10:10 AM
Sigh. Previous bills guarantee the military a 3% raise January 1st, but this bill would add another half percent as well as allow considerable monies towards new recruit bonuses and reenlistment bonuses. That is just on the soldier level. The amount of money it levies to the military for other items--like all of the upgrading and improving programs for various military vehicles--is staggering. Without this bill, the US Armed Forces are hamstrung, operating on a basic budget which allows for no improvement or retention incentive for its members.
Shame on Congress for trying to backdoor their own interests into important bills, shame on them again for not allowing a line-item veto, and shame on W for holding up important legislation
Posted by: Adam Treen | January 24, 2008 8:25 AM