More on Bush's VETO

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Yesterday we brought you President Bush fulfilling his vow to veto the surrender bill the Democrats tried to shove down America's throat and compliments of Jules Crittenden (thanks for the email) we have the request of a Gold Star Father, and some words for the left and the Democrats in Congress and the Senate.

George Bush vetoed the surrender bill today with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga wanted him to ue the pen to sign that bill, and called to make sure he was going to do it.

Larry Gwin, former XO of 2/7 Cav, veteran of the Ia Drang battles of 1965 and author of “Baptism, A Vietnam Memoir,” is very familiar with death in war. He has not been a great fan of this war but has stated all along that once troops are committed, the nation must be behind them to the end. He circulated the following among some friends the other day and said I could run it. The Democratic-controlled Congress is giving Gwin a flashback. I’m guessing he’s not the only one:

Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq

Am I wrong, or am I wrong? It looks like there’s going to be a Constitutional crisis on the war in Iraq – a showdown between Congress and the President. Congress has voted to tie military funding to a timetable for withdrawal, and the President has vowed to veto their bill. That will put the burden back on Congress to reconsider legislation that will fund the war, i.e. support the troops, and if they refuse, the Defense Department’s budget is going to take a hit.

The Democrats insist that what they’re doing is obeying the will of the people, as demonstrated by the November elections that gave them a majority in both houses. What a crock that is! There never was any referendum on the war– just a straight election for representatives in the House and Senate, some of whom supported the war, and some of whom didn’t. It seems to me that the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, now think they can ram a surrender down our throats in the name of the people, even though there has never been a specific referendum on making a stand or withdrawing in Iraq. So, who is right?

There is MUCH more to this letter and I suggest everone go read the full thing.

Two NYT articles and one Wapo article all showing basically the same thing, Bush told the Democrats in Congress and the Senate that he would not sign a surrender bill and knowing and ADMITTING that they did not have the votes to override the veto they still sent through the bill stuffed full of pork and setting artificial, arbitrary timelines.

Sending through a bill knowing it will be vetoed, IF you have the votes to override a veto is simply "process" but sending through a bill you know will be vetoed knowing and admitting beforehand that you do not have the votes to override that veto is the height of stupidityand irresponsibility and as the letter above as well as all the letters I have posted here in the last weeks as well as other blogs that have posted letters from our military to those that would try to force surrender down America's throat, our military is FIRMLY behind President Bush in this veto!!!!!

Here is the full text of the President's remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

So, how DID our troops feel about some of the pork that was stuffed into that Emergency Supplemental Bill?

Here are a couple that I think have made it quite clear.



They refer to this:

Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.

Guess we know what THOSE two soliders feel about Pelosi and Reid now, don't we?

How do our Veterans feel about this veto?

Bush Makes Right Move On Veto, Says American Legion:

Washington, DC (May 1, 2007) – “Sad but necessary,” was the way The National Commander of The American Legion Paul A. Morin described President Bush’s veto earlier today of an Iraq war spending bill that included timelines for withdrawing troops from the region.

“The American Legion is glad that the president vetoed this irresponsible legislation but saddened that Congress let it get this far,” Morin said. “First the House passed a blueprint for disaster and then the Senate passed a recipe for surrender. There can only be one commander in chief and he should be the one to determine when the mission is complete.”

Morin said it is essential that Congress immediately pass a bill that the president can sign – one that contains the necessary funding but not the deadlines. “The troops need Congress to fund their mission. It is immoral for Congress to approve a military mission and then not want to pay for it once the troops are in harm’s way. You can not possibly say `I support the troops but I don’t want to pay for their bullets, beans and billeting while in combat.’”

Morin pointed out that the bill contained billions of dollars in unrelated pork. “The congressional leadership knew that the only way they could pass this cut-and-run proposal was to entice members to vote for funding unrelated projects. Congress needs to pass a serious funding bill to win the war and it needs to pass it now,” Morin said.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, has voiced concern that the timeline would send a message to the enemy to keep fighting. “Just a few months ago the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. Petraeus to lead the Iraq mission. Let’s give him a chance to succeed,” Morin said. “We also can not send a message to our allies that we will abandon them in their time of need. We made that mistake in Vietnam and Somalia – examples that were cited by Osama bin Laden himself.”

Founded in 1919, the 2.7 million-member American Legion is the nation’s preeminent service organization for veterans of the U.S. armed forces, including active duty, National Guard and Reserves, and their families. A powerful voice for veterans in Washington, The American Legion drafted the original GI Bill and was instrumental in establishing the agency that today is the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs.

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

That answers that doesn't it?

Oliver North brings us more words from our troops:

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers.

I’m not buying any of it — and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Mr. Reid announced that “this war is lost,” I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home and some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with the Majority Leader’s assessment.

• One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: “Good thing this guy Reid wasn’t around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat.’”

• Another, a National Guardsman, recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that the Senate Majority Leader has become “Al Qaeda’s most powerful ally.”

• At Mississippi State University, a Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River — now a college student — asked me, “Do those people who think we’ve lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?”

It’s an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it’s time for Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war. This way, they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It’s a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam — 32 years ago next week — look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of the Republic of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than five million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates — no one knows for sure — at least a million others perished.

Read the rest....

They are right, we do not see the retreat in defeat crowd speak much about the consequences of withdrawal because to do so is to admit that they learned nothing from Vietnam and what happened after our soldiers had defeat rammed down their throat.



Cambodia Killing Fields, do a search, learn for yourself what happened because we withdrew before allowing our troops to finish their jobs.



These are the ramifications of a premature withdrawal, these are the consequences the Democrats in Congress and the Senate do everything in their power to avoid mentioning.

Now although I do not hold much stock in "polls" for a variety of reasons I have explained on different occasions, many of my commenters try to toss one poll after another out there to claim "they speak with the majority", well, fine then... see how you like gallups latest.

You could say they are right, American's DO favor a timetable BUT, take a look at the numbers.

Only 1 in 3 Americans favor timetable having troops out of Iraq by mid-2008

Now for the record, I still stand by the fact that America votes in the President and it is then the presidents decisions, as commander in chief, on how to conduct the war on terror, so polls mean exactly DIDDLY, whether they favor my position or not.

It is how our country works.

Then we have another American Hero that reads Baghdad Reid the riot act for his careless, dangerous words:

WASHINGTON - A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: "We need to stay here and help rebuild."

In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.

"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.

Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family's house, or watching "several terrorists die" on the same strip of pavement.

But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has "turned to complete s- - -" during a bloody insurgency.

He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.

"If Iraq didn't want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?" he asked.

"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.

"We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, 'Hey, that's not nice' again."

"And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time."

Rock's candid e-mail swept across the Internet after Dollard posted it on his site, and it was picked up by the Drudge Report and numerous other Web sites.

"What does [Reid] know about us 'losing' besides what he wants to believe? The truth is that we are pushing al Qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. We are here to support a nation."

Harsh words, no sugar coating the situation in iraq, but a man that understands honor and completing the mission.

Right in a Left World has a great post up disecting and email he received from Pelosi whom he says is "in a tither" acting like she didn't expect the veto.... now THAT is funny since the President told them WEEKS ago, he would veto it.

So, I end this post as I ended yesterdays VETO post.

To Pelosi, Baghdad Reid and everyone that would try to ram surrender down America's throat, this is for you!!!!


Our troops deserve to be listened to, it is THEM risking their lives, it is THEM fighting to keep us safe, it is THEM witnessing the realities on the ground while we sit on our asses here at home, watch the news and determine WE know more about what is happening in Iraq than they do.

Thank you Mr. President for listening to our soldiers on the ground.

.