The Veto Statement - on an island
Following is the Statement President Bush gave upon announcing
his veto of the bill presented to him by Congress on troop funding.
It is not so much my intention to deride the President as it is
to point out the inaccuracies of thinking that the President has
subscribed to and expects the American public to accept. I have
yet to see anyone or any article that has shown such a statement
for what it actually is, an error in judgement, en toto.
President Bush's veto statement
By The Associated Press Wed May 2, 3:12 AM ET
Text of
President Bush's statement Tuesday on his veto
of a bill to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
Good evening.
Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young 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 the bill.
[ Mr. Bush has substituted his 'opinion of the politicians' who passed the bill for 'the purpose of the bill', not unlike Mr. Bush in substituting his 'intent' to settle not only a Civil War in another country but to demand a 'meeting of the minds' of various ideologies of those specific countries, (something he seems to have problems with in his country), with his "war on terrorism!" ]
Tonight, I will explain the reasons for this veto and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
[ '...working with Congress..' is not the same as dictating terms to Congress. ]
We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.
Here's 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.
[ An interesting characterization. Presuming that the war continues and we "win" this undefined conflict, will not the President, through his Generals, begin dictating that American troops begin to withdraw? And as soon as possible? Possibly even by a specific date? Or maybe not. ]
That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, 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.
[ This is probably one of the biggest fallacies that the President offers in his statement. And, it sounds so-o-o familiar.
The President has said time and time again that he will veto any measure with a
time line in it. Then, he projects that same stubborn view onto the Congress, that
they will require a withdrawal 'regardless of the situation on the ground.' As he
believes, so does he see.
-First, it assumes that nothing will be done, there will be no military action by the troops still in Iraq, between now and the time set for initiating withdrawal. It assumes that they begin immediately to start packing up their equipment and getting it ready to send back to American military bases scattered across the globe; and what conflicts do occur, will do so as a defensive measure in protecting those doing the packing. Well, the President IS the Commander In Chief and they will do what he tells
them, won't they?
-Secondly, it assumes, and probably correctly, that the 'enemy' has grown in number and in strategies since the arrival of American might, and that it will overwhelm what military structure does exist in Iraq upon the exit of American troops. (How did they get so strong?)
-Thirdly, it assumes, without evidence, that the Congress and the American people are unbendable in their perceptions of the conflict. In other words, that 'regardless of the situation on the ground' the Congress, like the President, dictates that the troops will continue their withdrawal as soon as possible, even if the Iraqi people overwhelmingly requested our troops to remain for a specific time and a specific reason. ]
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.
[ First, the "commitment" was yours, Mr. President.
Not mine. It would seem that the President's idea of 'commitment' is "indefinite," that we seem to "owe" some people in some areas of this country .... something. Of course, this totally ignores similar plights and pleas from other countries. ]
Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be
irresponsible.
[ Who's failure, Mr. President? After four years, a determination of success or failure should already be evident. Just how many years
are required in your ever-changing, ever-broadening war of liberation? ]
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 America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.
[ The bill does nothing of the sort. "impossible conditions" are not being thrust upon the commanders--tomorrow--after being decided--today. It isn't as if there has not been ample notice of intent with ample time to plan. It took the President, his cabinet and 'family' members how long to initiate the first action in Afghanistan after 9/11? And did they respond to only 9/11 or were other contingencies taken into account, long before they were needed?
This statement assumes that the military doesn't "plan" anything and merely reacts to
orders from above-the orders being whatever pops out of someones mouth further up the chain of command, even if that source is only two chain-links higher up.
If this is an accurate accounting of how our military is now operating, is it any wonder that we have only accomplished deposing one dictator in four years? ]
This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.
[ According to the Presidents assumptions of how the military operates, who it receives its commands from and what it does in response to those commands, it is operating in chaos and confusion irrespective of whether or not the bill is passed. The military is taking its directions from a politician 6,000 miles away even now, he is known as 'the Commander In Chief' and his orders are to 'keep on keeping on' and 'stay the course,' and other catch phrases that sound commanding.]
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 a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.
[ Ahh, the nature of the beast bites again! ]
The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the 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.
[ Mr. President, may I be the first to let you in on a secret, the Congress is finally recognizing 'the will of the people' and are attempting to implement that will. They are giving you the money, which if it were up to me would be cut off completely right now, this instant, and the troops would begin packing today to come home. Please do not make the political mistake of separating 'the Democrats' from the people they represent. As it is, you have a chance to finally make a difference, but it is up to you, not the Congress. ]
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, Gen. 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.
[ And here, Mr. President, you have presented the impossibility of your mission. It is all predicated on 'the war on terror,' a condition that has existed since the dawn of man and will exist to his extinction, unless man changes his attitude about his fellow man and what he has that you do not. It is a war of ideas and those ideas cannot be changed with the simple pointing of a gun.]
In January, Gen. 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 these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad. And as Gen. Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation.
Congress ought to give Gen. Petraeus's plan a chance to work. In the month 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-Qaida 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.
[ Mr. President, this is all well and good. My only question is why were these objectives not accomplished with the troops that were already there? Why were these 'achieved objectives' done only with the addition of more bodies? Did it take the exact quantity of newly arrived troops to carry out and achieve those tasks? How many thousands of new troops does it take to break up a squad? How many thousands of new troops does it take to squelch a 'car bomb network?' How many thousands of new troops does it take to 'capture a Shia militia leader?' If anything, what this tells us is that the troops that are there are even now being mis-applied and directed even as they were being mis-directed prior to the surge.]
Last week, Gen. 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-Qaida, the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting.
The objective of these al-Qaida 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, Gen. Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al-Qaida's global campaign.
[ Mr. President, why are our troops capturing Shia militia leaders or going after car bomb networks or death squads if al-Qaida is the target? What progress is being made with al-Qaida as the objective? Where are the encouraging reports and successes on al-Qaida objectives? ]
Al-Qaida'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 the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.
We saw the death and destruction al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.
[ They did, Mr. President, you vetoed it. ]
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.
[ Mr. President, the days of blank checks are over. The American public has spoken. ]
I'm confident that with good will 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.
[ Or maybe stop buying $2000 toilet seats? ]
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.
[ Yes, they can. And they have given you five years to do better, why haven't you? ]
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.
[ And they are also worthy of living to a ripe old age, without conflicts brought about by two old kids who want to beat up each other and show the world their muscles. ]
Thank you for listening.
May God bless our troops.
[ You cannot lie in the search for truth, and
you cannot kill in the search for peace.
May your soul fulfill its destiny. ]
his veto of the bill presented to him by Congress on troop funding.
It is not so much my intention to deride the President as it is
to point out the inaccuracies of thinking that the President has
subscribed to and expects the American public to accept. I have
yet to see anyone or any article that has shown such a statement
for what it actually is, an error in judgement, en toto.
President Bush's veto statement
By The Associated Press Wed May 2, 3:12 AM ET
Text of
President Bush's statement Tuesday on his veto
of a bill to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
Good evening.
Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young 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 the bill.
[ Mr. Bush has substituted his 'opinion of the politicians' who passed the bill for 'the purpose of the bill', not unlike Mr. Bush in substituting his 'intent' to settle not only a Civil War in another country but to demand a 'meeting of the minds' of various ideologies of those specific countries, (something he seems to have problems with in his country), with his "war on terrorism!" ]
Tonight, I will explain the reasons for this veto and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
[ '...working with Congress..' is not the same as dictating terms to Congress. ]
We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.
Here's 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.
[ An interesting characterization. Presuming that the war continues and we "win" this undefined conflict, will not the President, through his Generals, begin dictating that American troops begin to withdraw? And as soon as possible? Possibly even by a specific date? Or maybe not. ]
That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, 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.
[ This is probably one of the biggest fallacies that the President offers in his statement. And, it sounds so-o-o familiar.
The President has said time and time again that he will veto any measure with a
time line in it. Then, he projects that same stubborn view onto the Congress, that
they will require a withdrawal 'regardless of the situation on the ground.' As he
believes, so does he see.
-First, it assumes that nothing will be done, there will be no military action by the troops still in Iraq, between now and the time set for initiating withdrawal. It assumes that they begin immediately to start packing up their equipment and getting it ready to send back to American military bases scattered across the globe; and what conflicts do occur, will do so as a defensive measure in protecting those doing the packing. Well, the President IS the Commander In Chief and they will do what he tells
them, won't they?
-Secondly, it assumes, and probably correctly, that the 'enemy' has grown in number and in strategies since the arrival of American might, and that it will overwhelm what military structure does exist in Iraq upon the exit of American troops. (How did they get so strong?)
-Thirdly, it assumes, without evidence, that the Congress and the American people are unbendable in their perceptions of the conflict. In other words, that 'regardless of the situation on the ground' the Congress, like the President, dictates that the troops will continue their withdrawal as soon as possible, even if the Iraqi people overwhelmingly requested our troops to remain for a specific time and a specific reason. ]
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.
[ First, the "commitment" was yours, Mr. President.
Not mine. It would seem that the President's idea of 'commitment' is "indefinite," that we seem to "owe" some people in some areas of this country .... something. Of course, this totally ignores similar plights and pleas from other countries. ]
Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be
irresponsible.
[ Who's failure, Mr. President? After four years, a determination of success or failure should already be evident. Just how many years
are required in your ever-changing, ever-broadening war of liberation? ]
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 America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.
[ The bill does nothing of the sort. "impossible conditions" are not being thrust upon the commanders--tomorrow--after being decided--today. It isn't as if there has not been ample notice of intent with ample time to plan. It took the President, his cabinet and 'family' members how long to initiate the first action in Afghanistan after 9/11? And did they respond to only 9/11 or were other contingencies taken into account, long before they were needed?
This statement assumes that the military doesn't "plan" anything and merely reacts to
orders from above-the orders being whatever pops out of someones mouth further up the chain of command, even if that source is only two chain-links higher up.
If this is an accurate accounting of how our military is now operating, is it any wonder that we have only accomplished deposing one dictator in four years? ]
This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.
[ According to the Presidents assumptions of how the military operates, who it receives its commands from and what it does in response to those commands, it is operating in chaos and confusion irrespective of whether or not the bill is passed. The military is taking its directions from a politician 6,000 miles away even now, he is known as 'the Commander In Chief' and his orders are to 'keep on keeping on' and 'stay the course,' and other catch phrases that sound commanding.]
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 a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.
[ Ahh, the nature of the beast bites again! ]
The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the 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.
[ Mr. President, may I be the first to let you in on a secret, the Congress is finally recognizing 'the will of the people' and are attempting to implement that will. They are giving you the money, which if it were up to me would be cut off completely right now, this instant, and the troops would begin packing today to come home. Please do not make the political mistake of separating 'the Democrats' from the people they represent. As it is, you have a chance to finally make a difference, but it is up to you, not the Congress. ]
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, Gen. 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.
[ And here, Mr. President, you have presented the impossibility of your mission. It is all predicated on 'the war on terror,' a condition that has existed since the dawn of man and will exist to his extinction, unless man changes his attitude about his fellow man and what he has that you do not. It is a war of ideas and those ideas cannot be changed with the simple pointing of a gun.]
In January, Gen. 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 these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad. And as Gen. Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation.
Congress ought to give Gen. Petraeus's plan a chance to work. In the month 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-Qaida 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.
[ Mr. President, this is all well and good. My only question is why were these objectives not accomplished with the troops that were already there? Why were these 'achieved objectives' done only with the addition of more bodies? Did it take the exact quantity of newly arrived troops to carry out and achieve those tasks? How many thousands of new troops does it take to break up a squad? How many thousands of new troops does it take to squelch a 'car bomb network?' How many thousands of new troops does it take to 'capture a Shia militia leader?' If anything, what this tells us is that the troops that are there are even now being mis-applied and directed even as they were being mis-directed prior to the surge.]
Last week, Gen. 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-Qaida, the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting.
The objective of these al-Qaida 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, Gen. Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al-Qaida's global campaign.
[ Mr. President, why are our troops capturing Shia militia leaders or going after car bomb networks or death squads if al-Qaida is the target? What progress is being made with al-Qaida as the objective? Where are the encouraging reports and successes on al-Qaida objectives? ]
Al-Qaida'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 the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.
We saw the death and destruction al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.
[ They did, Mr. President, you vetoed it. ]
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.
[ Mr. President, the days of blank checks are over. The American public has spoken. ]
I'm confident that with good will 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.
[ Or maybe stop buying $2000 toilet seats? ]
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.
[ Yes, they can. And they have given you five years to do better, why haven't you? ]
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.
[ And they are also worthy of living to a ripe old age, without conflicts brought about by two old kids who want to beat up each other and show the world their muscles. ]
Thank you for listening.
May God bless our troops.
[ You cannot lie in the search for truth, and
you cannot kill in the search for peace.
May your soul fulfill its destiny. ]
posted by John | 10:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home