Bush to veto defense bill to provide immunity for his crimes

[babylonsister]

Bush to veto bill over fears for Iraqi assets

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in New York

Published: December 28 2007 23:35 | Last updated: December 28 2007 23:35


George W. Bush intends to veto a $700bn defence spending bill because it includes a provision that would give Americans the right to sue state sponsors of terrorism.

The provision threatened to “imperil” billions of dollars of Iraqi assets and undermine US foreign policy and business interests, the president said on Friday.

The White House issued the surprise veto threat after Iraqi officials discussed pulling $20bn-$30bn of Iraqi funds out of US banks if the legislation became law, according to a senior administration official.

At the centre of the administration’s latest spat with Congress is section 1083 of the Defense Authorisation Act, a measure that would allow American victims of state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue countries and, according to the White House, would allow plaintiffs’ lawyers to freeze assets in the amount of damages claimed in their lawsuits.

Although the provision is not directed at Iraq, the White House said it feared that the bill would allow plaintiffs seeking redress for Saddam Hussein-era acts of terrorism to freeze Iraq’s assets, potentially tying up billions of dollars, and allow plaintiffs to refile lawsuits against Iraq that had already been dismissed. The administration said the provision would “unacceptably interfere” with the political and economic progress in Iraq by potentially imposing a “financially devastating hardship” on the country.

more...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3efa6090-b59c-11dc-896e-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[Sugar Smack]

1. Okay, my favorite sister, I'm off my retail job &

I'm exhausted and I have outrage fatigue and I can't even describe the hand in front of my face. What does this mean? :hug: :yourock:

[babylonsister]

3. Good morning, Sugar. Here's what the Dems had to say about

this veto: He's basically throwing the soldiers under the bus to save Iraqis money, and perhaps to protect his own skin should anyone consider he sponsored any kind of terrorism.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=289982&


*********************


Bush to veto military policy bill
By Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn


CRAWFORD, Texas: For months, President George W. Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support U.S. troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.

And then on Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced that he would veto a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose the new Iraqi government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule.

The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it would work with Congress quickly in January to restore dozens of new military and veterans' programs. Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect on Tuesday, and improvements in veterans' health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen opposing.

Bush's veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House had failed to raise its concerns earlier.

And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Bush's support-the-troops oratory against him, which they did with relish. "Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it," Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a prepared statement.

more...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/africa/veto.php

*********************************

At Iraq’s Urging, Bush Pocket-Vetoes Defense Authorization Bill
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

Under intense pressure from the Iraqi government, President Bush on Friday announced he would pocket-veto the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill over provisions that could have allowed lawsuits against Iraq in U.S. courts for acts committed under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Although the White House had been aware of the provisions, the administration did not raise public objections to the final bill (HR 1585 — H Rept 110-477) before Congress cleared it. Only after lawyers for the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion worth of assets from U.S. capital markets early this week did the White House decide to let the bill die, according to several senior congressional committee aides.

The White House claims the provisions would allow plaintiffs, such as U.S. prisoners of war from the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, to freeze Iraqi assets during litigation, resulting in harm to the Iraqi government’s reconstruction and stabilization efforts.

Democratic lawmakers from both chambers said that the White House’s belated objection, which came after the bill was overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support, unfairly delays needed help to soldiers, their families, and civilian employees of the Defense Department.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002650500

[Sugar Smack]

4. Okay. Thank you. I just woke up now with a clear head.

I'm reading about this and it's positively sickening. I THOUGHT that was it meant but I wasn't sure.

It's so disgusting. My thought- and I'm truly not alone- is GET THEM OUT as swiftly and securely as possible. That money could help do it, too. :hug:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

2. Accountability is the foulest word in the world to these vermin.

Who's sue Iraq anyhoo? Why not tap the Sau... ok it all makes sense now. :mad: :grr:

[Solly Mack]

5. K&R