Bush Vetoes any bill that ends the occupation..then what

[Perky]

Seems to me that a veto pushes a start-over back to the House. So suppose the House decides to push the issue as is a second time but this time tell the president that if you do not accept those terms we are going to impeach you because you are putting the throops at risk needlessly. We can say that we will re-visit the required '08 pullout in the regular '08 budget depending on the situation on the ground.

But if he Chooses to Veto the supplemental, articles of impeachment will be filed for failure to negotiate a short term fix when the troops are in harm's way.


If he vetoes the supplemental. we have to be ready for what is next.

[blogslut]

1. Here's the thing

That bill = funding for the troops. If Bush kills it, he kills funding for the troops.

[mike_c]

2. mark my words...

...what is "next" is a bill without the withdrawal provision. I'm betting the House will cave in. Hope I'm wrong, but that's what my gut tells me.

[Rydz777]

4. Agreed

I'm afraid you are right. It will become a game of chicken - who caves first. I just hope that the Democratic House (I don't have a lot of hope for the Senate) will stand strong and tell Bush to begin the pull out or there will be no supplemental. That will take a lot of political courage, but I do hope.

[MasterDarkNinja]

3. You can't impeach a president for vetoing a bill

While there's plenty of reasons why Bush should be impeached and convicted, impeachment isn't one of them. Impeaching Bush over vetoing a bill would be the worst possible way to start impeachment proceedings, it would take the focus off of the real impeachable crimes Bush has commited while in office and put the focus on Bush getting impeached for political reasons by antiwar politicians.