Bush Vetoes Iraq Withdrawal Bill

Yesterday, President Bush vetoed a bill that would cut spending on the war and force a timetable on our troops to return home. While the bill doesn't have the support to overrule the veto, many consider it just a symbolic stance by the Democrat-run Congress. Since taking office last November, this new Congress has done little more than symbolically vote for things.

President Bush released a statement yesterday that was brief, but extremely poignant. The copy I read was posted on HumanEvents.com. The President broke down his reason for vetoing the bill into three key points:

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 first two points that the President talks about are fairly well-understood arguments. Yes, we would be abandoning the mission, destroying any further credibility our troops would have in the world. And yes, the terrorists and insurgents would be waiting, like wolves, for us to leave so that they could feast. And then Congress would also basically be sentencing the remaining military and commanders to death, making them stay back and "hold down the fort" while the majority of the troops are brought home. The Iraqi government will tumble, and we'll have an even greater problem on our hands.

But it's the third point that really got me mad. The news and politicians, when writing and passing these bills, only ever touch on the main aspects of the legislation. "This will bring the troops home"; "This will save lives"; "This will get us out of the quagmire." How about "This pork will get me re-elected!" or "These earmarks are gonna build a new post office in my home town!" I think the best reason to veto any bill is to get the pork out of it!

Too often, the President has let huge, bloated pieces of legislation pass by his desk that include billions of dollars of spending on things that are irrelevant and excessive. This is partially the reason the Republicans lost so badly last November, they couldn't control the pork and earmarks. But the latest bills coming out of Congress show that this problems doesn't just lie with Republicans, it lies with Democrats too. Everyone wants to seize the day and bring home a piece of the pie to their constituents. What better way to do that than with a defense bill that is sure to pass?

So yes, Congress may have been trying to "make a statement" with this bill calling for the withdrawal of troops and the destruction of Iraq... but they were also trying to load it up like a baked potato. Thankfully, we have a Commander in Chief who is sticking by the troops, and his word.