For a brief history of the bill, refer to this and this. Now from the USA Today:
The White House just announced that President Bush intends to veto a major defense policy bill, citing concerns over language that it claims could endanger Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks.
In a written statement just released, White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel says the measure “would significantly amend current law (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in ways that would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.”
A provision in the measure “would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States. Once in place, the restrictions on Iraq’s funds that could result from the bill could take months to lift, and thus Section 1083 cannot become law even for a short period of time,” Stanzel says in the statement.
The veto startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a technical provision in the bill. The veto was unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.
Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out, but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, military pay raises may be on hold, as well as dozens of other programs.
“We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in a joint statement. “The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto.”
A White House spokesman said the veto would officially be delivered later today.
Hate to come anywhere near siding with the Dems, but it does strike me as odd that the White House wouldn’t have signaled its opposition to the provision so it could be fixed before the bill passed. There has to be more back story here.
I feel that had the Democrats had ample time to get this bill in by October 1, 2007. Instead, they handed it in the week before Christmas and loaded it with 10,000 earmarks. Had they done their job properly, and took the time to read what it was that the staffers actually wrote, maybe they would not have handed in this legislation. That is me being kind. I feel that the Democrats knew full well what they were doing, and hoped that no one would question them!
The job of the POTUS is not just to sign a bill, but to actually read the bill and sign or veto.
From the comments section at Michelle’s:
“After a couple of minutes on thomas.gov, it looks like it was a Senate amendment. It was NOT in the engrossed House Bill.
In the Senate “Public Print”, the provision first appeared originally entitled:”
SEC. 1087. JUSTICE FOR MARINES AND OTHER VICTIMS OF STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM ACT.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Justice for Marines and Other Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Act’.(b) Terrorism Exception to Immunity-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1605 the following:
`Sec. 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
`(a) In General-
`(1) NO IMMUNITY- A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.
:snip..
“In the final “Enrolled as Agreed to by both House and Senate” version that went to the President, that section was further modified and renumbered to 1083.
This will take you to the various versions of the bill”
Shaun doesn’t seem to grasp the situation at all. Why was this bill not done properly the first time? Why wasn’t the bill handed to the POTUS for approval by Octomer 1, 2007? That date is in the rules. The Senate is in session. I suggesst they get their asses back to Washington on Monday.
H/T to memeorandum for the links
Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Is It Just Me?, The Midnight Sun, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Uncooperative Blogger, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
How soon can these no good sidewinding owl hoots be removed from office and sent to outer siberia?:-w