Bush Veto Pressures Dems to Weigh Concessions

By Stanford Matthews originally posted at Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is a little strange so it is a good thing to share with readers if for only that reason. The two AP reports excerpted with this post have two different titles but are from the same author and the two reports are exactly the same in content and are time and date stamped about ten minutes apart. So the next time Blog @ MoreWhat.com makes a mistake, typo, omission, etc., kindly remember the big guys, AP, can do it too.

Now on to the story. The general layout of the politics here is a bit of a quandary for the Dems. This blog has echoed the opinion that the Dems do not have the votes to override President' Bush's veto. With these two reports available below, that opinion seems to be alive and well even after the veto. The fringe Dems are refusing to concede anything and the GOP members contend they can maintain their refusal to tie withdrawal to a funding bill. The Dems are concerned about looking as though they will not fund the troops, not like that is anything new.

After all the problems the former Republican majority of 12+ years allowed to happen and continue, it is rather remarkable that after losing the majority in the midterms a chance to substantially recover and reduce the Dems majority to a paper tiger has emerged this soon. With all the mistakes of the Bush Administration the one thing that is clear right now is that Congressional Republicans did not make this happen. For all the criticism President George Bush has received and perhaps deserved, he is entitled to all the credit in causing this scenario to appear.

With the number of GOP defectors like Chuck Hagel and the endless supply of nutcases like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha, who'd a thunk it, that President George W. Bush with his cowboy reputation and series of questionable performances could use those same attributes to bring the debate full circle left with only his chaps and a pair of boots to sustain him.

Are there good guys and bad guys? Yes. Is it time to anoint any saintly politicians? No. Should President Bush receive some long overdue credit for pure determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Who knows? The only thing for sure is his consistent opposition to any suggestion of accepting defeat in Iraq. And for all of you who will criticize this President for refusing to relent on Iraq, you have failed to understand a basic principle. When it is this important and so much is at stake, you simply cannot afford to quit. To do so is entirely un-American. It dishonors the current warriors for freedom and all those who have come before that have given us this great country. It is time that all true Americans echo this sentiment as a small tribute to those who have sacrificed so much for this country.

Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions

By CHARLES BABINGTON, The Associated Press May 2, 2007 3:11 AM WASHINGTON - President Bush's veto of an Iraq war spending bill that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals puts new pressure on Democrats in Congress to craft a compromise even as their caucus grows more fractious on the topic.

The party's most liberal members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. Bush and almost all congressional Republicans continue to insist on a spending bill with no strings attached on troop movements.

Bush Veto Puts New Pressure on Democrats

By CHARLES BABINGTON, The Associated Press May 2, 2007 3:23 AM WASHINGTON - President Bush's veto of an Iraq war spending bill that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals puts new pressure on Democrats in Congress to craft a compromise even as their caucus grows more fractious on the topic.

The party's most liberal members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. Bush and almost all congressional Republicans continue to insist on a spending bill with no strings attached on troop movements.