He's going to try, but I don't think Bush's attempt at a pocket veto will fly. For one thing, it only works when the Congress is not in session, and the Senate is currently in session. Even if the President closes his eyes and clicks his heels and wishes very, very hard, they're still in session and he can't change that since the Constitution says Congress is the decider here, not Mr. Bush.
It should be understood that the President possesses no pocket veto power as such. A pocket veto is something the Congress causes. It is the result that occurs when Congress waives its right to reconsider legislation when its adjournment prevents the return of the bill. CRS Report
The way I interpret it is that the Congress decides when they can accept a bill from the Executive, since the Constitution states explicitly that Congress makes their own rules. So, in my opinion, the pocket veto doesn't apply unless the Congress says it does.
Regardless, the Senate is in session, thanks to Harry Reid and some east coast Senators who were willing to come to work over break (it's what you get for living that close to the office), and Nancy Pelosi has the House covered.
When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications -- such as veto messages -- from the White House during the monthlong break.
So Bush's pocket veto threat is as impotent as the Iraqi government, at whose request he's attempting the veto. Bush's other options are to sign it (he won't) or veto it outright. The President may try to get the Roadblock Republicans in the Senate to change their votes and not override his veto when the pro forma session is concluded and the full Congress returns, but I don't think that'll happen either. The RR's have been sucking up to him for the past seven years, but some of them are up for reelection in '08, and they're running from him like, well, like people who want to get reelected. Last month, they proved it with their first veto override.
Video Credit: VLOGZTV
So what's all the fuss about? Well, the bill in question is the Defense spending bill, and it includes some pretty important legislation. The keystones of the Defense bill are a military pay increase, contractor oversight and improvements in care for wounded troops. It also includes a provision authored by Senator Frank Lautenberg that protects American victims of terrorists attacks. That's what the Iraqi government and President Bush are objecting to with their veto. Is this really what passes for foreign policy in the Bush administration, allowing a foreign government to determine our defense spending? It's really pretty shocking when you think about it.
What's nuts is that Bush asked for more money. He fairly begged, pleaded and threatened for it. And now, without any warning, he's going to veto this legislation because the Iraqi government asked him to. The only thing I can come up with is that President Bush does not support the troops. He was, after all, against the 3.5% increase from the beginning. Or else he doesn't agree with the Constitution. Really, I can't come up with anything else. Here's what's in the bill. You tell me. Why is Bush threatening to kill this bill?
JK weighs in:
"Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it,” said Kerry. “We fought against this White House to provide our men and women in uniform a decent pay raise and now three days after Christmas George Bush says he'll veto it. What a disgrace. This fight has just begun and it won't end until we do right by those who sacrifice for our country."
Senator Kerry sent a letter to President Bush earlier this year, asking him to support the 3.5% increase. Senator, seems Mr. Bush doesn't care as much for you or the troops as the rest of us do. Bush is going to attempt a veto of a bill that gives the troops a 3.5% pay increase. And he's going to try to do it while most of the Congress is on Christmas break. If Dickens were alive, I think this might be his greatest tale. The story of the one man meaner than Scrooge, colder than Estella, and more vile than Cheney (who wasn't a Dickens character, but might have been).
It's a disgusting, underhanded move that puts the concerns of the Iraqi government over the needs of American troops. In a trillion dollar war, where mercenaries are making big bucks, Bush is attempting a veto of a lousy 3.5% pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Not surprising from someone who would veto children's health care.
Merry Christmas to the troops from their CIC.
