In nearly five years in office, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation his Republican-led Congress has supported.
But the White House is threatening to veto the Senate's $440.5 billion 2006 Defense spending bill because it includes an amendment that would mandate uniform standards for the treatment of military detainees. The provision, which passed 90-9, was authored by John McCain (R-AZ).
A Seattle Times editorial wrote that the amendment "to ban 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of prisoners by the military found a clarity of purpose and voice that eludes the Bush administration."
The Boston Globe, in its editorial, wrote: "Instead of threatening to veto the measure, as his staff has done, President Bush should embrace it as evidence that the military will correct abuses and hold itself to a high standard."
A veto by Bush would almost certainly be symbolic, because the Senate has the votes to override it.
And what a symbol it would be.
***
This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Keep the dream alive, David.
Dave
2 - david r. mark
Is the story inaccurate, Dave? Of course not.
Keep those blinders on, Dave. I prefer the reality-based universe.
3 - Dave Nalle
The article's not really long enough for significant errors. It's just a bit of wishful thinking posing as an article.
The basic problem here is that you want Bush to fail so badly that once again you reach for controversy where there is none. Given what Bush has not vetoed in the past the thought that he would veto this meaningless amendment is laughable.
McCain's amendment is 100% compatible with past statements the administration has made about what their official policies on torture are. It doesn't restrict their practices in any way. It's also 100% in keeping with existing military policies regarding torture. It does not address extraordinary rendition or the issue of civil rights for prisoners under US law.
I have no idea why McClellan made his statement against the amendment, but I have to think it was some sort of mistake which will be clarified later, because there is nothing in this amendment to object to. The entire objection seems to be based on the fact that the amendment just reiterates already existing policy, which is correct and a sensible reason to veto it, but since it means the amendment is meaningless, there's no reason to make an issue of it.
Making a symbolic stand on the superiority of an existing policy over an identical policy voted on by the Senate doesn't pass the test of logic. Neither does getting so excited about the possibility that Bush might veto this trivial amendment, or trying to puff up the significance of the amendment so that you can try to use it as a basis to claim Republicans in the Senate have turned against Bush. None of this makes sense, except as part of a pure partisan attack - but then we expected that.
Dave
4 - marc
Exactly Dave and true to form, just another grandstand by McCain.
The amendment might make sense, might if it were substantially different than policies already in force, or if the abuse that has occurred was wide spread and a matter of policy.
Neither is true which renders this post to it's rightful place in the shitcan.
5 - Dave Nalle
I don't blame McCain for it. The Democrats were throwing out all sorts of extreme bills and amendments. His response was to basically emasculate them by offering this symbolic, but meaningless amendment. It's pointless, but I think it might be politically astute.
Dave
6 - david r. mark
This is ridiculous. The White House is on the record saying before the amendment passed that Bush would consider vetoing it. After the amendment passed, the White House repeated itself.
This isn't a "mistake" by McClellan. This is not wishful thinking by liberals, or a manufactured debate.
The Senate Republicans took a stand against something that the White House said Bush would consider vetoing. Now it's up to Bush to decide whether he wants to follow through, or whether he'll back down to the majority of his party (including Frist, Graham, McCain, etc.)
If Dave Nalle would stop being such an apologist for this administration, he'd recognize the reality of the situation. Just read the editorials to which I linked, if you want to see other writers discussing the same subject.
7 - Scott Ross
Let's set aside for a moment how silly all of these guys can be...
The whole thing is actually a masterstroke of politicking by McCain; he gets to be the unassailable do-gooder who knows better than anybody in Washington the horrors of torture and he puts Bush in the position of saying either "Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't of done that," or "I'm pro-torture."
It's important to remember how much McCain and Bush hate each other and how desperate the Right is starting to feel about the '06 elections.
Though I don't know what they're worried about, 'cuz the Left's a mess.
8 - Winston Jen
Considering how the Bush administration and many Republicans wanted to prolong Terri Schiavo's ordeal, this move to approve of torture hardly surprises me.
9 - David R. Mark
Bush allowed his men on the ground in South Carolina to suggest McCain was a Manchurian candidate (while also claiming that the McCain's adopted girl from Bangladesh was a love child with a black NYC prostitute).
McCain, for the sake of his own presidential future, looked the other way and allowed himself to be used during the 2004 presidential race as a prop to be kissed on the forehead. McCain lost a lot of respect from the left side of the aisle by temporarily being a Bush apologist last year.
Now, once again, we see that McCain and Bush don't see eye to eye. (And this is just one of several issues). McCain may not be a liberal, but he is an independent voice in the Republican Party, and that's why some liberals hold him in high regard.)
10 - Dave Nalle
>>Considering how the Bush administration and many Republicans wanted to prolong Terri Schiavo's ordeal, this move to approve of torture hardly surprises me.<<
If Terri Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, then prolonging her 'ordeal' was meaningless since there was no one home to experience the ordeal, so you can't equate that with torture.
As for McCain in the 2000 election, like a lot of us he accepted Bush as the lesser of two evils. Time has passed, but Bush remains a lesser evil for most of us, but for a few extremists who have nothing better to offer, opposing Bush has become a holy cause which they pursue without thinking about the alternatives and how much worse things could be.
Dave
11 - David R. Mark
"opposing Bush has become a holy cause which they pursue without thinking about the alternatives and how much worse things could be."
-- Dave Nalle, 10/10/05
In other words, accept everything Bush says or does. Do not question our great leader, who is never wrong.
If a Democrat were president starting in 2000, Dave Nalle argues, things would be much worse.
Let me ask though, how are things all that good now?
12 - David R. Mark
"If Terri Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, then prolonging her 'ordeal' was meaningless since there was no one home to experience the ordeal, so you can't equate that with torture."
Let's look at the flaws in this sentence.
"If Terri Schiavo was indeed in a PVS" --
Schiavo's doctors said that she was. The courts upheld those doctors' opinions. The autopsy supported the doctors' opinions. The only people who disagree with the doctors' opinions are people who never examined Schiavo, and one doctor, Willima Hammesfahr, who was discredited by the court for failing to provide evidence to back his opinion.
"then prolonging her 'ordeal' was meaningless since there was no one home to experience the ordeal"
-- So her husband, parents, siblings, friends, etc., didn't suffer? The court case between Schiavo's husband and the Schindlers lasted eight years, and the conclusion drawn in 2005 was the same as in 1997. Meanwhile, none of the outrageous claims made against Michael Schiavo have ever been substantiated in court -- yet that didn't stop people from accusing him of murder, torture, abuse, neglect, fraud, etc.
True, the fervor from the right-wing, including Bush, to defend the Schindlers' opinion, against science and against the courts, is not torture. It was an example of putting faith above facts, though, which is lousy leadership.
13 - Dave Nalle
Ah David. You're like a puppy that keeps leaping up on the couch no matter how many times you push it off.
You seem to have totally missed the point of my Schiavo comment, which was that there was no 'her' to go through any 'ordeal'.
But by all means keep arguing with yourself.
Dave
14 - Temple Stark
Such an amendment is a good reminder to follow the policies that are currently being broken by military officials.
How far it goes up . ...?
It's not much good to say this "it doesn't change the policies in place" when they are being willingly and willfully broken.
And yes, McCain is both grandstanding and making a strong point that - for some reason (POW) - , seems important to him. Has anyone read many of his quotes on this?
It may amount to nothing, but it is certainly not a "manufactured controversy."
My theory is that President Bush - strictly for political grandstanding purposes - will veto something right around pre-election 2006 or pre-election 2008. That way Republican Senators and or Representatives can make a show of exerting their "independence."
15 - Dave Nalle
I think Bush ought to veto something just to show that he's capable of doing it. I doubt that this bill is what he's going to veto considering how much it gives him for his war efforts and how little it costs him.
Dave
16 - David R. Mark
And yet, Dave, the White House has been saying that it would veto the legislation.
It's a little fact that you seem to keep overlooking. You prefer to erroneously call it part of a liberal "holy cause."
17 - David R. Mark
"prolonging her ordeal" -- if you literally mean Terri's ordeal, then yes. I took what you said as the ordeal regarding her.
It still doesn't explain why you said "If Terri Schiavo was indeed in a PVS," when it's been conclusively proven.
18 - Dave Nalle
No, your attempt to play it up is the holy cause. As for the White House, point me to some statements from McClellan or anyone else about vetoing the bill since it was passed. I haven't seen any. Seems to me like they were just making a last ditch effort to get the amendment removed.
Dave
19 - Temple Stark
And WHY would they want it removed?
Big questions. Small minds. Bad combination.
20 - Dave Nalle
Well, obviously they want it removed because it implies that Bush isn't following his own stated policies, a debatable position, but something the administration would certainly rather not encourage.
Dave
21 - David R. Mark
Dave, you make it sound like I'm the only one who has pointed this news out.
It was written about in newspapers across the country, too.
You just don't want to admit that the White House has been against the amendment. You'd prefer to call it a "mistake" by McClellan, or say the story is part of a liberal "holy cause."
90 Senators voted for the amendment, Dave. That's an awful lot of Republicans.
22 - David R. Mark
Dave Nalle -- "point me to some statements from McClellan or anyone else about vetoing the bill since it was passed"
OK.
From the Associated Press:
Leading House Republicans signaled Friday that they will try to weaken a Senate effort to limit interrogation techniques that U.S. service members can use on terrorism suspects.
Their remarks made clear that the language in the Senate-passed military spending bill faces uncertain prospects in bargaining between the Senate and House. The Senate approved the $445 billion bill 97-0 on Friday.
"We're not going to be delivering a bill to the president's desk that is veto bait," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
>>>
If it comes up in today's press briefing with McClellan, I'll follow-up.
23 - Dave Nalle
No, David. I admit they're against the amendment. I just can't believe they'd continue to follow that course. It's a loser. I agree that the press conference today will be very telling.
Dave
24 - David R. Mark
Dave, you just flip-flopped:
NALLE (10/10/05): I have no idea why McClellan made his statement against the amendment, but I have to think it was some sort of mistake which will be clarified later.
NALLE (10/10/05): No, David. I admit they're against the amendment.
Nice to see you agree with me, Dave. If only you could avoid your hyperbolic spin against me and just move to agreeing I'm telling the truth, the discourse would be so much friendlier. LOL
25 - Dave Nalle
Never said you weren't telling the truth here, David. You're just choosing which truth to tell and what you choose to represent as its significance.
As for my two statements you quote, they're not incompatible. I never said they didn't come out against the amendment, just that doing so was a mistake which I hope they will rectify.
Dave