Comments on: Why the Sudden Veto of Military Pay Raises?

By: NMvoiceofreason

NMvoiceofreason — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:09:32 +0000

Someone needs to do that in a court - to have Congress declared in session (Congress says they are Bush says they aren’t), and the bill that was passed but not returned declared as law.

http://www.veteransforcommonse.....le/id/9033

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:51:56 +0000

There is a low pay scale in some ranks according to an article a few years ago. People in community service organizations have addressed that need for years; (source: personal communication). I agree with the allusions to OPEC solidarity re: denominating petrol raw products in USD instead of Euros; as well as the instant matter of the senator providing a barrier from recessAppt of a former clerk of a SupremeJ, Thomas’s Bradbury, who later worked in Goldsmith’s former post at olc, now nominated for 4thCourt; Ackerman wrote two months ago about that.

By: WilliamOckham

WilliamOckham — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:54:12 +0000

Perhaps it’s because I’m in the middle of Charlie Savage’s new book (which, btw is indispensable even if you know everything that’s in it), but this looks like a classic Cheney-Addington move. Never mind what the policy goal is or that there is an existing means to accomplish it, these guys never miss a chance to expand presidential power.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:52:50 +0000

OT — or is it? — Krongard, Gannon, et al. spill a bit to NYT’s Shane and Mazetti on torturetapegate.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:37:20 +0000

Some other folks are thinking about the Section 1079 angle. See Digby. Could the problem be that that could be used to force the release of stuff that the Administration can’t allow to come out? I’m thinking specifically of the other, secret, unrevoked OLC torture opinion, and whatever opinions enabled domestic surveillance to proceed (and that would be squarely within the DNI’s bailiwick, see below), but of course there may be any number of others.

So that explanation would seem to make sense of the strange optical situation, as it would be worth the embarrassment cost of this silly dilatory nonsensical non sequitur inapplicable pocket-veto-that-isn’t.

Quoth W:

“… I continue to have serious objections to other provisions of this bill, including section 1079 relating to intelligence matters . . .”

Quoth a Digby commenter:

What is in 1079 you ask? A provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to make available to the Congressional intelligence committees, upon the request of the chair or ranking minority member, “any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion,” within certain conditions.

Has anybody here taken a look at those conditions?

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:17:46 +0000

So can we see this awesome legal opinion in order to analyze it ourselves, or is Warner the only one who gets to see it?

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:40:38 +0000

Which would be quicker, to veto and amend, or to sign and amend? Could Congress withdraw the legislation on their own? I bet that would be acceptable from the WH perspective, and maybe that’s what they’re hoping to provoke.

I suspect there’s something else in the bill (see e.g. PW @ 25) which the WH objects to, but they don’t want to admit what it is.

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:50:08 +0000

If Bush wants to veto this, he’ll have to veto it by returning it with objections. Since the WH has already prepared a legal opinion on their objections, that should be pro forma. And iirc Congress has made provisions for accepting a return with objections.

Surely the WH can’t be spoiling for a fight over the validity of pocket vetoes at this point?

By: TheraP

TheraP — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:57:15 +0000

Another thought with regard to the Iraq money. It’s 30 to 40 billion according to today’s NY Times. That may not sound like a lot, but regardless of why or how that money may be withdrawn, and I agree with the theory that the administration may be paving the way to blame that on the Dems, given the write-downs which the banks have already done and given the write-downs which are likely coming, based on news reports this past week, and given that banks must by law maintain a certain percentage of money “on hand” - this actually is a huge sum and could put a severe strain on the big banks… which already lost value just Friday.

So while I think this is a red herring, when it comes to the bill itself, it is not an inconsequential issue, and certainly would play into the problems these banks are experiencing as well as how all of that plays out on the national and international stage.

So a subtext, but an important one.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:45:04 +0000

Here’s a thought. The ostensible issue that the administration is claiming is “immunity” - for the Iraq govt - from this one part of the law.

So is the issue immunity?

The reason I ask that question is because before the “recess” (and I understand that’s an issue too), immunity for telecoms was to be the big legislation in the Congress in January (or Feb depending on Reid’s schedule for the bill)

So the question is: Is this an effort to get immunity for one group, so you can then claim immunity for another?

Either this is a distraction to prevent groups from organizing against immunity for telecoms or it is a prelude in the administration’s efforts to gain that immunity. IMHO

I may be off the track here, but I offer this question for your collective consideration.