Prometheus 6

On December 28th, President Bush announced his plan to veto the defense authorization bill over an obscure provision regarding the new Iraqi government and the rights of prisoners of war. The White House is worried that Americans victimized by Saddam's former regime might use the legislation to secure compensation in court, jeopardizng Iraq's assets held in U.S. banks.

The veto took a lot of people by surprise, because normally the president lets Congress know in advance if legislation they are passing is likely to be vetoed. And there's controversy about the veto itself -- President Bush claims this is a pocket-veto, which the president can use when Congress is out of session, and which Congress cannot override. But Congress is not out of session, so Congressional leaders are considering efforts to override the veto.

That's right. The partisan divide is so wide now that Congress and the president can't even agree on the meaning of the word "veto."

Don't even think of overriding that "veto." Take this to the Supreme Court. Press them for immediate consideration because the troops cannot be funded until it is settled.

If Bush wants to veto funding for the troops in Iraq, make him do so affirmatively. Make him put his name on it, as the Constitution requires. 

In fact, I think the issue should be raised in the next Democratic presidential debate as an example of the type of reckless damage Republican partisanship is still causing.