Well at least this is the first step to admitting that the entire Iraqi affair is about money and not about anything else.

So can Nancy and Harry fix the problem and put the legislation through again? If they can't stop the veto, might as well fix the problem. The fix is coming...in 2008 you say...ok then. Obama!

With a little luck maybe the dems will be forced to remove a lot more of that pork spending they had in this Bill.

Big surprise, Bush doesn't want to give grunts enough to buy an extra meal a week, but he'll go out of his way to keep Haliburton and other no-bid contractors lining their pockets by selling us $45 cans of soda or billing us for $50,000 business luncheons.

Neal I would rather give the grunts the pork instead of the Dems pet pork projects. Grunts need it more than fountains on a levee down south!!

Well this fool is back to drinking again..He must have had the bottle hidden in the toilet tank bowl in Crawford.Since when do the crooks in Iraq dictate American budgets??? On the bright side the Bush crime family has 386 miserable days left in Washington.

I thought Iraq oil was going to pay for the war and all other related expenses. Why does the American taxpaper have to pay our for troops to fight other people's civil wars? Why do we have pay for foreign aid to dictators? Why do we have pay to defend the borders of countries like Iraq and others when we can't even afford to protect our own borders? We are in debt 9 trillion dollars, borrowing money from China to pay for the war and continued natioon building. This is insane, we are going bankrupt. Ron Paul is right, follow the constitution, follow the advice of the founding fathers and the conversative approach, stay out of other countries and mind our own business. Bring the troops home, save a trillion dollars per year and let Americans keep the fruit of their labor...the money saved each year can be used to eliminate federal personal income tax. Ron Paul is right on the issues. No one can match is integrity and voting record.

This is pretty sad how we can get into a blackmail scheme with Iraq if we do not abide in what they want..pull "their money" from our banks...why does our banks hold their money? Who is responsible for this type of squeeze..and to what degree do they invest in our stakes..or what do we invest in with them...Maybe all of America should know the exchanges that go down..I do not believe its Republican or Democrat anymore..I believe like a thousand others that it is a power ball of who owns the board walk..? Apache

"We understand the President is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed."

What?? If they got billions of dollars in our banks, then let them use this money to pay for their own defense of their borders and oil complex, etc, and bring our troops home. This gets worse everyday.

HA HA HA Hehehehe - - - - IF Nancy and Harry REALLY think this is important – they should immediately call Congress back in session and fix the problem - But they WONT - - the issue is more important than fixing it - - and ABC and the rest of the major media are more than willing to help the Demcreatures in bashing the Administration ---- Actually ole Harry is already keeping the Senate in session for about 10 MINS a day - - talk about playing games - -

The GREAT American past time - - SUE SUE SUE - if a Lawyer can make a buck - you bet there WILL be a lawsuit – The Pres is correct - - - We all Know that the Democreatures want us to fail in Iraq - failure = VOTES

As usual, Bush will protect the bankers on Wall Street instead of the citizens on Main Street. Sure! Let's keep all Iraq money in the US banks so the bankers can lend it back to us at very reasonable interest rates, to rebuild bridges and roads in Iraq. I'm sure a small tax increase on US citizens should be sufficient to repay the loan... and all the while our own infrastructure if falling apart! What a racket!

I hope that our congress grows a backbone and stands up to this promised veto. If the Iragi people have that much money invested over here, then it should be subect to seizure if the situation warrants it. Come on congress, work together and get something done for the people, after all, that's what you're supposed to be doing, not "posturing" for the next election.

Do the Iraqi assets effect the income of the Bush Crime family? Hummm? The Bush Administration is made up of lap dog toadies of a puppet government they set-up in Iraq. Very profitable for War mongering and Halliburton. We need alternate fuel sources put on the fast track and ol' George back on the farm. Also I'd love to see the Bush crime family live on the "benefits" and "pay" of our military.

Jim Rod, before you mention Democratic pork you need to look at Republican pork. The Republicans ran on that issue years ago and it's a huge reason got the majority they did and a president in office. Then they came up with so many pork projects they made the Democrats of past look like piglets. That is a documented FACT and one that the handful of honest Republican politicians left have pointed out and cried foul on themselves.

I agree with you though that we need to pay and care for the members of our military before we spend funds on pork, or even legitimate but less important projects.

There should be a law that prevents Congress from putting unrelated items in a bill.

Senator Clinton and the other candidates who were serving at the time knew more about the state of Iraq before the illegal invasion than they put off. In fact, Dennis Kucinich did the research before the Iraq vote and it was clear to him that Iraq was not an imminent threat to America. He also summarized his research in a report that he provided to all of the other Senators and Representatives, which includes Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Dodd. He then encouraged them to join him in voting against giving the President approval to attack Iraq, but they decided to vote for authorization any way. These candidates, with the exception of Edwards who no longer serves and add to this list Senator Obama, have all voted for an authorization of more and more funds, even though no clear goal has ever been carved out and there still is no commitment to a withdrawal deadline and even though most of this $ goes to contractors who are unaccounatble. Kucinich of course voted against more funds every time. Thus, at a time like this, where America finds itself in yet another war, you would think that Americans would realize that courage and conviction are the two charcateristics that we need in a President. We don't need another corporate lap dog who is President in name, but really just under the control of the shadow government behind the scenes. Based on past actions, no one holds a candle to Dennis Kucinich. He wasn't my original choice, but after comparing words with actions, it became clear to me that everyone else is just a "I hope they will" candidate.

ellsbells930: For your information if you're not aware of it, S-2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act authored by Senator Barack Obama and Republican Tom Coburn just took effect. While not prohibiting unrelated items from being tacked on to a bill, it's almost as good if the American people use it as Obama has intended. The act requires all federal spending to be open and available to the public on the website, usaspending.gov, prior to the bill being signed into law. If we use this tool correctly, if you don't agree with proposed spending that's posted just e-mail your legislators with your opinion till the cows come home.

I think another reason and probably real reason Bush is vetoing this defense bill, is because SA-3035, The Hate Crimes Bill is attached to it. Check it out you'll see SA3035 attached to S1585 the Defense Authorization Bill.

So it`s alright for Bush to start a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi`s but he refuses to let those harmed by Saddam to sue? Let him veto. Time for the Dem`s to stand tough.

What this story fails to mention is that, previously and up until the bill was PASSED, Bush indicated he'd sign it. Apparently, Bush is willing to put the needs of the Iraqi government (and it's still a shambles and non-functional) ahead of the welfare of the troops. Bush attacked Kerry in 04 about 'First you support the troops, then you don't support the troops' (A reference to Kerry's turn-about in his stance on the Vietnam war.). It appears bush first supports the troops, but when politics get in his way, he's willing to hang them all - not just the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan - out to dry. Call him the Commander In Cheap.

Bush is a down right Biggest crook this country has ever seen. H cares more about the Iraq people then he does his own, tell ya what why don't send the him \over there and elect a new President. To veto this bill for the veterans and the Service men makes no sense to me the greedy Republicans to include all of congress should be impeached and we will statr all over frm scratch

What about the individuals that were kidnapped from Kuwait in 1991, held as human shields in Iraq. President Bush first enacted an executive decision stopping us the little guy from receiving money (not Punitive damages) just lost income and money for being tortured by the Iraqi government. Now he says Americans who sued and won judgment in a US federal court after waiting many years cannot receive money that is setting in an American bank belonging to Iraq because it would make them mad. I agree the state department would not like it, and President Bush does not like it, but 97 senators said that we could try and collect what is due to us. So now what do we get to do wait another 10 years for Iraq to decide to pay for what they did to us. Iraq has never owned up to what it did to Americans and Kuwaiti like. I did what the US law says to do regarding a terrorist state I filed suit in Federal court Washington DC it was legal I won now all I want is justice.