Maybe he'll pocket veto it....that way he doesn't HAVE to use the big stamp.

I'm just waiting to hear that a timetable on the veto will embolden the...

Somehow I doubt that that this is going to slip by unnoticed even if it happens at 5:30 p.m. on Friday. This is an issue that people ARE paying attention to, and even on the weekend the media and the pundits wouldn't be able to resist blathering about "What happens next?".

The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up and the President does not sign the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, then it does become law. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden.

Will congress adjourn within 10 days?

AFAICT, they're not scheduled for another recess until the end of May for Memorial Day, and that's just for a week.

Perhaps he'll write a signing statement to the effect that he's going to take our money and ignore the conditions. It wouldn't be any less constitutional than the rest of his signing statements (and frankly easier to argue for than some).

Meanwhile, if he does as he's stated he will, then we need to let him take the fall for vetoing funding the troops. It's not the Democrats playing politics this time.

I imagine the debate is over soldiers still living, with all limbs and not yet sent to Iraq or mothers and widows of those who "gave the ultimate sacrifice" to defend Amerka from terrists. My guess is Bush is pushing for the moms and widows of soldiers who's funerals he's desparately avoided so he can claim how much they, too, want other mothers and wives to become childless and widowed just like them to protect Amerka from the terrists.

No changing Horses in mid stream and George IS the "WAR President", or is that the "W"ar prescient.

President for Life, as Francios and "Baby Doc" DuVallier, and now: "I AM THE WAR PRESIDENT" or merely a call for job Security?

Outsourcing, in Anbar Province.

Today says a General _etraUS of America, the Tribes have enlisted their young against who we, the Liberators from across the Sea, claim to be their Enemy. Right here on the Saudi Arabian Border, not the Mexican Border or the Iranian Border, or the Syrian Border, just the Iraqi Tribal Border: and we have the "Blue Light Special". Those Manhattan Trinkets and bigger GUNS and Job Security for your Men.

Ah Ha, "We the People" know how to deal with TRIBES: Chippewa, Sioux, Sunni, Shiite. Damn, Manhatten just cost us less than what Judas was Paid!

Are We THAT WEAPON OF MASS DESRUCTION, having been in Training since that November in Dallas. Are we Associates of those NEOCON, NIXONIAN MADDMEN.

"IT'S A LONG WAR ON TERROR" so give us those "Greenspans".

Just a few more Trinkets and we will have the Scouts working for US of A.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW

NO MORE BETRAY US of America.

TRUTH

PLEASE

JUST TRUTH

AND PEACE

PEACE

Patriotic PEACE to all men of good will, even those non-beleivers.

Crusade-ON Crusade-OFF

just rub it in, and shine it up

with a Smiley Face

jpi7

I'm reminded of the generals of World War I - both sides - who threw battalion after battalion into the grinder, believing that "the next offensive" (read "surge") would decide the war. Fact is, the utter exhaustion of that generation's supply of able young men is what decided it. Today's generals are nothing like the butchers of 1914, let me be very clear about that, and I can't imagine that a single one of them truly believes that military success is possible in Iraq at this point. But they are stuck being directed by a Commander in Chief who does not seem to understand what a grinder Iraq has become in its own right, and that the only result of continuing the military "adventure" will be to exhaust, if not the supply of young men per se, then certainly the patience and spirit of the nation that can't see any real gain for the losses.

Let Bush veto this bill. Let him now take this action that will forever define his presidency. No pocket veto, no signing statement, no whining about "troop support" will enable him and his associates to dodge the consequences of that willful folly.

The democrats are waiting until the anniversary of the aircraft carrier fiasco "Mission Accomplished" to send the bill to the president. This is May 1st which is Tuesday. He of course won't veto it on that day because every story will include his disastrous photo op. He'll wait a day or two after that. Probably Friday evening as was mentioned by someone else. The Democrats will have their own photo ops pushing the president to really have "mission accomplished" by signing the bill.

I disagree, I predict it will be a Monday or Tuesday event with all the soldiers and wife of soldiers (serving and fallen). Furthermore, it will be billed as one White House press supplicant put it as a "surrender party". To the base, for the base, always bless the base.

The president has received a bill in plenty of time that fully funds the troops. What he fails to understand is that congress writes the bills. He only signs them.

If he signs the bill, as it stands, the troops come home in a year and a half. If he vetos the bill (and I hope he does), then the troops could be home by July. No bill, no funding. It's that simple, and he does not have any powers to spend money that is not allocated to him. Period. So.. go ahead Mr. Bush... make my day!