Unfortunately Bush is a bull-headed moron, and he is going to veto. Yes. However, forcing him to veto is a politically good move for the Democrats and begins the process of getting out of Iraq, and showing that at least the congressional Dems acknowledge the will of the people. Looked at with only the goal of getting out of Iraq, any one vote that will be vetoed seems meaningless. Looked at politically and pragmatically, this is a huge win for the Dems, holding a majority together just like the win in the house. Assuming this voting bloc holds for the bill itself, the conference committee should be able to get a deadlined bill passed. When it's vetoed Bush will look like he is the one not funding the troops and even further out of step.
Especially with narrow majorities and lacking the executive, politics is an incremental process.
Forcing a Bush veto that shows him prolonging an unpopular war is a political masterstroke. My question is .. does Bush have to veto, or can he just issue a signing statement?
A signing statement in this case would almost certainly cause the constitutionality of signing statements to come under immense scrutiny - and I don't think they can hold up to that.
The second thought in my post, erased, was to ask about legal options if a signing statement was signed. I believe that the executive is abusing power and subverting the constitution by issuing signing statements, anyway. What could the congress do?
