Bush's Veto, the Whys and Wherefores

Photo from source, KansasCity.com

I already posted about Bush's most recent "pocket" veto. What I didn't really grasp was the reason for it. It seemed to catch both houses of Congress off guard, and news on it was spotty, considering it was between Christmas and New Year's. Here is an interesting analysis, explaining what it was possibly all about.

[Excerpt]

Bush veto stymies ex-POWs’ lawsuit

For months, President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.

And then last week, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced that he was vetoing a sweeping military policy bill, in part because the legislation could revive a lawsuit brought by American prisoners of war during the 1991 Persian Gulf War who say they were tortured by the Iraqis. . .

Read more at: KansasCity.com

Bush Plays "Pocket Veto" Card

Photo from Bush2004.com

I'm still trying to figure this out. My understanding of a "pocket veto" is that if a bill expires--while Congress is out of session, and without a Presidential signature--the bill effectively dies. But if it expires while Congress is in session, it is effectively passed without a signature.

So, Bush is currently trying this strategy (I guess so he doesn't actually have to veto it). But, Congress is still in session--at least technically--in order to preclude any more recess appointments. So won't the bill now become law? Either my understanding of the pocket veto is flawed, or Bush's is.

[Excerpt]

Bush Rejects Defense Bill by Pocket Veto

President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."

Read more at: AP