Veto #2, point by point. All emphasis mine:

Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.

As opposed to substituting the opinions of a bunch of neo-imperialists for the judgment of people who actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to foreign policy & national security? I distinctly recall anyone who said Iraq would be anything less than a total cakewalk being written off as a kook (and in the case of those in the administration, shown the door).

Here’s why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

Define what a “natural” deadline would be.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.

Contrary to previous assumptions, the majority of the violence is NOT of foreign origin. In other words, “the enemy” in this statement is inherently referring to Iraqis. Needless to say, they would know US troops are leaving without having to be told.

All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Remember when there was all that talk about training Iraqi soldiers? Notice how that died down? What happened was many people joined for training, only to desert and join the insurgency. Others are openly using their positions to engage in sectarian violence — with an implied wink from the civilian leadership. The idea that there’s the government on one side and “teh terrahriss” on the other, clearly demarcated, is ridiculous.

I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people

Solid majorities of Iraqis want troops out and actively support attacks against them! Under the circumstances, the only way that it’d be reasonable to think leaving would demoralize them would be if one assumed that they took some sort of sick enjoyment out of US troops being killed. No, they support them because it’s the only way they see to get us to LEAVE, they’re thinking of it in terms of defending sovereignty. If some other country invaded the US we’d be doing the same thing, this attitude is not unique to the middle east.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America’s commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

They do already. In fact, this is part of the reason that security contractors mercenaries have been so big in Iraq — it’s called “plausible deniability”. Neos regularly complain about “strings” attached to the military, if they still have something to bitch about after 7 years of Bush then that’s his fault.

Bush would’ve been better off just saying “zero nine foxtrot nine one one zero two nine delta seven four echo three five bravo delta eight four one five six charlie five six three five six eight eight charlie zero…“. It makes about as much sense.