That veto George W. Bush threatened of the Defense authorization bill? The one with the troops’ pay raise in it?

He hasn’t even got the stones to put his signature to it:

The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to “pocket veto” bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.

That’s right, civics fans: Bush is claiming this is a “pocket veto,” as defined in Article I, section 7 of the Constitution:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large in their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Because the bill has so much in it for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, Bush apparently doesn’t dare sign an affirmative veto. Instead, he’ll pretend it… just went away on its own.

But this bill was presented to the president for his signature on December 19th. It’s been eight days since then, not counting Sundays as the Constitution outlines. Seven if you give an extra day for Christmas. Hasn’t been ten days yet.

Not only that, but you may recall that the Senate has remained in session all this time explicitly to prevent trickery like this. The most oft-cited reason was to prevent recess appointments, but the pro forma sessions — the most recent of which was held today, yes, the very day Bush claimed there was no session — also serve to avoid adjournment, and therefore the pocket veto.

But not in Bushworld. In Bushworld, these sessions don’t count. Because he says so.

And if Bush thinks the Senate’s sessions don’t count, what’s stopping him from making recess appointments?

How much more abuse can this Congress stand?

The White House just announced that President Bush intends to veto a major defense policy bill, citing concerns over language that it claims could endanger Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks.

In a written statement just released, White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel says the measure “would significantly amend current law (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in ways that would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds.”

A provision in the measure “would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States. Once in place, the restrictions on Iraq’s funds that could result from the bill could take months to lift, and thus Section 1083 cannot become law even for a short period of time,” Stanzel says in the statement.

Among many provisions, the bill includes a half-percentage-point bump in military pay, on top of a 3% boost already set to go into effect Jan. 1. “As soon as possible upon Congress’s return in January, the Administration will work with Congress to enact the NDAA adjusted in a manner that protects Iraqi funds in the United States and that ensures that the additional pay raise for our troops is retroactive to January 1,” Stanzel says in the statement.

Update at 12:29 p.m. ET: Democrats are saying this is the first time they’ve heard of any administration objections. “The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. “The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops’ pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures.”

This bill does not put poor children first, and it moves our country’s health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our nation’s goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage, not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.

Congressional Democrats understand the need to fund critical priorities at home while we also correct the disastrous course the White House has set at home and abroad. This war already costs taxpayers $12 billion a month…. The last thing this administration should do is preach about responsible management.

When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats. More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region.