You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Bush threatens to veto Iraq monies
2007-03-18
WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush on Saturday threatened to veto emergency money for Iraq and Afghanistan if it includes measures aimed at forcing a US withdrawal or unrelated domestic spending. “Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.
Good. Now stick to your guns.
At issue is next week’s debate in the House of Representatives over a 124-billion-dollar spending measure that includes a Democratic measure aimed at forcing a US withdrawal from Iraq by September 2008. The US president warned that such an outcome would be ”disastrous” and “a nightmare for our country” and said it “would undermine” the ongoing effort to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Bush said the hotly contested bill would give lawmakers who say they support US troops in Iraq “a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word” as he railed against domestic spending provisions tacked on to the war funding. “For example, the House bill would provide 74 million dollars for peanut storage, 48 million dollars for the Farm Service Agency, and 35 million dollars for NASA. These programs do not belong in an emergency war spending bill,” he said. “Congress must not allow debate on domestic spending to delay funds for our troops on the front lines. And members should not use funding our troops as leverage to pass special interest spending for their districts,” warned Bush.
Oh for a line-item veto.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  Hit enter too soon...


Compare that to Reagan and the PATCO strike.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-03-18 17:45  

#5  "I'm not sure any modern president could do better without making half the nation hate him."

Maybe thats it.

Reagan wasn't concerned with being liked by the whole country, but with being right for the whole country.

Bush, sad to say, does not seem capable of simply doing the right thing consistently, if it requires that he be ruthless with his domestic opponents (Getting Ted Kenned the NCLB act, and not going after the leakers and others in the Intel community) and his domestic friends (ex: immigration and cheap labor for big biz versus building the fence).
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-03-18 17:44  

#4  I think what we have is a good Texas governor that's a mediocre US President. I'm beginning to believe that George Bush just isn't capable of dealing with all the details that a US president has to deal with. He's also facing a hostile bureaucracy, a hostile press, and a hostile congress (even the Repuglycon one). There isn't enough Teddy Roosevelt blood in his veins to deal with all the problems. This isn't to say he's a moron - he's really a very intelligent person. He just isn't ruthless enough to deal with all his adversaries. If we re-elected Teddy Roosevelt, the streets of Washington would run red with blood - as it should. I'm not sure any modern president could do better without making half the nation hate him. That, too, may become necessary in the near future.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-03-18 14:09  

#3  OldSpook, you are so correct. Bush has been in auto-pilot mode for 6 years. It's the same with the Justice Dept. lawyers. Why now ? Why did he waste all the political capital he had after 9/11 ? Why does he deal with Teddy Kennedy ? Why does he turn his back on the people at the borders ? What is his problem ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-03-18 12:03  

#2  "unrelated domestic spending"

Now he finds his balls and uses the veto pen for pork.

Bush is an idiot sometimes - had he done this with the Republican congress and made them control pork, we'd probably not have Pelosi in charge.

Posted by: OldSpook   2007-03-18 11:20  

#1  The Democratic tactic to load up the military appropriations bill with unrelated spending is, in a word, stupid. There is not even anything "antiwar" about it; it is just more "pork" abuse from the same people who campaigned against that in the recent elections.
Posted by: Spiter Gonque6653   2007-03-18 07:23  

00:00