No new news here, is there?
Posted on 04/24/2007 10:45:31 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON, April 24 — President Bush said today that he was disappointed in Congressional Democrats for making “a political statement” with an Iraq war-spending bill, and he said their version of the legislation would harm the United States and its fighting men and women.
Mr. Bush took exception to parts of the bill that call for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, and other limits on the conduct of military operations there.
“They know I’m going to veto a bill containing these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained,” Mr. Bush said of the Democrats in remarks on the White House lawn before flying to New York City. “But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement.”
The president was reacting to the agreement reached by the Democrats on Monday to ignore Mr. Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion supplementary war-spending bill with a timetable for withdrawal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
President Bush Discusses Iraq War Supplemental ~ Says will veto Democrats latest attempt ....
Negotiators Agree on War-Funding Package ~ War Supplemental Now Includes Minimum-Wage Increase?
Likely nothin, he promised a veto, period.
No new news here, is there?
The surge will continue because resources will be shared and other spending postponed.
But the US will be militarily weakened and the question now becomes , Who will attack the US as it becomes weaker thanks to the Democrats.
Reid has no idea of the dangerous game he is playing in weakening the USA militarily.
As a result, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Pakistan, Turkey might act in concert to attack US interests abroad.
And the Democrats are to blame. I am developing an abiding hatred of Reid and his gang of treasonous anti-military pedophilic Democrats.
The delusional traitors always delude themselves into thinking that the President will cave to them.
Well,...the Bill hasn’t gotten to his desk later....they might change it ...
The New York Times- in yet another bizarre headline..”Likely Veto coming”....
Likely? Pppfffttt...
Nothing likely about it- it’s coming.
Disappointed he must veto??? Come on now, you have only vetoed one bill so far. You will use that pen many more times before you leave I am sure. Get used to it. This is part of your duties.
Pelosi: ‘Working Women and Their Families Deserve Equal Pay for Equal Work’
Remember they have included a raise in the minimum wage in the War Funding Bill!!!!
“But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement.”
You said it, George! He needs to say this a thousand times a day, over and over again.
Why doesn’t he go on prime time TV and read the whole dang thing to the nation? Just read it and let all see what is in it.
I bet they'd refuse to cover it.
I’m all for it. After each pork-ridden phrase he can remind the public this is supposed to be the funding bill for the troops. I’d like him to connect the pork to the politician as well. Hey, sounds like a cool new party game. Instead of pin the d**k on the donkey,,how about,,”Connect the pork to the poli?”.
Also, I shouldn’t have called him George. He really is “Mr. President” in my book.
That could be a dangerous trap set by the Dems.
If Bush vetos the funding, the Dems could simply delay in passing any new bill. That would put the squeeze on Bush. If Bush complains, the Dems would repond that they sent him a bill and he vetoed it.
Can Bush take that kind of chance with a hostile Congress? I have my doubts.
That, is something I haven’t considered. Excellent point.
I added the “Likely Veto Coming....” stuff after ~ is not from original headline....
Too bad that this is the first spending bill he will veto.
He should have vetoed a half of them when Republican were in charge.
This is all about 2008.....
He’s a Christian.
Something is going to snap, soon.
We can’t pay our troops right know in the Air Force, in order to keep up some funding for Iraq.
Interesting times.
Only half of Congress is “hostile”—the other half appears to be “do-nothing”, much to the grief of our military. :*(
Maybe the DOJ can freeze all the assets of the congress-critters (or threaten it). Cut-off their cash and maybe they’ll actually think about working?
Geez,,what am I smoking? I know better, but, I had to share the fantasy.
He is a much better Christian than me and most of us. I used to be like that long time ago, but not anymore, I fell from grace.
We should use the military to arrest Democrats and charge them for treason, period!
Cheney just gave a statement to the press that said that it is too cynical for Harry Reid to proclaim the war “lost”...and then to promote legislation to assure that we “will lose”...while at the same time making comments that the Dems “will pick up Senate seats over this war”.
OUCH...of course Nora O’Donnell came on after his statement and referred to Cheney as the Hatchet Man of the Bush Administration....LOL
Which would start a major constitutional crisis, and get the President impeached. If it didn't start a civil war.
Aaahhhhhh...LOL...but see how conditioned we are to expect that kind of thing from the NYT’s??? Thanks for clarifying.
The Demonization of Cheney continues.....
The Democrats are determined to destroy our military.
If President Bush does veto this bill, I would not be surprised if the Democrats simply passed another bill identical to the first -- or even worse -- and re-presented it to the President.
It is. The Congress will not pass a more favorable bill, so Bush must ask the question: “Is this bill materially worse for our war efforts than no funding whatsoever?” The facts, however, may indicate that it is. President Bush could come back in October and November and refuse to sign any appropriations bills, including extensions, especially those that fund the Congress and legislative salaries until the Congress appropriates funds for the military.
In the interim, the military must conserve money as if it will get no more. And the soldiers will bear personally the financial burden of warfare. They must pay from their savings for their own rations, bullets, guns, fuel, armor, vehicles, and even for their own medical care if wounded. Perhaps we should start a non-tax-deductible military charity network for citizens to assist our troops voluntarily with their financial, medical, and military needs to the maximum extent possible and legal for a civilian.
But even those most extreme austerity measures tide us only until 20 January 2009 (earlier if impeachment moves forward as appears increasingly likely), when the “Democratic” (pronounced demon-rat-ick!) enemies of the United States take the Presidency, a proposition now almost inevitable barring the emergence of a credible electoral opponent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.