Bush Threatens Veto of Spending Bills

AP & Washington Post ^ | 4/7/6 | Andrew Taylor

[kjvail]

OMG, can it be true?
Are the synchophants at FR waking up to the fact us paleo's have known for years - Bush is NOT a conservative by any stretch of the imagination? Are they waking up from their Jacobin daydream or world democratic empire?
Maybe I'll actually come back.

[HitmanLV]

It brings me no pleasure to say it, but it appears as if Dubya is unaware that his personal credibility is rediculously low.

[Hank Rearden]

These vetos are too late but better late than never I guess.

What vetoes? These are simply more lame, idle threats - not to be taken seriously. Bush Jr. is just another Big Stupid Government professional politician, like his daddy, and loves to piss away our money while trying to obfuscate his irresponsibility.

He's not only squandered our money, but that of generations to come through his gross negligence of the public purse - he can't wait to find more things to waste money on (including paying off corrupt Louisiana politicians and any turdworlder that comes begging) and is too much of a budget weenie to actually veto anything.

I'm hoping Americans finally organize a tax strike to strangle the cashflow - nothing else will bring irresponsible politicians like the Republicans and the 'Rats to heel.

[Soul Seeker]

They were LYING about him never having made a VETO threat before.

They were LYING in order to suggest they had begged, pleaded, and prayed for him to VETO anything. CFR, spending, you name it. And he turned them down. They were LYING because they wanted to create the impression his statement he would threaten any legislation that impeded Dubai was the first time in FIVE years he'd made such a threat. So entered the feigned outrage.

Why was it important to create this illusion? To make that VETO threat seem more of a betrayal. After all, he won't VETO spending bills but he'll use his first VETO over this? They had an end objective they wanted to achieve and were willing to do so by any means at their disposal. Even dishonest ones.

Though the entire "debate" was dishonest at its root, because most of the people upset could be traced to using this issue because they were unhappy about the state of our borders. That was the real issue, a few admitted it even afterwards, Dubai was used as a scapegoat by quite a few. Some WERE genuine, many were not.

In actuality he's threatened VETO's over spending bills as stated, stem cells as stated, Dubai as stated, even over McCain's Terrorist amendment. On that one, at least, he attached a signing statement to it that he doesn't consider it superceeding his rights under the Constitution.

Given his history, it was unlikely he'd follow through on a VETO over Dubai. And they knew that.

Quite a bit of dishonesty and misinformation was spread in those "debates", and is where a great deal of respect I had for a number of people was diminished and even lost.