Well to claim the VETO because of timetable is consistent... and right.
To try to argue PORK is the reason? Just doesn't wash.. Bush has had no issue with PORK his entire presidency, and not tried once to reign in congressional drunken spending.
We all know why you are VETOing it Mr. President, and thats over the war timetable provisions, which is fine and just... but to spin PORK had anything to do with it just makes you look hypocritical.
The war issue alone is more than enough justification for the veto, why even verbally bring PORK into it? It's just going to play into the oppositions hand.
Attack the donks, they passed the bill. GW had nothing to do with it. Attacking the president is only helping Pelosi, unless that is what you are intending to do.
Possibly because this bill contains more in earmarks, I suspect, than any other bill in the history of the United States.
$24 Billion in earmarks. The total for all of the "pork" cited last year was around the same.
I think he wants to impress on the populace that the 'rats are not taking the issue seriously, that this bill is not a good faith effort in any respect. Many casual onlookers will not get the significance of the arbitrary cutoff dates but they will understand that 25 million for spinach farmers has nothing to do with responsible foreign policy.