You need to take your bush bot blinders off and actually read what I have stated on this. Dems had to bribe out the wazoo to get this bill to pass, because the Blue Dogs don't like it and know they will pay a political price in their home states for voting for it.
Bush vetoed it, good, as he should, but he didn't have to even mention the word "pork" in order to do so... by doing so he just opens up criticism on his record on this topic, instead of just sticking to the war.
Sorry, thats my assessment, if you think that makes me a liberal, then you definately need some help. If you think honest criticism of your side is not allowed, then I think you have far more in common with the liberal side of the isle than you realize.
Bill was a horrible bill, and it should and was vetoed... Bush even bring the word "pork" into the justification for his veto was a bad political move.... Vetoing it because it would harm our troops and efforts is more than enough reason.
Well, when you are President, you can not say the word pork.
You need to clean your GW is EEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL glasses and attack the real source of the madness. If your dog bites you, you do not kick the cat, unless you are a dumbass.
HJ, the thing to remember here is that the Dems promised to be different if elected to power in 1006. Remember the election was about how Republicans spent money irresponsibly. By pointing out that the Dems are just as bad if not worse, the President is forcing the media to report on how much pork they were ready to foist on the public. As the Wall Street Journal says, "But... but I thought the Dems were going to be different!" The media won't report it so the President is forcing them to say it!
When I see the pork removed from the bill I will believe it. I would also like to see more vetoes of other bills loaded with pork from now on. Bush has basically taken a pass on the issue of excessive spending for 6 years. It has to stop now or 2008 will look much like 2006 in congressional races.
He has vetoed nothing at this point, as the bill would have to pass the Senate for it to reach his desk. He said he WILL veto it if it ever gets to him.
As to your assertion that no other President signed as much pork, let's see some proof of that if you have it. And we must have "constant dollar" analysis, not inflated dollars compared to the less bloated ones in the past, and it needs to be expressed as a percentage in current terms, not merely in raw dollars.
Finally, hotshot, he most certainly should object to the pork, because THIS IS A BILL TO FUND THE TROOPS WHO ARE ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN A WAR. THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WORSE THAN PORKING UP A BILL DESIGNED TO HURT THE WAR EFFORT AND ENTICING VOTES FOR IT BY PORKING IT UP.