Bush gets war-funding backwards

March 23, 2007

It’s probably unwise to get into a semantics debate over the president’s remarks, but I was struck by Bush’s reaction to the House’s Iraq bill this afternoon.

Joined at the White House by veterans and service family members, Bush said: “A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

“These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.”

Now, I realize there’s legitimate criticism of the House Dems’ plan for the war, but the president’s comments, on their face, just don’t make any sense.

The bill “brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need”? Well, actually, the opposite is true. By passing a bill that would provide troops with the resources they need, the House brought us much closer.

The Dems are trying to “delay funding for our troops”? Again, the opposite is true. Today’s bill funds the troops. That’s not delay, that’s progress.

Indeed, if the president’s top concerns are providing military resources and troop funding without delay, wouldn’t a veto be the worst possible response? The most time-consuming option possible is forcing Congress to start all over again.

Just sayin’….

Yeah. Whatever problems Bush may have with the withdrawal timetable within the spending bill, it IS a spending bill nonetheless.

I also did a double take at the phrase “abdicted its responsibility by passing a war spending bill….”

Is he suggesting that Congress’s responsibility is to NOT pass a war spending bill? Because (I suppose) that can be done too…..

  • When you live in Backwards World, everything is, well, backwards, except when you go on vaction to Upside-Down World.

  • Well, Mr Bush, if you had done a better job, the American people would not have voted your party out of power and you’d still be calling the shots. If you want to veto the will of the American people, you go right ahead. Whether the troops get funded is up to you, but the American people have spoken about whether they want you calling the shots anymore.

    As Donald Trump would say “You’re fired”.

  • I wonder what the politics will be if, which isn’t very likely, the Senate passes a bill with a timetable to get out.

    If the President vetos it, which I expect he would, then you get into a game of chicken.

    How will the politics play?

    My guess is that the Democrats come out the losers. I think the media will be against the Democrats and side with the President.

    Of course it doesn’t mean the Democrats will lose even when the media and the President are against you. It depends on how the majority of the country feels.

    I would guess that the President will win unless it is obvious the surge isn’t working.

    Of course, I have been wrong before.

    It is tough to predict the future.

  • Turning logic and language inside out are standard propaganda techniques and I’m finally coming to realizing that there’s nothing to gain in trying to figure it out, because the rules of reason were violated to achieve other ends. Bush and his co-conspirators are quite accomplished at it.

  • How about a reporter ask either Bush or Snowjob what specific parts of the spending bill they oppose?
    Is it the increase in funding for treating wounded soldiers, or is it the ensuring that soldiers are better prepared to go to war, thus preventing them from becoming wounded?

    “..Joined at the White House by veterans and service family members,..”

    How about going over the spending bill with these people, especially the ones with family in Iraq, and asking them what parts they are opposed to?

  • See, I’m all about the Bush hate, but here, he’s correct, in my opinion. The Dems know their bill has no chance of being enacted, so them voting on this bill gets us no closer to having a funding bill acceptable enough that Bush will not veto it. On the one hand, the vote is a serious time-waster, but I understand that it’s a political stance the Dems feel they need to make.

    There are so many easy targets in Bushspeak and in his policy stances; this seems like a negligable one to me.

  • “These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. — Dumbya

    My favourite is “their pet spending projects”. That would be the money for healhcare and armour, I guess…

  • #8 Boliver: The Dems know their bill has no chance of being enacted, so them voting on this bill gets us no closer to having a funding bill acceptable enough that Bush will not veto it.

    Boliver, then I suppose Congress should acquiesce and provide Bush with a bill he can sign?? Maybe Bush could write it himself. Either you’re a troll or the Spin has affected your brain. Personally, I think the bill has every chance of being enacted…Bush never vetoes anything, he’ll just add a signing statement negating the withdrawal timetable.

    #3 Thomas Ware: Our little tinpot is going to dissolve congress as obstructionist and declare Martial Law.

    I fear you are correct. And appeasers such as Boliver will stand behind it because, after all, how else can we exoect to get legislation passed?

  • He called it “a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law” … and that is only true because he will veto it.

    Isn’t that kind of like the schoolyard bully ordering you to give him your lunch and then blaming you when he punches you in the nose for not giving him your lunch?

  • On a more serious note … I’m curious to know if anyone has looked at the details of the bill enough to determine if there is ANYTHING that could qualify as “pork” or funcding of “pet democrat projects”. If anybody knows what those might be, please post here.

  • CNN anchors have repeatedly mentioned a peanut farmer subsidy among other things, so yes Pelosi had to attach unrelated pork crap to the bill to get to 218 votes.

  • It’s about time Congress said enough. America is sick and tired of watching President Bush screw our military, the Iraq war and the war on terror into the ground. Letting the President continue to spend people and money like a drunken crack whore on a binge is OVER. Someone has to be an adult, and apparently that has to be Congress.

    Time for the WH press pool to ask the President why he does not support the troops, the war, the country or rational behavior.

    Why DOES President Bush hate America?

  • What makes me sick is that for the past 6 years, the Republicans have been all about the pork, and when Pelosi has to glad-hand some people to get legislation done, she’s a pork-loving obstructionist. On another note, when I post anywhere, I try to use the guideline: don’t state opinion as fact. I will continue to do that, and show the other posters the respect they deserve. Either way, I won’t be sending back my ACLU, DCCC, or DSCC membership cards. An “appeaser.” Heh. Good one.

    • Comments are closed.