Saturday, March 31, 2007
President Bush to veto funds for troops
Under the weak cover of a little pork in the bill, Our Dear Embattled Leader has promised, once again, to deny adequate funding for the troops in Iraq.
The Democratic response of retired Marine Lt. Col. Andrew Horne really says it best.
"I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our troops should come before the security of our peanut crop," Bush said in his weekly radio address, referring to a provision in the war funding legislation that earmarks $74 million for secure peanut storage...Displaying the fabulous sense of "black is white" that is the hallmark of Bushovism, ODEL has, after six years of totally shameless pork padding in Republican sponsored bills, finally noticed that Congress always puts in a little extra and in his best Captain Renault imitation, is shocked!, shocked! to see it and will shut it down, along with the funding for the troops.
...Bush repeated his promise to veto the bills if the timelines stay in - and if the unrelated earmarks stay in as well - because they "undercut our troops in the field."
The Democratic response of retired Marine Lt. Col. Andrew Horne really says it best.
"Both houses of Congress have done their jobs and will soon finish a bill that will provide for the troops. When they're done, the only person who could keep funds from reaching troops would be the president...
...If the president vetoes this bill because he doesn't want to formally demonstrate progress in Iraq, never in the history of war would there be a more blatant example of a commander in chief undermining the troops. There is absolutely no excuse for the president to withhold funding for the troops, and if he does exercise a veto, Congress must side with the troops and override it."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment