OK, dealing with the war funding bill...
Before the whole fiasco started, Bush said he would veto any bill that included a withdrawal date. Period, the end. However, Congress, knowing this, put the date in the bill anyway, knowing good and well it would get vetoed.
Now, cutting military funding is political suicide, no doubt about it. But if Bush hadn't said anything beforehand, and simply vetoed the bill, he would pretty much kill any chance of a Republican in the Oval office in '08.
SO what is the difference? He said he would veto the bill BEFORE Congress even passed it! So he passed the burden of responsibility on to Congress. In other words, the Bill was already vetoed by the time it was passed.
Bush knows that, since cutting funding is political suicide, Congress is going to HAVE to pass a "clean" bill before funding runs out. So he is just biding his time, gonna veto the Bill, and Congress is gonna have to hurry up and pass a new, clean bill so that the troops get their funding. Because once the money runs out, and people see the news reports of Soldiers in Iraq without proper equipment, Pelosi and the other nutjobs are GONE.
What do you think? Will Congress eventually pass a “clean” bill? Is this just really smart planning on the part of George Bush?
2007-04-27
07:00:25
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Other - Politics & Government