Will Bush Cut Funding For the Troops with his Veto?

Question

I hope not, our troops deserve better. If Bush Veto's this bill because he doesn't want any accountability he should be IMPEACHED.

Answer 1

It's the other way around. Hear me out. Bush told them he would Veto it before they even finished writting it, and that by passing what they had written would hold up the funding. He put it on them to pass a clean bill. CONGRESS didn't.

Answer 2

None of this stuff will affect funding of the troops in the field. At worst, some stuff stateside will be juggled until the games are done being played (DoD civil service employees being sent home for a week or two, etc).

Congress will push the bill through for a veto because Americans favor deadlines (polls run in the high 50's). The bill will come back to Congress and a compromise will be struck. The deadlines will be replaced with 'goals'.

Goals can be ignored if the conditions necessary for attaining the goals haven't been met. Regardless, the goals will have a big impact on the 2008 election (notice that the deadlines all fall during election season).

If the goals aren't met, it confirms that US efforts in Iraq have been a failure and sinks the campaign of any candidate urging a continuation of troops past 2008.

If the goals are met, or if we're making progress and are reasonably close to meeting them (1972's "Peace is at hand", for example), then it sinks the campaign of the doubters that were pushing for the US to give up.

The bill just ups the ante for 2008.

Additionally, the bill wasn't used as an excuse to pass lots of pork - the pork was to gain enough votes to get the bill passed. In other words, quite a few of the votes for the bill were 'bought'.

Answer 3

No. If Bush vetoes the bill it's because Congress thinks he is an idiot who can't read, and believes Hurricane Katrina relief is somehow connected to our troops, that tours to the Capitol Building have something to do with security in Anbar or Tikrit, or that paying counties in Oregon and Washington for the inability to use federal land had a bearing on Green Zone's ability to keep insurgents off of its streets.

Get a clue. He has clearly stated what was acceptable, and Congress has flagrantly disregard the budget by loading unnecessary spending that is unrelated. $500.00 hammer, anyone? This is why Fiscal Conservatives disdain Liberal congressionals.

I may not think he's doing a good job, but at least I would have enough solemnity for the deaths of our troops, who died without appropriate gear, early on, to not fund them AND my own fricking pet projects. This is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting, on the part of Congress! Despicable!

Answer 4

You might get the facts right before you start pointing fingers. The Democratic congress passed this bill in order to keep bad press going for the president if they really wanted to support our troops they would not have loaded the bill with a time limit and 25 billion in pork spending.

Answer 5

These Lunatic Liberals are playing Political Poker with the Troops as chips......The veto will not affect the war but will fore the Whiners in Congress to do something right for a change

NO CRIMES.....NO IMPEACHMENT

Answer 6

What kind of a fools contention is this. You KNOW a veto is a veto to a timetable. not to funding. Yet you try and make it seem that its a veto to funding which is idiotic.

Answer 7

Yes he will, he does not care about the troops, just getting his way

Answer 8

Our troops do deserve better, than a Democratic congress that wants to hang our troops out to dry with a mandatory withdrawal date, and wasn't it Dems like John Kerry that voted against the troops getting the updated armored humvees, it sure was.....get your facts straight, libtard.

Answer 9

Bush is obviously trying to ignore the will of the American people, and using our troops as pawns.

Very soon, he will find out this country doesn't support him anymore.

Answer 10

I think its sad really that Bush is playing politics with our troops lives. He should be ashamed of himself.