Did George Bush make a genius Political move?

Question

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?

And pleae don't say Congress is going to override the veto...
There is NO WAY 2/3rds of them would agree to that...

Answer 1

George W. Bush may not be the best President we've ever had, but he is no moron. He understands the game of politics, & given the circumstances has played his hand very well. Without the 2/3rds required to override the veto Congress will be forced to pass a "clean" bill. Failure to do so will allow Republicans to shift any failure in policy squarely on the Democrats!
Ain't politics grand!!

Answer 2

I don't think he made a genius political move. He did what he has been doing the entire time he has been in office. Telling us up front what he is going to do and then standing by his guns and doing it regardless of what people say.

All this is choreographed, that's the problem with two polarized parties. We put together a bill we know Bush is going to veto (only his 2nd or 3rd veto), and we know the bill is not going to get the 2/3 majority needed to overrule his veto. In essence, we did nothing but waste time, name call, and get media attention, hoping that the public will blame Bush so we can get more seats next year.

The problem is this. Moderate Democrats such as myself realize that they should have put together a bill strong enough to get a 2/3 vote. That means building a coalition in the House and Senate.

My fellow Dems, you want my vote in 2008? Show me you can build a coalition with the Republicans in the House and Senate to get something done. If you can't do that, then you can't build a coalition with other countries and won't get my vote in 2008.

Answer 3

Once again both sides are playing politics with our servicemembers. I agree, congress should have fronted a bill that would spell out everything except the withdrawal date, knowing they don't have enough votes to overturn the promised veto. Cutting military funding is nothing new to Democrats, so don't start thinking that it is "political suicide", many liberals welcome budget cuts in our military. It will be interesting to see the spin from both sides regarding this, although I do hope they stop long enough to properly fund the troops.

Answer 4

I wouldn't call it political genius - it's an obvious ploy - but, yes, that's what he did, and, I think it's a darn good guess as to why he did it.

I don't think it'll get him a perfectly 'clean' bill, though - maybe one with fewer strings attached, or just a lot of pork, but no timetable. The democrats will be able to craft a funding bill that won't be entirely to president's liking, but could garner enough votes to override a veto - especially if they put it through /just/ before the money's set to run out, and spin the 'delay' as the fault of the veto.

Answer 5

Maybe a good political move, but hardly genius - presidents issue veto threats all the time.

But no, it's not certain that Bush will win this debate. The public may blame Bush for the veto, not Congress.

Answer 6

You ought to wake up to the facts. The troops are already short of training, proper equipment, or a plan. The congress has given Bush all he asked for and more but he wants something else. He wants this war to continue until after he has left office so that when everything turns to crap when we do leave the Republicans can blame it on the Democrats.

Answer 7

I like that! Bush is the man, and I truly don't get why ppl hate him. do they want us to come out of Iraq so some other country can take over get stronger and then attack us?

That is what the ppl in the army signed up to do! Protect America! And they're doing a fine job where they're at!

Answer 8

I think it was an obvious move by both sides. This is a predictable outcome. What happens next is probably predictable too.

Answer 9

I'm sick of it all! Republicans & Democrats alike. I'm starting to understand why some people don't vote.

Answer 10

I think I'm going to vote my mind in the next election!