Skip to main content

Yup. It's that time again.

Bush wants another $108 billion for Iraq, and he's threatening to veto any bill that either comes in higher than that amount, or attempts to impose any restrictions on how the occupation is conducted.

Why would he threaten to veto any bill with more than $108 billion in it?

Well, that depends on why it's there. For instance, if it's money that's added on to pay the educational benefits we promised the volunteers who joined our Armed Forces and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, well then, it's gonna get vetoed.

When asked about the popular plan to increase education benefits for troops returning from Iraq, however, Bush held firm.

"I made my position very clear to Congress and I will not accept a supplemental over $108 billion or a supplemental that micromanages the war, ties the hands of our commanders," Bush said. "We will work with Congress on these veterans' benefits .... But the $108 billion is $108 billion."

F you, soldier!

And why would those troop "supportin'" Republicans stand for that? Because Republicans hate pork! Unless you prevent them from adding it, that is.

Republicans are howling over what appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s plan to bypass the House Appropriations Committee on the upcoming Iraq war supplemental, complaining that the move will be the beginning of the end of the usual appropriations process and will further consolidate power in the hands of a speaker who already has a lot of it.

Oh noes! The Speaker has power! Well, elections have consequences, as Republicans used to say.

Yes, the Democratic leadership is considering moving the Iraq appropriations bill directly to the House floor rather than sending it through the committee process. That could short circuit a lot of nonsense, like Jerry Lewis's crybaby antics over the inclusion by Democrats of provisions requiring the president to sign waivers when he rotates untrained, unrested, and unarmored troops back into combat. Or responsible grown-up Bill Young's shenanigans in offering a fake withdrawal amendment, which I'm sure was oh-so-hilarious to the troops he can't stop saying he supports.

But the fact is, they haven't decided yet whether they're going to use this procedure or not. Neither do we know for sure whether it's an effort to clamp down on earmarks, or an effort to give shelter to preferred earmarks.

Either way, though, this was kind of hilarious in a "What planet have you been on?" kind of way:

Adds Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), an Appropriations Committee member: "For anyone who cares about the institution, this goes against the democratic process. Someone who is confident of her position would have no problem going through regular order."

Poor Mikey! You'd almost think he cared about the institution. Not that he  cared when Bush took a giant crap on it and instructed "Attorney General" Michael Mukasey to blow off the institution's subpoenas and contempt of Congress citations. Nope. Couldn't be bothered!

Loser.

But there's still one more possible motivating factor, and that's getting this damned bill rammed through with as few stops -- and therefore as few opportunities for examination and/or protest -- as possible.

Why do that? Here's one sentence with two possible reasons. Here's number one:

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet...

Oof!

Here's the second:

...a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

Yeah, that kinda sucks, huh? Largest Iraq war spending bill yet. From the Democrats elected in 2006 to end the war. D'oh!

And knowing that there's a decent chance of electing a Democratic president in 2008 to end the war (because logic hasn't ever applied to American elections, and we're not about to start now), Congressional Democrats don't want him or her to have to sully up the honeymoon with any untoward requests. Like, say, billions more dollars for the war everyone says they're ending.

So Bush wants his $108 billion, and he wants it to the penny. If Dems try to smooth the next president's transition into dealing with Iraq, he'll veto the bill -- yet another way to hold the troops hostage to his insane agenda, even while he's out of office. How's that for "reaching across the aisle?" He's reaching across to smack the next president in the face... from beyond the political grave.

This is the president who insists that Congress is not permitted to tie his hands in dealing with Iraq, but who now reserves the right to tie the hands of the next president and the next Congress. And not even to tie them to his Iraq policy. Just to the headaches that come with cleaning up his mess, no matter what that may mean.

George W. Bush truly does hate America.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:20 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  time to blood-y those hands Democrats!! eom (0+ / 0-)
    •  So tell me why Pelosi wants to fund... (0+ / 0-)

      the Iraq War 6 months into the next presidency? Is it because she now is for the War no matter who wins the presidency? Suppose Bush uses the extra funds to start something with Iran? How can Pelosi et al criticize that debacle? Pelosi is a cow and Reid is a castrated bull and Bush is an unsophisticated farmer.

  •  $108,000,000,000 more? (13+ / 0-)

    Meh. The Chinese can afford it.

  •  Let's watch and see ... (9+ / 0-)

    if either of our candidates actually wants to start ending the war.  My guess is they'll both support the funding bill, and that neither will go out on a limb to offer alternatives.  

    God, I hope one or both of them prove me wrong.

    I am an Edwards Democrat.

    by ThirstyGator on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:24:03 AM PDT

  •  Here's 108 Pictures Of My Ass (10+ / 0-)

    Just for you, Worst-President-Ever.

  •  If the dems had any backbone (13+ / 0-)

    they would make the oil companies pay for the oil protection in Iraq.

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:25:54 AM PDT

  •  God I wish they'd just tell bush to (11+ / 0-)

    FUCK OFF.

    They shouldn't give him another damn penny. Not. One. More.

    Let him pout all he wants.

    Hillary Clinton: I woulda won already if Democrats were Republicans.

    by MingPicket on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:27:18 AM PDT

  •  I like your posts (11+ / 0-)

    . . . and I like this one, but it's a little scattered and perhaps I could summarize your themes.

    1.  Democrats are stuck in a bind over funding the war because Bush will basically hang the soldiers out to dry if he doesn't get his money.  Also, whoever the new president is will need some money to play with just to figure out what to do with our military over there and how to get them out.
    1.  Democrats want to throw in a few billion dollars of supplemental funding to cover hard to fund line items like public health and soldier's benefits.
    1.  republicans would probably go along with the D's if the D's gave them a chance to fund some of their own stuff, but the normal R's can't seem to shake the lunatics in their party long enough to strike a deal.
    1.  Bush is a total dick and has no clue what he's doing, and doesn't understand the eventual compromise that Cheney will eventually make.  He's no being used as a puppet tool to try to scare everyone to death with how fucking stupid he is.  

    When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime come the wolf. Cormac McCarthy

    by dbratl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:27:43 AM PDT

    •  Part of the problem... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dbratl, kurious, llamaRCA

      is that nobody knows what the procedure is going to be, or why it's going to be that way.

      Makes it a little difficult to focus.

      On top of that, there are all the problems you note: nobody knows which factions of which side do and don't want to pass this funding, or precisely what their reasoning is.

    •  Is Clinton Really Doing Earmarks for New York (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dbratl

      I despite this candidate,but in reading all about her $2.5 billion in earmarks all over the internet yesterday, I called her the Next President of New York, likely to hire Blackwater, all the contractors and invest heavily in a fence around the state.

      But is there another reason I'm missing, it could not possibly be true that she is engaging in this "supplement post election funding" through earmkarks, right?

      Why is everything with this woman so confusing every time.

      •  I know Harry Reid . . . (0+ / 0-)

        Has $26 million earmarked to deal with a massive hepatitis C exposure in Nevada.  

        Don't know what HRC has earmarked. But seriously, you'd be stupid to not try to throw some earmarks in a bill this big.  

        Seriously, ALL our discretionary money is going to be siphoned off to military contractors? That's about what it looks like if you don't earmark.  

        When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime come the wolf. Cormac McCarthy

        by dbratl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  also - unstated (0+ / 0-)

      but the Dems want the wars of aggression to continue, since they totally support that, no matter what they say....

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by dancewater on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:17:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you really believe . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        echatwa

        That there is any such thing as "the Dems"?

        If nothing else, this primary process should have taught you that. what you are attacking is a make-believe fantasy.

        When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime come the wolf. Cormac McCarthy

        by dbratl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not attacking anyone (0+ / 0-)

          just stating the truth

          (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

          by dancewater on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, but you're not. . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            echatwa

            What I'm saying is that the world is not that simple.

            There are Dems like Feingold and the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House who very much want to get out of Iraq right away.  Then there are Dems like Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs who probably are in favor of a long term presence.  There are several parties within the party.

            When the lambs is lost in the mountain, he said. They is cry. Sometime come the mother. Sometime come the wolf. Cormac McCarthy

            by dbratl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Either you are for a WARTAX or you are for GWB (4+ / 0-)

    it's that simple.  Every single DEM should be for a Iraq Spending bill that has NO RESTRICTIONS OR ANY TIMETABLES but is PAID FOR IN FULL from a tax increase on the top tax bracket.  If that's not your position, YOU ARE A NEOCON.

  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbeaudill, TerribleTom, netguyct

    As we have said over and over, let Bush veto it! Let Bush do the obstructing. But the Democrats are too stupid to do that.

    * 4058 * http://icasualties.org/oif/

    by BDA in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:31:39 AM PDT

  •  Could someone please explain why (7+ / 0-)

    there is an Iraq funding bill separate from the Defense funding bill?

    When the REpublicans were in charge of Congress, I understood this tactic was a "shell game" maneuver that enabled them to keep the billions of red out of the annual budget forecasts. But why do the Democrats allow this to continue?

    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

    by Chrispy67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:31:44 AM PDT

    •  The Iraq War has always been funded by (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomFromNJ, two roads

      a supplemental bill, even when rulings have been passed that that would no longer be acceptable. Schumer and Feingold among others have tried to force Pentagon BushCheney to submit Iraq War funding as part of the regular budget but they refuse to do so. Now in the 6th year of the war, don't you think they might have a clue on how much the baseline expenditures of this war might be?  I think Congress should send the bill back to them and demand that it no longer be submitted as a supplemental, period, no funding otherwise.

      In youth we learn, in age we understand.

      by Jbeaudill on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:59:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I recall them saying something along these lines (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jbeaudill

        last year.

        Now, why didn't the DEMOCRATS say during the DoD appropriations process, "hey, where's the funding for Iraq?"

        Maybe they could have held a press conference saying, "It looks like Bush and Cheney agree with us. They haven't asked for any money for Iraq so they must be in favor of a quick withdrawal. We applaud their wise decision and look forward to greeting our troops as they return home in the next few months." Fantasy, I know, but think of the PR possibilities. It would have provided an opportunity to reveal the administration as dishonest and fiscally irresponsible (good campaign talking points) and - just maybe - force Bush to follow the appropriate process.

        I'm just not getting why our leaders continue allowing BushCo to write their own rules.

        "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

        by Chrispy67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do send your comment out as letter to editor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chrispy67

          when the supplemental comes up in Congress; I'll do same here. Congress controls the purse strings; money should only be allotted to bring the troops home.

          In youth we learn, in age we understand.

          by Jbeaudill on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:01:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  McCain, Bush, Cheney, Liberman, oil companies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alohaleezy, catfood, Jbeaudill, echatwa

    and rethugs should start funding this war from out of their own pockets and also supply their own kids to fight this war. They all are millionaires and billionaires.

  •  Huh?? (7+ / 0-)

    the move will be the beginning of the end of the usual appropriations process

    The "usual" appropriations process for all matters DOD is to include Defense operations in the annual Defense Appropriations Bill, not to demand off-budget "supplementals" of $100B+ every ten months.

    Saying, "The surge is working" . . . is working my last nerve.

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM PDT

  •  Could not have said it any better! (5+ / 0-)

    George W. Bush truly does hate America.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:32:50 AM PDT

  •  Dems making all efforts to snatch Defeat from (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beelzebud, corvo, Jbeaudill, JML9999, echatwa

    Victory in 2008. More each day I am concerned that we are heading to another election night 50/50% nail biter. 2006 is but a very strange memory to the reality we've seen since then from Dem Leader(not)(ship). ship or shit - it about the same these days - right?

    leadership - noun

    the state of being a leader

    Man I wish them Democrats had a grasp of this word. The last time they did was more than 40 years ago.

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:33:24 AM PDT

  •  And, this one too will pass. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo

    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. --Thomas Paine

    by David Kroning on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:35:25 AM PDT

  •  THE PATRIOT TAX to pay for it all. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alohaleezy, TerribleTom, RickMassimo

    Members of Congress to have a ceremony to show themselves writing checks for their fair share.

    Patriot Tax.

    Patriot Bonds.

    Pay this off a.s.a.p.

    Suggestion: write lots of letters to editors as demonstration of public groundswell.

    The Nation action and media links:
    http://capwiz.com/...

    Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

    by LNK on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:36:50 AM PDT

  •  cleanup on aisle 2009! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomFromNJ
    sorry we couldn't get to it before we left town!
  •  Anyone ever get the feeling (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, dancewater, Jbeaudill, echatwa

    you're being water-boarded without the water?

    A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

    by Terre on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:18 AM PDT

  •  Send it to Congress with a large (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duckhunter

    chunk of the appropriation linked to education and get the Congress and the President on the record saying No to that.

    Good issue to use in the campaign. I think this is an election year and there will not be that many republicans (especially in the House) who would oppose more money for the troops/veterans. I think this could be the first time Bush's veto could be overturned.

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM PDT

    •  He doesn't care. (6+ / 0-)

      He's already said he'd veto it if the extra money was for the college tuition he promised to veterans.

      He literally doesn't care.

      •  after all he did tell the nations children ... (0+ / 0-)

        they don't deserve Health Insurance, so I cant say I am surprised.

      •  That is fine, but let him put his John Hancock (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duckhunter, Jbeaudill, llamaRCA

        at the bottom of the bill and say NO to tuition and education funding for the veterans, and let's get the Congress on the record.

        This is a good issue to use in the general.

        Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

        by Mutual Assured Destruction on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  he signed the AUMF too. Sending soldiers into (0+ / 0-)

          harm's way under false pretenses was "on the record" also.

          How that work out for him?

          re-Election you say?

          I am afraid you are looking for a mythical creature thought to reside in this land of ours many years ago, it was know to be fleeting and elusive as the more famous Unicorn.

          But this creature's beauty couldnt be seen with the naked eye, but still left any witness in awe.

          That creature was called Accountability.

          She is dead now.  The last of her kind.

        •  Bush is anti-soldier, healthcare and education (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duckhunter

          Bush and the Republicans will never actually do anything that would lead to a nation of educated people, each with critical thinking skills, because they would never vote Republican, not this bunch anyway.

          If Bush/Cheney were pro-soldier, they would never have lied to start and perpetuate this illegitimate war.

          If Bush/Cheney were pro health care, by now one sixth of the American people would not be without health care.

      •  I hope every soldier over there knows (0+ / 0-)

        that Bush would deny them college funding despite their service! Spread the word, spread the word.  This is just like when Bush was cutting Vets hospital funding during the war two years ago.

        In youth we learn, in age we understand.

        by Jbeaudill on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:02:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think that just may be what is going to happen. (0+ / 0-)

      The supplemental spending bill will include legislation to expand the GI bill.  The Chronicle of Higher Education is also reporting this:

      The proposed legislation has 249 sponsors in the House of Representatives and 58 sponsors in the Senate.

      On Tuesday, some 200 supporters of the legislation, including the Senate majority leader, Harry M. Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and the speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, attended a rally on Capitol Hill to push for its passage. Many wore buttons that read "Leave no veteran behind."

      Several veterans who are now in college spoke at the rally, saying they felt they had been deceived by military recruiters' promises of a free college education.

      snip

      Lawmakers at the rally provided no clues about the legislation's prospects. But Senator Webb said afterward that Senator Reid, the majority leader, had promised to take the bill to the floor for a vote this year. Supporters are optimistic the measure will be included in the supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      "The fact that Pelosi was here was an affirmation that the supplemental strategy is a go," said Patrick Campbell, legislative director for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

  •  The political grave won't come soon enough. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terre, llamaRCA

    Then there is always the concern that this president will haunt us like the undead Nixon did for many years.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:33 AM PDT

    •  I just read that (0+ / 0-)

      before coming to dk today. Yeppers, Betrayedus sure led a successful surge didn't he? Noe they are bombing the only "safe zone" The Green Zone every other day. Get these kids out of there now. This campaign needs to end now so we can get away from all the distractions of 'lil Bush's ast year in office.It is as if most people have completely forgotten about the illegal occupation of the oil fields in Iraq. Too worried about the pump price. We are a bunch of stooges.

      Frodo failed....Bush has got the ring!

      by Alohaleezy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:55:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Peace is cheaper than war (6+ / 0-)

    Six months.  $108 billion.  Iraq.

    Population of Iraq:  28,993,000
    Population over age 14:  17,627,744

    Equivalent annual expense per household (1.5 adults):  $18,380

    The poverty threshold for the US is $10,400.

    Perhaps it would be cheaper to simply put the whole country on welfare.  Call it... the Iraqi National Guard.  Hire everyone.  Pay them to build stuff, teach in schools, dig trenches... and take their time doing it.

    •  Peace will cause a massive disrpution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth

      in the endless obscene profiteering of the Robber Barons and their corporations.

      War is better for THEIR bottom line.

      Peace is better for ours.

      (Note: we outnumber them by about 5,999,000,000 people. This is the other reason they are so invested in firepower and propaganda.)

      There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:55:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brilliant. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomFromNJ


      And should be one of the main talking points. But this is the go-along-get-along Dem congress, so no such luck.

      I however plan to steal your calculations, and start pushing it as a meme.

      If that's okay with you...

      The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

      by two roads on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Um, no. (6+ / 0-)

    Pass no bill.

    It's time to end this charade.

    If Bush can't fund the occupation, he can bring them home.

    We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

    by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:48:44 AM PDT

  •  THAT is the question of the day. (0+ / 0-)

    Yo Bush, why can the next president have his or her hands tied when you supposedly can't?

    Bush Derangement Syndrome is a sign of sanity.

    by RickMassimo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

  •  Please see Faheyman's diary on (0+ / 0-)

    "Why They Hate Us."  And then you'll know why we must vote against further funding the insane war in Iraq.

    In youth we learn, in age we understand.

    by Jbeaudill on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:51:13 AM PDT

  •  $108 Billion = 2 years of War on Drugs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ben masel, llamaRCA

    More simple math and a reflection of priorities.

    We cut people out of healthcare but spend $50 billion a year lying about a plant while keeping the profits of trafficking real drugs very high. It accomplishes nothing that contributes to the safety or betterment of society.

    But dammit, we have tens of billions for it.

    and hundreds of billions for the war machine

    Sorry about your healthcare... eggs and omlets, you know.

    There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM PDT

  •  WTF !?!?!?? (6+ / 0-)

    Adds Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), an Appropriations Committee member: "For anyone who cares about the institution, this goes against the democratic process.

    ANYONE who cares about THE INSTITUTION WOULD HAVE IMPEACHED THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION OF WAR CRIMINALS ALL FUCKING READY!!!!!!

    SYFPH!!!!!!!

    I'm sorry... did I yell too loud?

  •  Bush veto aid for veterans doesn't support troops (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbeaudill, Ohiodem1, IngeniousGirl

    or money for broken barracks, or family aid, or GI Bill. Give veterans a 'tax holiday' equal to the time they spent in service.  Support the troops and mean it.

  •  Why don't the Demos pack it with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alohaleezy, FishBiscuit, llamaRCA

    troop-supporting add-ons like armor, health care and education benefits? That way when Chimpy vetoes it they can say, "look- he hates the troops!"

  •  U.S. Commander In Chief - A Pol Pot Dictator? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbeaudill

    That's the headline a journalist would post.

    If seniority equated to good judgment, McCain would be appointed president.

    by Juan4All on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM PDT

  •  Bluffing (0+ / 0-)

    The President is afraid that he won't get any supplemental at all.

    He's trying to bait the Democrats into producing a larded-up bill, which he'll sign anyway (he gets to carry on the war) but only after getting the vapors and wagging his finger at the Democrats.

    By restricting the money cap so that it is impossible for things that voters obviously want to be funded, he's just trying to provoke a confrontation.

    The John McCain Maverick Healthcare Plan: (1) Ban Dying, which is America's Number One Cause of Death; and (2) Tax Cuts!

    by JimTXDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

  •  This isn't just about a new pres 'honeymoon'.. (0+ / 0-)


    ...a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

    By funding now Dems avoid a battle in September over funding the war/occupation, and prevent an uncomfortable Senate vote/debate just before the election.

    Its the usual craven, calculating abandonment of principle and morality that has been the hallmark of the Pelosi/Reid 110th congress, which weigh American and Iraqi lives as disposable pawns on the electoral chessboard.

    The dems now truly 'own' this war.

    The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

    by two roads on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM PDT

  •  Follow-Up (0+ / 0-)

    Everything that Bush does has to be seen, I think, through the lens of election year politicking. Unlike a certain ex-president and his wife, Bush is not so narcissistic as to be indifferent to his party's fate, and I would assume that just about everything from now till November is going to be Bush trying to orchestrate a lay-up for McCain.

    The John McCain Maverick Healthcare Plan: (1) Ban Dying, which is America's Number One Cause of Death; and (2) Tax Cuts!

    by JimTXDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:10:09 AM PDT

  •  apparently the Democrats hate America too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    two roads

    since they keep funding wars of aggression that will (someday) ruin us.

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

    by dancewater on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:12:53 AM PDT

  •  Once again, KX, you rock. (0+ / 0-)

    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:15:15 AM PDT

  •  Like a child before Christmas (0+ / 0-)
    That says "If I don't get a Playstation 3 then I don't want anything!"

    Ummm...okay, then you don't get anything.

    Why Democrats won't just stand up to these constant veto threats boggles me.

  •  chicken hawks are clucking again (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you Kagro X.  I will know who to pressure on stopping these chicken hawks from getting more of my fellow soldiers killed.
    Leonard Clark
    623-206-2039
    Persian Gulf/ Iraq Occupation III Vet
    Chairman of the Insane McCain Recall Committee
    in Arizona

  •  I wonder what Dave Obey thinks (0+ / 0-)

    of the Appropriations Committee getting bypassed.

    I'm not licensed to practice in this state.

    by ben masel on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM PDT

    •  Obey's statement, (0+ / 0-)

      on the Appropriations Committee site (pdf):

      ...The President is asking us to provide $108 billion in additional spending for the war in Iraq this year and almost $70 billion in additional war spending for next year, yet this morning he said that he would veto our efforts to expand the GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to extend unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits have been exhausted.
      Those two items cost less than one-tenth of what the President wants to spend in Iraq.
      The President seems to think that he can issue pronouncements like the great Yoda, and that the American people and the Congress will comply with his insistence to provide billions for the war in Iraq, but table scraps - or less - for war fighters and workers at home.
      That is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. In the Congress we will continue to press forward to meet our domestic and international obligations across the board. This is not the time for the President to hold his breath and turn blue. It’s time for reasonable adults to compromise for the good of the country.

  •  Meh... (0+ / 0-)

    We make our own reality anyway, right?

    The deficit does not exist.

    Our government isn't going bankrupt.

    Our money has value.

    We're not being lead over a cliff by incompetent corrupt bipartisan boobs who shouldn't be trusted to run a McDonalds.

    "Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies."

    by Dread972 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM PDT

  •  It's absolutely necessary to prefund (0+ / 0-)

    the first 6 months of the new President's term. As long as Republicans have at least 40% of the Senate, they will block any funding to be used to bring the troops home, or even for PLANNING to bring the troops home. All their rhetoric about not second-guessing the CiC or "tying the President's hands in a time of war" will fly out the window the minute a Democrat takes the oath of office.

    Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. - John Stuart Mill

    by vulcangrrl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM PDT

    •  Withdrawal is cheaper than occupation (0+ / 0-)

      If Bush can argue that Congress can't force him to bring the troops home, then Obama can certainly argue that Congress can't force him to keep the troops there.

      We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

      by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are right - (0+ / 0-)

        but Republicans are not bound by facts and logic. They have shown over and over again that they care about scoring political points and throwing taxpayer money at their campaign contributers more than they care about keeping the country safe or supporting the troops.  Obama can argue all he wants, but Republicans won't listen. They would refuse ANY funding and leave our troops in the field forever without reinforcements or ammunition, just to make a Dem President look weak.

        Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. - John Stuart Mill

        by vulcangrrl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Too mad to comment on this story right now.... (0+ / 0-)

    So here's what I was mad about earlier today (and it's related).

    http://indepthleft.blogspot.com

    The basic defense budget for 2007 was $439.3 billion, up 48 percent from 2001, excluding (emphasis mine) the vast additional sums appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to federal regulators and current and former Pentagon officials, the accounting process is so obsolete and error prone that it's virtually impossible to tell where much of this money ends up. While the department's brass has made a few patchwork improvements, billions are still unaccounted for. The problem is so deeply rooted that, 18 years after Congress required major federal agencies to be audited, the Pentagon still can't be.

    From this fascinating, highly informative, and mouth-frothingly frustrating article from politico.com.

    A must-read.

    Add an estimated $700 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (from Feb. 2008). With this number we have increased the budget 434% on the military and for the wars since 9/11. Keep in mind this number is going up daily and that we are not paying for it, but paying it forward to future generations with interest.

  •  Incase you haven't already... (0+ / 0-)

    ..add shameless panderer to the resume of Clinton.  Matches nicely with LIAR. Maybe she could be McCains VP?

    The Truth has a distinctly Liberal bias...

    by moondancing on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM PDT

  •  The Dems will cave once again. (0+ / 0-)

    What else is new, you ask (or not).  Harry Reid's autobiography is being published.  He is hoping to make lots of dough so when he is sent scurrying when his present term is up, he will have plenty of dough for his retirement.  That's how I know the Dems will cave.  Harry is getting his, while the getting is good.
    Oh, there is an excerpt from the book at http://www.huffingtonpost.com today.
    Read all about how Harry used to swim in the whorehouse swimming pool every Thursday.  (I kid you not!)

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:18 AM PDT

  •  Let's play poker... (0+ / 0-)

    The cards have been dealt.....since 2003 more than $500 Billion for Iraq, mainly "funded" by those ingenious Supplemental War Spending Bills. Meaning they're off-budget, don't appear in the year-end deficits, no one pays a cent of taxes for them...."magic money"! No wonder the Repubs love them. So, shuffle the same deck (same formula), and a new deal: Dems should craft and pass a one-time, $100 Billion "Supplemental Domestic Spending Bill"! For use on infrastructure projects..leading to more jobs, economic stimulus, revenues from taxes paid...And how could the Republicans, who adore Supplemental War Spending Bills, vote NO without being more hypocritical than usual...how would Bush threaten a veto, as "irresponsible budget-busting legislation"....not with "magic money"!

    Unless he wants a debate on language: "irresponsible"=American, "responsible"=Iraq. That's one debate I'd welcome....

    Hey, let's play poker. Why not?

  •  Bush hates America (0+ / 0-)

    Actually, I don't believe he actually hates America, but he sure as hell doesn't give a fuck about America. To him, as with the rest of the shrub clan, and their uber wealthy friends, it's just a trough to suck money out of.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site