Mr. Bush, if you veto a FUNDING bill, then YOU are the one that is denying the troops funding. The bill is giving them money, and for that money to forward, YOU have to okay it. Since you haven’t come up with any plan other than “this is unacceptable” and “we aren’t leaving”, I suggest that you realize how hypocritical it is for you to continually say you support the troops when you take actions like this. The blame for the troops not getting the funding they need, and are being offered by the Congress, lies solely on your Mr. President. Your veto is a strong statement; it says loud and clear that you cannot accept responsibility for anything as complicated as rational thought and rational decision making, and that you, above all, do not support the troops, and do not want to give them the funding they need and deserve. Passing the buck here isn’t going to work. (link)
I for one hope that Congress doesn’t back down. I say, that if Bush does veto it, then that’s fine, just make sure that people realize that he had a funding bill sitting in front of him, one that would have given the troops the funding they needed, and he turned it down. HE turned it down. Ridiculous. But then, so too is the logic these people use, right? I for one am sick of this mess. Either give them the funding they need, and be realistic and realize that the American people want to actually get out of Iraq, or be your usual “head in the sand”-self, and pretend that you are the “decider”. I just hope that this time, credit is given where credit is due, and this isn’t blamed on the Democrats (who, again, are offering funding). Offering a funding mechanism that the President turns up his nose to and refuses is NOT taking money away from the troops, at least, not on the part of those offering up the dough. THIS JUST IN… Apparently, Bill O’Reilly is the voice of those idiots I was speaking of, that think that this has anything to do with the Democrats “holding up funding”:
Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are caught in the middle of a nasty political brawl between President Bush and the Democratic party. Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The president says that’s a foolish military strategy and will not do it, so the Democrats are holding up military funding. (source… I know it is hard to link fauxnews, but that’s where the idiocracy is…)
Hey Bill, sweetness, um, Bush is holding up the funding, the Democrats are trying to give them the money. And it isn’t just the Democrats, it is the Congress. Be a peach and gain some perspective, mmmkay?
Also, this is hilarious how completely daft these people are:
Harry Reid is wrong to force a timetable and try to cut funding at this moment. He and Speaker Pelosi are putting American troops in a very bad position.
Can anyone explain to me how PROPOSING FUNDING is CUTTING IT? Or better yet, how it is DENYING funds??? Wow. Can’t. See. Past. Own. Bullshit. Wow, we really do have a long way to go if these are the people that are running the world. Perhaps there needs to be another “i” and one less “n” in running… (ruining anyone)?
23 comments for “funding vs. veto: where to really point your finger”