In a move that had many capitol watchers scratching their heads, Bush announced he would veto the spending bill that gave major funding for the Iraq invasion as well as many domestic spending items and also a pay raise for service members.
Now we have to wonder if Bush has lost his mind. The demos are furious. They went through all kinds of contortions going from saying they would stop the war to caving in and voting to continue it. They had to explain to constituents why they did their flip flop and when they were voted in on promises to stop the war, why did they do an about face? They made themselves look like two faced hypocrites and pretended to be trembling in fear of Bush's veto and finally voted for the bill. You would think the chimpanzee in the white house would have been happy but nooooo.
If he hasn't lost his mind, it means he has the demos so much by the short hairs that he is sure they will pass any bill he wants and only put in it, what he wants in it. How could that be? What mysterious hold does he have over the democratic party and it's members that he can be so sure they will dance to his tune? I don't know the answer but I'm waiting to see what the demos do. This should be good (or ugly)
Bush to veto military policy bill
By Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn
Published: December 30, 2007
CRAWFORD, Texas: For months, President George W. Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support U.S. troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
And then on Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced that he would veto a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose the new Iraqi government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it would work with Congress quickly in January to restore dozens of new military and veterans' programs. Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect on Tuesday, and improvements in veterans' health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen opposing.
Bush's veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House had failed to raise its concerns earlier.
And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Bush's support-the-troops oratory against him, which they did with relish. "Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it," Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a prepared statement.
This is a somewhat related article. It seems Bush is holding out for a great big funding for the war. That's the real reason he vetoed the last bill. I just think he's delusional given that the public is so against the war. That or he knows something none of us know.
War funding request may hit $100 billion
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 15, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to ask for between $80 billion and $100 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, rather than the $70 billion to $75 billion the White House privately told members of Congress before the election, according to Pentagon and White House officials.
Administration officials said yesterday they have not concluded how much money they will request in a "supplemental" spending package that is scheduled to go to Congress in January.
"There's work going on inside the department to understand what's needed, and there's work going on with the Office of Management and Budget," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters yesterday.
But some analysts and government officials said the request is expected to run as high as $100 billion, bringing the total cost of operations in Iraq alone to well over $200 billion since the March 2003 invasion.
Earlier this fall, members of Congress said the Defense Department told them in private briefings the supplemental package would be between $70 billion and $75 billion. The budget request will be higher, sources said, because of the greater number of soldiers -- temporarily boosted to 150,000 -- needed to provide security around the time of the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections, and the loss of equipment due to the vigorous insurgency there.