AP: Bush Chides Dems on Pork in Iraq Bill (weekly radio address)

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Bush Chides Dems on Pork in Iraq Bill

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, March 31, 2007

(03-31) 07:29 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

President Bush, seeking to one-up Congress' Democratic majority in a showdown
over the Iraq war, suggested Saturday that lawmakers should be ashamed that
they added non-war items to an Iraq spending bill.

"I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our troops
should come before the security of our peanut crop," Bush said in his weekly radio
address, referring to a provision in the war funding legislation that earmarks $74
million for secure peanut storage.

The Senate has passed a bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq
by March 31, 2008, while the House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal.
In both houses, the timelines are attached to legislation providing money to fund
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Bush repeated his promise to veto the bills if the timelines stay in — and if the
unrelated earmarks stay in as well — because they "undercut our troops in the field."

-snip-

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/31/national/w072952D55.DTL

[IWantAChange]

1. Dem's need to respond to this BS in as strong a language as possible

[rodeodance]

2. he has expanded this threat to include the earmarks--Nat.security

issue now

[Lasher]

3. It's an Emergency Supplemental, not war funds

As sandnsea pointed out, this is not a bill that is supposed to be confined to war funding. Junior is lying about that and he's lying about when already appropriated funds would run out. I would love to go on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow and say exactly that - if I could get sandnsea to go with me.

Here, arm yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3188653&mesg_id=3188679

[frogcycle]

11. and yet

just five minutes ago I heard CNN say

"president Bush criticized congress in his radio address for including extraneous items in the 'Iraq Funding Bill'"

they are starting to be almost as bad as faux

[Rose Siding]

4. How does providing for the general welfare undercut our troops?

The state of Georgia will love this smear.

[flaminbats]

7. excellent point

huge tax cuts and no clear exit strategy "undercut our our troops in the field."

a safe and unpoisoned food supply does not!

[Bitwit1234]

5. So items to help disaster farms is pork while

1.5 Million dollars in republicans bills to refurbish Vulcan statues isn't. Another example 400,000 for a parking lot in Alaska for a town which has a population of "300".

I don't understand why the dems don't fire back. Of course getting the MSM to air the complaints is another thing.

[frogcycle]

6. is an emergency supplemental funding bill necessarily a once-a-year thing?

Can congress initiate a second one with just the non-Iraq items? Or would they have to wait a full year and try to put them in next years budget?

Most of these things seem on the surface to be reasonable - yes, they address local constituents and thus are "favorites" of individual congresscritters, but they aren't like Ted Stevens' "bridge to nowhere", which is what I think "pork" is.

If the emergency supplemental is strictly once-a-year, then bush hasn't a leg to stand on. He can whine about lack of a line-item-veto, but tough shit.

Anyway, these things give congress a means to appear to compromise. Take them all out, leave the deadlines, and send it back. Maybe even tweak the wording on the deadlines just a hair. Then make it REAL clear: the ONLY thing stopping funding for additional armored humvees is bush's insistence on being able to send as many as he wants, for as long as he wants, to do whatever he wants, with whatever rules of engagement he wants, with (or without) whatever equipment he wants.

The Constitution says Congress declares war, and the CinC carries out the order. Congress rather grudgingly ordered him to defuse what he dishonestly claimed was a clear and present danger. He botched it and made a mess. Now they can order him to clean up the mess, or they can order him to just pack up and go home. The CinC role is NOT a blank check to use military might unfettered and indiscriminatly. Bush and Cheney are trying to make it so, as part of their overall illegal power grab. Congress needs to start saying that outright. Take the gloves off and call it what it is. I think Pelosi and Reid are getting close to doing just that.

[rodeodance]

8. Dem response here:

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, a veteran of the Iraq war asked Bush to resist the urge to veto the legislation.

"Both houses of Congress have done their jobs and will soon finish a bill that will provide for the troops," retired Marine Lt. Col. Andrew Horne said Saturday. "When they're done, the only person who could keep funds from reaching troops would be the president."

Horne, who ran unsuccessfully for a Kentucky congressional seat in 2006, added: "If the president vetoes this bill because he doesn't want to formally demonstrate progress in Iraq, never in the history of war would there be a more blatant example of a commander in chief undermining the troops. There is absolutely no excuse for the president to withhold funding for the troops, and if he does exercise a veto, Congress must side with the troops and override it."

In his radio address, Bush took aim at budget blueprints approved recently by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

[rodeodance]

9. cnn radio just now. LOTS of bush quotes but NO Dem response

[msongs]

10. billions for illegal wars = pork nt