I don't think this makes any sense at all. Bush decides we need to invade Iraq- he makes a mega commitment to the country, and NOW he decides he doesn't want to pay the bill? I can see why conservatives would be upset by the bill, but since they mostly supported the Iraqi adventure that's fairly hypocritical- but Bush doesn't appear to want to scale down our Iraqi adventure, so I'm not sure how he can have it both ways. If he wants to play in the ME, he has to pay.
As for the Katrina folks, you just have to feel sorry for them because but for Iraq, there'd be no debate that we need to support disaster relief. I always said we'd see cuts here if we spent to much overseas, because money isn't inexhaustible, no matter what some folks believe. Me, I'd much rather we were spending the money here.
...........
Bush threatens to veto Iraq funding bill
Reuters - 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto a bill to fund the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina rebuilding if its cost exceeds $92.2 billion, as he weighed in on a heated Senate debate over the bill's rising price tag. The veto threat, announced in a White House statement on the $106.5 billion emergency spending measure, was aimed at placating conservatives in Bush's Republican Party who are irate over extra items added that they deem as "special-interest" spending. |
