President Bush Passes on the Pork
Red State Read in the Oval Office?
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This morning, President Bush hosted a gathering of veterans’ family members at the White House, during which he made remarks on Congress’s ongoing failure to pass an emergency war funding supplemental. In similar remarks last week, the president laid out his requirements for a “clean bill.” He said that such a bill would contain all the funding the troops need without any restrictions on their movement or deployment and without further delay. I criticized the president at the time for failing to mention the unnecessary and wasteful domestic spending that Congressional Democrats have attached to the measure as a way of buying support for the troops.
Today, I am happy to report, the president included a reference to the pork in the supplemental in his speech to the military families.
I think it is wrong for Congress to restrict our military commanders. I can understand having a difference of opinion about Iraq, but our commanders need the flexibility necessary to meet the mission. We should not be substituting political judgment for the judgment of those in our military. And the idea of putting, you know, peanut storage -- which may be necessary at some point in time; I don't know, I haven't analyzed the peanut storage issue, but I do know it doesn't have much to do with about making sure your loved ones get what's needed to do their job.
I am willing to discuss any way forward that does not hamstring our troops, set an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and spend billions on projects not related to the war. (my emphasis)
Read on...
Peanuts. Perhaps coincidentally, RedState was the first blog to receive and post this picture, sent from Iraq last week.
The president should continue to hold firm on these two points. Congress must pass a supplemental that is free of timelines, restrictions, and micromanaging of the military commanders on the ground in Iraq. In doing so, Congress must not be allowed to condition its support for the troops on the amount of pork members can extort in exchange for their votes. If the president holds his ground on these issues, the Congress will blink. Bank on it.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Update: The Globetrotting Congress — Comments (5) »
President Bush Passes on the Pork 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is going to be an exercise in brinkmanship. Pray that W is not the one who blinks. It's looking encouraging that he's going to hold firm. God knows he's stubborn, and in this case I'm glad -- let's call it 'resolute'.
The other prayer is that after he vetoes the bill, the Dems gather enough political savvy to fast-track a clean bill, and I mean post haste. Even better -- while the current bill is still in conference, they do the right thing and change it here and now.
Our boys need the funding. They are giving the utmost and deserve something better than being held up for ransom .
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
this distaste for pork the last 6 years.
This really makes me angry - its OUR money.
Let's get this out of the way first: Although I originally supported the decision to invade Iraq, I have since concluded that I was wrong to have done so and that the whole thing was a huge mistake. I now believe we should declare victory and leave the crossfire of what I choose to call a civil war. This would, of course, ease the considerable pressures on our overextended armed forces, allow them to regroup, be redeployed to Afghanistan, maybe apprehend Osama, etc. (If neighboring countries - or, for instance, the Europeans - are upset by the prospect of what will happen after we leave Iraq, let them send troops and money. We have done far more than our fair share.)
In addition, I have been utterly appalled by the extent to which President Bush signed and did not veto bills laden with pork-barrel spending that Republican Congresses sent to his desk over the past four (or six) years.
But now I have to ask this question: If the timetables are stripped from a bill that would appropriate the necessary funding for our soldiers in harm's way but the pork remains, should GWB - now, suddenly, a fierce opponent of wasteful spending - then, still, veto the bill (with precious days melting off the calendar)? I thought time was of the essence, that we would really be doing our men and women in uniform a disservice if Congress failed to pass, and the president failed to sign, a war-funding bill pronto. (Didn't W scold members of Congress for going on Easter break without finishing up - or beginning - their negotiations in conference so that he could then veto the product and they could more expeditiously send him another for his signature?) I'm all for putting an end to the frittering away of taxpayers' money, but is this really the best vehicle for making that kind of statement (for the very first time in his presidency no less)? It seems to me that, in fact, it's the worst legislative setting in which to take that kind of a stand (and I'm one of those who wish we would just get the h*** out of Iraq). What am I missing?
This is pure politics. The Democrats want to spend our money to help them retain power. They needed the pork to buy the votes.
Bush has no credibility vetoing pork-filled bills. He is only using the pork to his political advantage. Unfortunately, the second that a bill comes through without timetables, Bush will forget his new found distaste for spending my money.
In the Saturday radio address, President Bush reiterated the need for a clean bill, including removing any pork spending. We can only hope and pray he sticks to his guns on this. In another day and time, with a stronger attorney general and department of justice, I might suggest the president call the Democrats bluff, sign the bill and take it to court. Have the Supreme Court smack down Congress for overstepping its Constitutional authority. How sweet would that be? Unfortunately, that is not the present we live in. Veto this bill and keep hammering away at the Dems as often as possible. Give them no room to wiggle. Please, Mr. President.
R.J.
Ya never know who's going to drop in on RedState ...
A bill without Pork is like a Christmas without Santa Claus!!!
it's nuts, and so are they.