3 comments March 28th, 2007at 05:57pm Posted by Eli

The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin has a bit of fun while quoting the preznit’s latest wankery:

“Some Democrats believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely,” Bush said in a belligerent speech to a boisterous bunch of beef barons this morning. “That’s not going to happen. . . .

“The clock is ticking for our troops in the field,” he added. “If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.”

Granted, I’m no political expert, but I could have sworn that bothhouses of Congress passed funding bills – Dubya is the one who promised to veto them.

I have to wonder if Dubya might be having an “Oh shit” moment, or if he still expects to lie and brazen his way out of this one. Probably the latter – kinda reminds me of someone…

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Iraq,Politics,War


  • 1. virgotex  |  March 29th, 2007 at 11:00 am

    belligerent speech to a boisterous bunch of beef barons

    cute. I have always been amazed that so many real ranchers buy his fake cowboy shit. If they really were cattle BARONS, it might explain it better because that’s just more big businessmen high on the smell of tax cuts.

    It will be interesting to see what happens beyond the bluster now that he’s painted himself in a corner. A corner on shaky ground at that.

    What I fear is that no one of the left seems to be countering their talking point about all the special interest pork in the bill (maybe I just havne’t seen anyone blogging about it.) But that’s one of their big things- Malkin has been going on about it. Democrats used this bill to push through jillions in special interest money. I’d be interested to see a comparison of the amount of other special interest earmarks snuck through by the Rs in previous bills. I mean, some of that is just the price of getting some people to go along with the caucus, right?

  • 2. Eli  |  March 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    I can’t understand why *anybody* thinks he’s a man’s man tough guy. All I see is a callow, play-acting fratboy.

    Funny, I haven’t really heard anything about the pork. Perhaps “Appropriations Bill Loaded With Pork” is not exactly front-page breaking news…

  • 3. virgotex  |  March 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    in Bush’s speech to the ccowboys:

    Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. These may be emergencies, they may be problems, but they can be addressed in the normal course of business. They don’t need to be added on to a bill that’s supporting our troops. There’s $6.4 million for the House of Representatives’ salaries and expense accounts. I don’t know what that is — (laughter) — but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America. (Applause.)

    This week the Senate is considering a version that is no better. The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also undermines the Iraqi government’s ability to take more responsibility for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.

    The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all these matters may be important matters. They don’t need to be loaded on to a bill that is an emergency spending bill for our troops. There’s $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works. (Laughter.) I’m not kidding you. (Laughter.)

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




March 2007
« Feb   Apr »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *