Did You Know - Bush Underfunded

Sometimes we forget why we're in the fight we're in over in Iraq. President Bush. And sometimes we over look the obvious about the politics in D.C. The President is currently declaring that the bills that have just passed the House and Senate to curtail activities in Iraq will deny funding to the troops, but that isn't actually factual. In fact, the bills provide all of the funding the President asked for - but just for a shorter time than the "forever" that he wants. If he vetoes the bill, then HE will be responsible for the failure to fund the troops - not Congress.

And don't forget this as well - from the Daily Kos...

by kos
Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 04:18:08 PM PDT

The reason there is a fight over Iraq funding is because Bush decided not to include such funding in the regular budget.

Why not?

Who knows? Perhaps because his election-year budget presented fictional progress toward a "balanced budget". If he included his war funding in that budget, he couldn't pretend a balanced budget was within reach. (A trillion dollar war makes that difficult.)

But let's not forget, the only reason this fight is being waged, is because Bush chose to underfund our troops in his regular budget.

And now he's threatening to veto the funding Congress is allocating for the war. In other words -- Bush refused to fund the troops in his budget, Congress is providing that funding, and Bush is threatening to veto that funding.
Nice way of doing business.