The most underexposed story of the past week.

We know this administration prefers to conduct its affairs like roaches, in the dark, away from scrutiny. Performing a Friday night news dump accomplishes the goal of meeting the most superficial definition of accountability while knowing full well our news media will ignore whatever malfeasance it contains. Well, imagine not just a Friday night news dump, but the Friday between Christmas and New Years. You can bet your life there is some nasty stuff to hide.

And you'd be correct. On Friday, December 28th, 2007, the administration released the news that the President was vetoing the recent war funding bill. This is something that took everyone by surprise including many Republicans. The supposed reason is so that Americans would have a reduced ability to be compensated financially from Saddam's regime for suffering terrorist acts. They say it would freeze Iraqi funds in American banks thus thwarting the burgeoning democracy.

Democrats, in particular, were furious that the administration never even brought up this issue previously, the normal route to negotiating minor squabbles. Likely, this would not even have been an issue. So, $696 billion has been derailed, and the media have not uttered a peep. If the dems had derailed it at the last minute, you can bet your life it would have broken through. Meanwhile, the President gets away with getting in front of a podium and chastising Democrats for holding up bills, a do-nothing Congress, he claims.

Granted, it was the holidays. The primaries and Bhutto were huge stories, but I've seen NO coverage of this, whatsoever. Do not let this die. There's something strange about this story. Either this was huge level incompetence by not mentioning this before, or we're not getting the real picture of why this bill was scrapped.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/washington/29bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(must accept cookies to view article)

I couldn't find jack on a search. But I knew DU would have something to say about it.

Best line from I think the first thread, 'Bush is the healthiest lame duck ever.'

He had 10 days to veto the bill, but didn't...thought he could do it at his leisure. Yet another constitutional showdown up ahead on this one and the military gets screwed...especially the veterans.

He's playing chicken with the immunity bill...this is a gambit in that direction. If he doesn't get his immunity he refuses to sign the bills and dares for a veto and over-ride...and then tries to tatoo the Democrats as keeping money and support from the troops. It's his only political game and this regime has shown time and time again it sees the military as toy soldiers they can use and abuse.

the dems could just quietly let him have his veto. It would defund the war, without the political cost, for a few weeks anyway, and put the heat where it belongs-on the administration. No one is actually going to go without body armor or any of that, so that's a crock.

What am I missing?

Excluding the real fighters here, of course, like Feingold and Kucinich and Wexler.

From what I recall, I think the funding for Iraq runs out at the end of March (as was supposedly the end of the "surge"), but I suspect this is another booosh game of chicken coming up. This regime will orchestrate this defunding as the fault of the Congressional Democrats...they'll send out the sockpuppets and the talking points as to if Congress doesn't snap to his assholiness' requests (unlimited funding, telcom immunity and other goodies) the troops will run out of money and it'll be blamed on the Congressional Democrats. He's pulled this shit before and won and the blue dogs and weak spines will cave in fear of having that charge leveled against them in their upcoming campaigns.

Personally, I'd love to see a government shutdown...defund the entire boooosh criminal enterprise. It couldn't hurt the country and I think a majority of American would support it. But the Congressional Democrats will cave...if not the Senate will.

That probably more than anything will reveal just how corrupt it all is. If it passes with immunity, we's screwed.

I didn't think this recent veto was related to that, though. Interesting point. Whatever it is, it's something nefarious and Machiavellian.

In the Repugnican-controlled past, booshie got all his money for his war in the budget (along with even more on his "supplementals). He could use that money as he saw fit. This year, the Democrats split the money. This is the money that was meant to keep the Pentagon's lights on...the general funding for everything but Iraq...which was put on its own bill. The white house first agreed to this split and the appropriation passed (with tons of earmarks as always) in both Houses...veto proof majorities...but that was on the understanding that the real debate would be on the Iraq supplemental (which the telcom was attached...IRC for about 75 billion)

Booooshie thought he'd get his immunity deal (as did Harry Reid) before the recess. It didn't happen and I still believe that this is the motivation for his latest manuever. Yes, it is nefarious and Machiavellian...but par for the course. Now the entire military funding is on the line and pressure will be to get it passed...and booshie will hold out for his immunity and hope the Democrats cave. He knows this is one of the few things he can't immunize beyond 1-20-09 and the goal here in this final year is to bury the bodies, destroy the evidence and sandblast the fingerprints.

all hell would break loose.