If I was George W. Bush, and I intended to keep the Iraq Occupation going, I would have just signed the damn bill and made off with the $124 BILLION! I really have a hard time believing he could turn down that much money just to avoid a SUGGESTION.

This is in no way a question of "providing for the troops", or any such bullshit. It's simply about keeping the occupation going. Let's not fool ourselves about that point. The reality is infinitely more terrifying: Bush and Cheney are IDIOTS!!!

Pelosi and Reid also made clear at their little ceremony that it was Bush who would be denying funding--which I was very pleased to note! I think they ought to hold one of those babies a lot more in the future.

This whole thing is surrealistically bizarre to me.  The Democrats pass a weak, loophole-ridden bill that gives Bush all the money he asked for, plus even more tossed in to show the Democrats loyalty to the Pentagon and the war.  Even a moron like Bush could have found the loopholes big enough to drive an army of occupation through.  And even though the war is supposed to go on budget this fall, the Democrats gratefully gave Bush money to fight the war into next year.

So, Bush got everything he could have asked for out of this bill.  But in a strange theater of the absurd, the Republicans have been voting against this bill and now Bush vetoes it.

Posture seems to be the game of the day.  The Democrats want to posture against the war, without actually doing anything to end it.  And Bush wants to posture against the Democrats, even though the Democrats gave him everything he wanted.

Bizarre.  And sad.  The sad part is while all these morons posture this way and posture that way, people are dying every day.  Posture away!!!!  Who cares about what goes on outside the beltway!

Maybe we can get all the politicians to go posture at some funerals of our dead young Americans.  I'm sure the greiving relatives would appreciate a good posture show.

The Democrats played their hand expertly. The handed Bush a grenade with the pin pulled and Bush took it, sat on it, and made a little speech about it. Now we get to watch it explode.

The Democrats did precisely what they needed to do, and what they were capable of doing. Every headline would be about Democrat infighting if the leadership pushed for a stronger bill. We can't pretend that the Dems could have passed a stronger bill and overrode a veto just because WE think they should. They couldn't and they still can't. In six months, we will see.

True to his stubbornness, Bush vetoed funding for the troops along with the will of the people to end the occupation.

Congress has fulfilled the president's favor for a supplemental appropriation, and it is not obliged to do it again.

If Bush truly needs the money, he has a responsibility to accept public accountability to receive it. Otherwise, he must begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, because federal law -- the anti-deficiency act -- prohibits the president or his commanders from obligating the government without an appropriation from Congress.

Edwards is right. The Dems resolve must be clear: No deals. Bush must take the money with accountability, or begin withdrawing the troops now.

This is the demarkation point.  From here on out the funding wrangling begins in earnest, but the "lines in the sand" are now clear.  Democrats better not flinch on this one.  The American people are fully behind us on this.  Attempts to paint the Democrats as obstructionist or "endangering the troops" are bound to be fruitless, given that the American people don't want to prolong this war.

I was also pleased to see McCain's previous speeches in regards to him wanting to pull troops out of Haiti recooked and served warm in the MSM.  Shows a lot of hypocrisy on his part.

Here, here! The Dems gave Bush the money. He recklessly choose to veto it. I see no reason for the leadership to do anything more than shrug their shoulders when asked what they're going to do next short of passing the same bill again and again.

I read this title as calling Bush "President Iraq" and thought that was fitting.

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended -- wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats' attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people's laws, opposes the war.

— From:

April 28, 2007, 0:45 a.m.
The Waning of the GOP
By William F. Buckley Jr.

Here is a suggestion:  Authorize only enough funds to the next 30 days.  Tell the President the last 30 day authorization will take place on April 1, 2008 and if the troops aren't out of there by then, their running out of funds is on his shoulders.  For a President this out of control and reactionary, more than 30 days of funding is dangerous anyhow.

No timetables on anything... (not Iraq, not New Orleans, not port security, not catching bin Laden...) ...

except "No Child Left Behind."

Sweet.

There's no way that the American people will ever buy W's line that the Dems denied funding for the troops when they actually passed funidng for the troops and he vetoed it.  It's really amazing how dumb he is.  At this rate, the GOP will cease to exist after 2008.

  Jackass.  What a travesty.  His approval rating will fall below Nixon levels after this news sets in, I predict.  Sadly, more than Bush's approval ratings will suffer from brazen stupidity.  

You note that the president might have put himself on the wrong side of the American public by vetoing a bill that a large majority should support.  Maybe this is just a lag in my political worldview, but it doesn't feel like we're in the majority yet.  Maybe I'm just stuck in the past 6 years where we were lost in the woods--defeated and out of order.  

Shouldn't the national punditry be slamming Bush for this?  Shouldn't people be angry with him?  Have I just missed it?

It isn't a surprise to me that Bush vetoed the bill; he has never had the American people's interests in mind and this is absolutely no different.  Well, since he has refused the funds that the People's Representatives in Congress legislated, I have come up with a contingency plan for Bush to get more funding for HIS war.  

I am positive that Halliburton and its subsidiaries are deeply grateful to his administration (I know I would personally be grateful for a multi-billion dollar contract I didn't have to fairly bid on!)  With all of the countless MILLIONS that Halliburton has overcharged (stolen from) taxpayers they must have more than enough money to give back to Sugar Daddy Bush so he can continue this huge fiasco.

Singer wrote: "George W. Bush, through his veto, is sending a statement to Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world that he intends for the United States to remain in Iraq indefinitely."

I disagree. He is sending a message to his corporate sponsors and the American people: the will of the people be damned, we'll do what we want.