Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide $22 billion more than the $933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”
President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.
Somebody please explain why a vanity war is more noble, justifiable, and fundable (by a Democratic Congress) than "domestic spending." Someone please tell us why the phrase "domestic spending" has been given the ring of "dirty underpants," kind of like the word "liberal."
Democrats have failed repeatedly to end the Iraq war or to substantially change its course. Now they face another test. Mr. Bush will try to ram his spending request through Congress before Christmas, using the impending holiday to create a false sense of urgency... They cannot have it both ways — opposing the war and enabling Mr. Bush to keep it going full speed and full cost ahead.
No, it's not Congressional Democrats who oppose the war. It's a coalition of liberals and members of other domestic political parties -- three quarters of Americans polled -- who oppose the war. Please don't continue to pretend "Congressional Democrats" represent anyone but themselves and a small percentage of Americans who cling to the war the way others cling to a team that never wins. Matter of false pride, childish resentment, and a certain blind, narcissistic, morally empty kookiness.
