The 09/25/2007 article "Bush is Running Out of Reasons to Veto SCHIP" at
http://www.ksdp.org/node/3418/print
showed a few weeks ago that he's bound to shaft children "despite a bipartisan effort in the House and Senate to develop an SCHIP bill that includes several things the President himself asked for.
So, Bush is now saying that he plans to veto the bill in the name of "fiscal responsibility."
During six years of Republican rule, as former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan notes with dismay in his new book, Bush vetoed not one spending bill. Now, with Democrats in charge, the president is threatening to veto virtually all of this year's spending bills. The amount saved by these vetoes would be dwarfed by Bush's request for more Iraq war spending." [USA Today, 9/24/07] "Greenspan
says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric." [Washington Post, 9/15/07]
Chris Edwards of Cato says federal outlays, when adjusted for inflation, have increased faster under Mr. Bush than under any president since Jimmy Carter.
When he gives speeches now, you hear him bashing the Democrats on overspending," Mr. Edwards said. "It sounds ridiculous, because we know he's a big spender."
[New York Times, 9/21/07]
Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois also sees partisan motives in the veto strategy. GOP leaders in Congress and the administration, he said, have decided "to put the veto threat out there, primarily on spending bills. We're trying to get our brand name back, which is 'fiscal
conservatives.'" [AP, 9/24/07]"
The article "House speaker says she will try to get GOP votes to overturn veto" at
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html
shows that "Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah was among 18 Republicans who split from the president when the bill came up in the Senate.
"It's very difficult for me to be against a man I care so much for," he told his colleagues on the Senate floor before the vote. "It's unfortunate that the president has chosen to be on what, to me, is clearly the wrong side of this issue."
Hatch is a survivor. He has sucked up to 43 on a huge variety of issues and he can only hope that the 43 destruction machine doesn't grind him up as a result of defying King "bubble boy"!
It comes down to this ""I think that this is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country. It is incomprehensible. It is intolerable. It's unacceptable," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who pleaded with Republicans to help overturn the veto.
House Democrats also were quick to compare the bill's $7 billion annual cost to the money spent each month on the Iraq war.
"The president and Republicans in Congress say that we can't afford this bill, but where were the fiscal conservatives when the president demanded hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq?" asked Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois.
Some House Republicans, however, said Bush was right to veto the bill."
He can piss money away on destroying Iraq--when we all know that at some time in the future we will be forced to rebuild it brick by brick again-with the only people gaining from the illegal invasion of Iraq being W and his chums in the military-industrial complex who are kick backing money to 43, but he can't spend money on US children.
He doesn't give a flying "expletive deleted" about us. We aren't in the top 1%.
The article "White House Secrecy On Wiretaps Described" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201083.html
describes just how corrupt his ghouls are. It states "No more than four Justice Department officials had access to details of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program when the department deemed portions of it illegal, following a pattern of poor consultation that helped create a "legal mess," a former Justice official told Congress yesterday.Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the White House so tightly restricted access to the National Security Agency's program that even the attorney general and the NSA's general counsel were partly in the dark.
When the Justice Department began a formal review of the program's legal underpinnings in late 2003, the White House initially resisted allowing then-Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey to be briefed on it, Goldsmith said.
Goldsmith's testimony provided further details about the fierce legal debate and intense secrecy surrounding the NSA surveillance program within the Bush administration in early 2004. The fight culminated in a threat by Goldsmith, Comey and others to resign en masse if the program were allowed to continue without changes.
The handling of the surveillance program has become a major flashpoint between the administration and Senate Democrats, who allege that the government relied on dubious legal advice to run an illegal spying program that targeted innocent U.S. residents.
The full contours of the program have not been officially disclosed."
Why haven't we yet found about this program?
The article goes into the vile visit to Ashcroft's hospital bed. We've heard this evil story so frequently we've become calloused to the wickedness of the W group.
"Now a professor at Harvard Law School, Goldsmith served as the head of the OLC from 2003 to 2004 and concluded that crucial Justice Department legal opinions on the NSA program, torture and other issues -- mostly written by an OLC attorney named John Yoo, who now teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley -- were fundamentally flawed.
Goldsmith also appeared to challenge previous testimony from Gonzales, who repeatedly told lawmakers that there had been no serious disagreement within the administration over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the public name for the NSA's warrantless surveillance efforts. Gonzales left office last month."
You read the article "U.S. Confiscates AP Footage At Scene of Bloody Baghdad Bombing" at
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003651227
without any incredulity because we have become accepting of the lies in W's administration. It states "A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle Wednesday before being pulled to safety and airlifted in a rescue mission by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA. At least three people were killed, including a Polish bodyguard.
American authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told AP that Iraqi law make it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks."
Petraeus, who has betrayed us, as well as the after thought, Crocker, were involved in minimizing the damage by spewing Rovian propaganda, "U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, issued a joint statement condemning the attack.
"Poland has been a strong and steadfast ally here and around the world, and we commend its commitment to a stable and secure Iraq," the statement said. "We stand ready to provide any additional assistance we can."
Maybe when 43 was a kid he didn't get medical attention. That explains his callous indifference to the plights of our children. Maybe we all didn't get enough medical attention. That would explain our apathy regarding W's transparent hypocrisies.
