Bush’s budget cuts off funding for the troops.

[babylonsister]

Have I mentioned lately how I absolutely loathe this man? :puke: So now he's not supporting the troops? We've been had! :grr:


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/24/bushs-budget-cuts-off-funding-for-the-troops/

Bush’s budget cuts off funding for the troops.

The Politico reports that the White House “confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009″:

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

“A budget is a reflection of military strategy, and we don’t want to prejudge the recommendations of commanders,” a White House budget official said about the decision.

[gratuitous]

1. Not surprising

Little George has never been one to hang around to clean up his own mess. That's what the rest of us are for.

[AndyA]

3. That's exactly right.

George only knows how to make messes, not clean them up.

That's for the little people to deal with. He's royalty. He's above all that. He'll be dealin' with his pResdential Libray and other importan' stuff like that instead.

Oh, and he'll no doubt start work on a book. Of course, someone else will have to write it for him, so's folks can understand it. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

4. No truer words... nt

[lpbk2713]

2. So I guess all the 20%ers will have to ....

... peel the "Support the Troops" bumper stickers off their SUV's. :shrug:


:rofl: :rofl:

[babylonsister]

5. Nah, they probably don't/won't have a clue. nt