Why Would Bush Veto The Iraq Supplemental?
Digby cited to some real insight on the Bush calculus on the Iraq supplemental funding bill from Gene Lyons and then added some of the special Digby insight. It got me to thinking, and hopefully adding some insights of my own. But first, Gene Lyons:
Here’s a puzzle: If President Bush really thinks he’s holding all the cards in his impending showdown with congressional Democrats over Iraq funding, why bother with a veto ? On previous occasions when Congress passed laws Bush found irksome, he’s quietly issued “signing statements” declaring in essence that the president is a law unto himself. . . . Two somewhat paradoxical reasons. First, the stakes are too high, because everybody’s watching. Bush may be commander-in-chief, but the United States isn’t yet a military dictatorship. Second, some Republicans have convinced themselves they’ve got the Democrats where they want them.
The first is the right answer. Too many people have become convinced that Bush can do anything and get away with it. Only if Dems LET him. Look at Gonzogate The second I think is not true. I do not believe there isa Republican in the United States that does not believe Bush is leading them towards an unprecedented electoral disaster in 2008. I think Lyons is wrong on 2. Then why will the GOP not jump off of Bush's political kamikaze mission? I'll tell you why I think they aren't on the flip.
< Alberto Gonzales Resignation Contest: Free Ice Cream | In the Mail: "The Italian Letter" > |