Who is Bush Kidding?

Why not just another Signing Statement? You know, the way President Bush justifies his decision to not follow Laws which are passed by Congress.

President Bush on [Tuesday] offered no compromise in his standoff with Congress over funding for the Iraq war, saying lawmakers should pass any Iraq legislation they want -- but do it "as quickly as possible" so he can move ahead with a promised veto.

"If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have significant consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces," Bush said at a White House news conference.

Congressional Democrats quickly accused Bush of refusing to change course in a four-year-old war that has killed more than 3,200 U.S. service members.

"It's disheartening that the President does not see that his policy in Iraq is a failure," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) said in a statement.

Both the House and the Senate have approved supplemental war funding bills that envision troops being pulled out on different timetables over the next year -- and threatened that if Bush does not accept some version of that language it could lead to even tougher legislation.

In remarks at the Rose Garden today, Bush said he thinks he has the support to sustain a veto, and that if Congress is intent on putting troop withdrawal requirements in the funding bill they should do it soon so the process can move forward.

Ultimately, he said, Congress will need to approve money to fund the war effort, or risk a situation where troops in the field are left without necessary equipment or the rotation of different units is thrown off schedule. Military leaders have said that by mid-May funding restraints could force them to leave some troops in the field longer than planned because the money would not be available to equip and train replacements.

I have highlighted the last paragraph as it is to me the most disingenuous part of his argument. The troops have been consistently left in the field without the necessary equipment and the rotation schedule is totally off schedule, many of the troops are left in the field longer than planned and this is because of Bush’s lack of planning not by any legislation of the Democratic Congress.

So, I have to wonder, why not just a signing statement? Why is Bush threatening to use his very FIRST VETO on this bill? Is it because it even mentions withdrawal from Iraq and the possibility that there is never going to be, under Bush, any withdrawal from the "Sovereign" Country of Iraq?

Why the threat of a VETO when a SIGNING STATEMENT has worked for him in the past? All I can think of is 2008 and blaming defeat on the "Defeatocrats" (Democrats that is).

Because, you know, this Bush Administration really supports our troops.