Did Dick Cheney Call George Bush Out On Funding Measure?

(Dang. I didn't realize how late it was. I don't like posting and running but it's like 2a almost where I am and I have to be up in 4 hours for a 12 hour shift. I hope you understand that I need to go to bed. Anyways, this diary just occurred to me as an idea and I figured I'd float it out here. Talk amongst yourselves I guess....

Speaking in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition at the oceanside Ritz-Carlton hotel in Manalapan, Fla. about the winning vote on the Iraq appropriations measure that just passed in the House by a 218-212 vote and provides $124 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as including a resolution to begin withdrawing troops by September 2008, or possibly earlier, Dick Cheney referred to the measure in this manner:

Cheney called it a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

The bill provides the funding. Pending approval in the Senate which some see as the battleground for a possible filibuster but which others, including myself, also see as an opportunity for many Republicans facing decisive and tough re-election bids coming up to possibly decide it's in their interest not to filibuster and to simply vote because they don't want this vote on war appropriations sitting in their lap when it's campaign time, this measure may very well end up in Bush's lap and as everyone knows, Bush has threatened to veto the bill.

If Bush vetoes the bill, Cheney will have just lumped Bush in with the same crowd he was criticizing when speaking about this vote when he continued and said:

"They're not supporting the troops. They're undermining them,"

There's always the possibility of Bush issuing a signing statement to invalidate the vote in the event he ends up signing the bill to avoid the conflict that would arise from vetoing it.

But if he doesn't, and he signs off on the bill, are we now in a position to say to the President...

...'check?'

•  Bush plays checkers, not chess

  Check? Not likely. You forgot the basic rules of Bush politics. Lie, repeat it. If that doesn't work deny the first lie and make up a new one. Cheney will find a way to deny that he meant the bill did not fund the troops if and when Bush signs it. He will say the spirit behind passing it didn't fund the troops, or something equally inane.

  by alasmoses on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:33:33 PM PDT

  •  Since when is anything Cheney says

    either correct or relevant though?

    by Stand Strong on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:55 PM PDT

  •  Then he'll say....

    "King Me."

    by Big Nit Attack on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:44:57 PM PDT

  •  Bush makes up rules as he goes along

    by CTMET on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:32:20 AM PDT

•  So why did KBR/Halliburton

  fail to give US soldiers the body armor and bullets (yes, bullets!!) they
  needed for their Middle East assignments, Mr. Cheney?

  by Tigana on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:12 PM PDT

•  Cheney, moving himself into position?

  That thought is scary.

  by danger durden on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:39:09 PM PDT

•  The silliest argument Bush has made

  is that Democrats passed this as "political theater" because the bill has "no chance of becoming law."

  Well, of course it does.  If Bush signs it and tells his senators to support it, of course it will become law.  He's the reason it won't become law but he's arguing like he's not part of the process in the bill becoming a law.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:42:28 PM PDT

  •  Sure

    but if he tells his Senators to support it, they run the risk of the bill coming back to bite them in the ass when it's re-election time.

    They know that pending either some enormous national crisis or some huge blatant political power grab, which I don't even think Republicans would support, more and more, they already know that Bush isn't up for re-election but that they are and if they vote this bill down, they run the risk of it becoming a campaign ad against them.

    "So and so voted against appropriating funds to support our troops in a time of war." etc...

    I think a lot of Senators might be asking themselves if supporting Bush right now is worth their risk of losing their own careers.

    by Stand Strong on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:58:40 PM PDT

•  Signing statement-what it leads to

  It will join the seven hundred other statements his tools have drafted previously.

  Bush can't afford to turn down the 126 billion. He might not get anything like that much on a second go round. We will see his typical weaselly statement.

   "The unitary executive,in the performance of His Duties, will not be constrained by the words of the legislative branch circumscribing the monies paid over for mywar."

  When you talk about performing duty in that tone you are talking about a two year old taking a dump. That is the entire attitude of the Deciderer about America. He dumps or steps  on us every day.

  With luck his lickspittle lackey Abu (Fredo) Gonzalez will get impeached first, then he and his pal Dick can stroll hand in hand to the same place Clinton did and face the wrath of Congress.

  Only it won't be about firing over a dry cleaning a blue dress but setting in motion a historic impeachment removal for high treason. If the vote is yes,

     Criminal charges to follow AFTER the pair of losers go the Hague. A conviction there will help America's image as a nation governed by just laws, not simply by despots in cowboy boots, brandishing defibrillators.

  by Pete Rock on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:02:25 PM PDT

  •  The way I see it is this:

    Bush either vetoes the bill, subsequently vetoing funding the troops, which he can't do.

    Or he signs off on the bill, allowing the appropriations while simultaneously recognizing Congress' power to legislate above and beyond the unitary executive. It means Bush is not untouchable.

    Of course, we know this but sometimes certain steps are needed to break through that facade.

    by Stand Strong on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:07:16 PM PDT

•  Well, like I updated above,

  it's late and I need to get to sleep, which I'm about to do. Enjoy and see you all tomorrow.

  by Stand Strong on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:08:18 PM PDT

•  Cheney is EVIL

  MANALAPAN, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday accused the Democrat-led House of not supporting troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  Can he just STFU. Does anyone still believe his rhetoric, besides Rush and the 29%?

  by Pam from Calif on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:30:09 PM PDT

•  I wonder if Dick knows what irony means

  Cheney called it a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

  Umm, yeah.  And sending troops to war based on lies, and sending them in harm's way without proper training and equipment is "giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission", how?

  Hey Dick, go back to grade school.

  by deaniac83 on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:33:42 PM PDT

•  It is of course a little late for Cheney

  to see the light - (though he did not mean to say it out loud)

  The rest of us realized long time ago that those two sad sacks - are nothing but -

  a lying sack of sh*t

  by sara seattle on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:01:27 AM PDT

•  GOP not supporting troops

  I was surprised to see all those Republicans decide to put politics above funding our troops.

  Are these the same people who gave John Kerry so much crap?

  by Chris Truscott on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:29:05 AM PDT

•  Pot Meet Kettle

  "Cheney called it a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

  Hey, you're right, Mr. Cheney. Why did you do that anyway?

  We'd all like to know why you did that. And by the way. We've already given you bunches of money. How come our troops didn't get their stuff?

  If the post office can get our mail and care packages through, do you mean to tell us that stuff gets lost going over there? Huh. Next time we'll send the money through the post office directly to the troops. How'd you like that?

  That would be some REAL support.

  by Unique Material on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:37:55 AM PDT

•  These returning soldiers are smart and they are

  not like the drafted soldiers returning from Viet Nam.

  They knew and realized after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered that they had been lied to by the America people. After all aren't you an American people and did't they go and sacrifice? But the ones I stayed a few weeks with returning from that war know annd uderstand that the leadership can be isolated and plucked. A young man that drove Munition trucks in Afghanistan and his father is high up in the Procter and Gamble management isn't ignorant to names like Powell and Bush and Rove and Cheney.

  So just as snipers exist in that War over there then the snipers of the returning veterans will come to life.

  To repeat what a young veteran asked me, "where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you really need him?"

  by placid on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:15:59 AM PDT

  •  Um...

    you'll understand if I refrain from making comments about Lee Harvey Oswald returning or even a formidable likeness....

    by Stand Strong on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:33:04 AM PDT

  •  Hey, I resemble that remark!!

    "not like the drafted soldiers returning from Viet Nam"

    by Da Rock on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:50:10 AM PDT

  •  Are You Sure?

    Are you sure the ***hats that got us into this mess are representative of: "the American people"?

    They don't represent me - not now, not ever.

    by Unique Material on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:34:34 AM PDT

•  Are there 51?

  If you are right and the Republicans allow a vote on the bill, are there 51 votes to pass? Or will Cheney have to be sent to an undisclosed location to negotiate caviar rights with Uzbekhastan before the vote is scheduled? (And is there any possibility that Johnson could show up to break the tie?)

  by MrMichaelMT on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:41:04 AM PDT

•  Budget bills not subject to filibuster.

  It would be too easy to shut the govt. down if they were.
  The republics could however try to delete sections of the bill, which would require 60 votes to accomplish.
  This all means that the deciderer is most likely going to get a chance to veto funding for his own war.

  by manwithnoname on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:51:29 AM PDT

  •  Which would mean then that Dick Cheney

    would indeed be guilty of calling Bush out then.

    Awesome. Is it time to break out the popcorn yet? I love watching Republicans eat their own but watching the Vice President eat the President?

    Awesome...

    by Stand Strong on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:56:08 AM PDT

    •  Condi - mints

      Condi could eat both of their lunches if she told the truth.

      Too bad she's such a shill. Did you catch this headline this morning?

      "Rice urges Egypt to reform its democracy"

      Whew! I know the Egyptians are smarter than taking lessons from this crew. Hey, Condi - don't you think they have the internet in Eqypt? Don't you think those folks remember Anwar Sadat and Jimmy Carter?

      Folks over here might have forgotten but I know they haven't.

      by Unique Material on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:39:38 AM PDT

  •  I assume the Senate has to pass something.

    And then the final result coming out of Congress will be up to the conference committee.

    by lysias on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:43:26 AM PDT

•  In his last years in office, LBJ's public

  appearances were pretty much limited to military bases.  Cheney seems to have developed a fondness for Jewish groups, veterans' organizations, and neocon think tanks.

  by lysias on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:45:34 AM PDT

  •  and "undisclosed locations"

    by Stand Strong on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

  •  And interestingly,

    Bush's statements have recently all been within the White House...

    Bet he's yearnin' for that Texas ranch and clearin' brush right about now.

    by Stand Strong on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

    •  Bush did speak to the American Legion

      a couple of weeks ago, didn't he?  (I remember, because I'm a member of VFW, and Cheney spoke to the VFW a day or two later.)

      by lysias on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:51:54 AM PDT