Vetos and their plausibility
Mar. 28th, 2007 01:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurAm I missing something here? The media keeps talking about Congress passing this funding bill with a pullout date from Iraq attached, and then they keep reporting that the President has vowed to veto it. Which is lovely political theater, but nobody seems to be asking the obvious question, "Then What?"
I mean, this isn't some random bill we're talking about. This is the bill that funds the war. If Bush vetoes it, he runs out of money. At which point, either he brings the troops home sooner, or we get a truly lovely little constitutional crisis over where the money's coming from. Bush can't just invent money, AFAIK: if he wants to keep the war going, he ultimately has to take it from somewhere else, and there aren't many somewhere elses that can casually give up that much change.
Okay, yes -- I don't expect the major media to spend much time on interesting political analysis. But I'm genuinely surprised that they're only talking about one move forward in what is really a fascinating political chess game...
I mean, this isn't some random bill we're talking about. This is the bill that funds the war. If Bush vetoes it, he runs out of money. At which point, either he brings the troops home sooner, or we get a truly lovely little constitutional crisis over where the money's coming from. Bush can't just invent money, AFAIK: if he wants to keep the war going, he ultimately has to take it from somewhere else, and there aren't many somewhere elses that can casually give up that much change.
Okay, yes -- I don't expect the major media to spend much time on interesting political analysis. But I'm genuinely surprised that they're only talking about one move forward in what is really a fascinating political chess game...