He's vetoing the entire spending bill that Congress passed. The President doesn't get to tell Congress what bills to pass anymore, there's a new Congress in town and a majority of Americans support the bill.

Bush knows that he's threatening the viability of Iraq operations by denying the majority of the American people and Congress.  Congress has fully funded the President's war, but this president doesn't have the courage to take responsibility for his own veto.

..."courage."  Please explain, in simple terms, why the Congress can't get a bill passed that simply cuts off the funding.  If that's what the American people want, why not just do it?

his way or the highway - so now he is self proclaimed VETO KING

...intentionally dodge the question but your response didn't address my point.  The President's "courage" wasn't (and never has been) the issue.  What I asked was why couldn't a simple bill be introduced and passed by Congress that just cuts off funding?  If the American people believe funding should be pulled, doesn't Congress have an obligation to pull the funding?  In my mind, a lack of courage is not standing up and voting for what you actually believe in.  The President is more than willing, even anxious, to sign any bill that has the funding in it that Congress added for the guys overseas but he is not going sign (I would think) any bill that contains things he didn't put in it.  "Courage" from Congress would have been sending the President a bill that stops funding.  A lack of courage and conviction is what we're seeing with these petty, political theatrics.  I still think Carl Levin is right and this eventually goes through. 

Congress passed a bill funding our troops.  Bush is the one vetoing it.

Let's look at the facts. bush-cheney have started 2 wars.  They refused to listen to our best and brightest, instead listening to a bunch of neonuts and their think tanks who came up with a plan that was more a fantasy than something realistic.  The truth is that bush-cheney have NO plan to victory.  The bush-cheney strategy is that, if we stay long enough - years, decades, centuries - somehow we will stumble into a winning strategy.  It's not because I think so but bush-cheney HAVE PROVEN themselves to be incompetent by any sane standard at fighting wars.  We have to change course.  At best the bush-cheney plan is a plan to a pyrrhic victory.  We owe our troops more than that!

http://en.wikipedia....

...a nebulous, empty, meaningless bumper sticker like "change course," couldn't someone come up with a real alternative that isn't a little white flag on a stick?  The 9/11 commission warned everyone about a precipitous withdrawal and no one seems to care what the "what now?" course of action is.  OK, so other than a little sitting around in your bathrobe Bush-bashing, what's your definition of 'change course" that doesn't dump Iraq into an even worse bloodbath?

Newsweek seems to have nailed this conundrum nicely...
http://www.msnbc.msn...
and
http://www.msnbc.msn...

Certainly a fair question.  First let me point out that I would be bush bashing if the wars had been going on 2-3 months.  However, after watching bush-cheney fumble along for years with our casualities rising, I don't think that describing them as incompetent is unreasonable.  When you get into a mess like this there are no good answers.  I can only unleash a process.  I am confident that if we could get The Iraq Study Group and some of our finest generals such as Schwarzkopf, Zinni, and Colin Powell in a room, they could come up with a good plan.  I  would also want to add our new Senator Webb.  I was able to personally talk to him during a campaign reception and I was impressed.  I personally think that the Iraq government will have to have its feet held to the fire to get it going.  I think that setting up parameters that it has to meet to keep us in the country may be a great idea.

http://hosted.ap.org...

..."hold their feet to the fire" mean?  I suspected there was no better ideas other than "put a bunch of smart guys in a room."  That could have been done years ago but, then again, trying to help the president actually try and win this thing never really was the objective, was it?

It means that the Iraq government has been stumbling along with no sense of urgency to get itself going, as the situation has gotten worse and worse.  As long as we say we will stay there indefinitely, I suspect that the government will just keep stumbling along.  Laying out parameters that have to be met to keep us there will hopefully give the Iraq government a sense of urgency.

"trying to help the president actually try and win this thing never really was the objective"
I guarantee you that most Americans whether Democrats, Republicans, or Independents would gladly help win this war. If bush sincerely called Jim Webb and asked for help, I guarantee you, with NO doubt in my mind, that he would be there tomorrow to help.  I guarantee that The Iraq Study Commission would be there, I guarantee that any of our finest Generals would be there. Unfortunately that call will not be made.  There is an old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.  Bush has gotten us on this downward spiraling path and has absolutely NO interest in getting off of it.

n/t

..."no sense of urgency" come from?  They've got bombs going off in their cities near daily and you believe they're all sitting around in the Green Zone doing nothing?  The implication seems to be that the elected iraqi government enjoys watching the daily chaos which I find particularly insulting to them.  How can you possibly demean them in such a manner?  You actually believe Iraqi parents feel no sense of urgency in saving their children?  Bombers are blowing up police recruits at the station and hundreds more show up the next day for training.  I'd say they feel some urgency.  To imply otherwise seems absolutely silly. 

Read the CENTCOM daily update and see if you can find no sense of urgency in there anywhere...
http://www.centcom.m...

Read the Coalition bulletins found at that site and tell me all those nations are there having a picknik because of "no sense of urgency"

Browse the Iraqi Government's site, especially their "Path to Democracy" and others and tell me they're twidling their thumbs with no sense or urgency.

These are some very proud and very courageous people attempting to rid their country of the scourge of extremeism and all they ask of us is some training and logistics support until they can handle it themselves.  It's just flat wrong to say they have no sense of urgency when they, of all people, have EVERYTHING on the line if we fail.

As far as Webb goes, if he had a better idea, we would have heard it by now.  No one should have to ask and Webb doesn't strike me as the shy type waiting to be asked for his opinion. 

Forgot the Iraqi government link
http://www.iraqigove...

on Wolf Blitzer Sunday. 

Your boy, Shit-For-Brains, and the title of President no longer have any correlation with most Americans, including me.  The thought is as lothsome as your penchant for parsing phraseology to attempt a point, and the circumstance that permits use of "President" in his description is as palpably irritating as the generous indulgance that allows you to comment on RK.

Win "this thing?"  As a drill sergeant said to me in 1970, "I have reached my peak of pisstivity."

...for your "respectful" opinion.