Link to Bush threatening to veto $87 billion if his tax cuts were used

[One Taste]

to pay for it? In an argument with someone saying that's a load of BS. Thanks

[gbwarming]

1. here

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031021-104439-2539r.htm

The Bush administration yesterday said the president should veto the Iraq spending bill unless senators drop their provision that would make half the reconstruction money a loan, rather than a grant, to Iraq.
Including loans will slow efforts to stabilize the region and it "impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt," Josh Bolton, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote congressional leaders.
Mr. Bolton said the president's advisers would "recommend that he veto the bill" — the typical language for conveying a veto threat — if it included loans. He also said using loans "raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq."

Daschle response:

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2003A21853.html
" I am troubled by the conflicting statements made by the Bush Administration in the past week. The Senate was told there was an urgency to passing the Supplemental because our troops in the field greatly needed the resources. Now the Administration is willing to significantly delay the enactment of this bill because of their opposition to a loan for Iraq. It is troubling that the Administration is willing to jeopardize these funds over a dispute over the loan -- especially when the vast majority of the American people support the loan. "

Pelosi:

Pelosi Statement on Iraq Supplemental Vote Today
http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=339
Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on a vote in the House this afternoon on a Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the Supplemental spending request. The motion contains a loan provision for reconstruction of Iraq, restores $1.3 billion in veterans’ health care funding, and expands health care for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Despite White House pressure, the motion passed the House by a vote of 277 to 139, with 84 Republicans joining 192 Democrats and one Independent in voting for the measure.

"A strong majority of the House of Representatives has sent the President a clear message -- we want to do more for the troops serving in Iraq at less cost to American taxpayers.

"The three provisions in the Democratic motion to instruct were similar to ones approved by the Senate last week, despite lobbying by the Administration against them. Yet the President’s response to a clear majority of both the House and the Senate is to continue to dig in his heels and threaten to veto the bill.

"Time and time again, Democrats have put forward reasonable proposals for spending on the troops and reconstruction in Iraq, proposals that address the legitimate concerns of the American people. To ensure mission success in Iraq, and future support in Congress, the President must change course.

"Mr. President, working together we can support the troops, rebuild Iraq, and save the American taxpayers money."

[RobertSeattle]

2. Here's one from Kerry Blog

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002347.html

...Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money."

[dave123williams]

3. Yeah, it was about loaning them the money...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/sprj.irq.congress.iraq.ap/

[okieinpain]

4. one here

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0310nn/031022nn.htm#252

[One Taste]

5. thanks

:)

[jean]

7. if your sparring partner is freepish here's one from Fox news

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100772,00.html

House Urges Negotiators to Give In on Iraq Loans

snip

Adding to the pressure on the issue is a letter from White House Budget Director Josh Bolten (search) to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in which he wrote President Bush wants all or nothing.

"The administration strongly opposes the Senate provision that would convert a portion of this assistance to a loan mechanism. If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," Bolten wrote.

[undercover_brother]

6. this could be the October surprise

It would be sooooooooooooo golden for the Kerry campaign to firmly get this message out just 2 weeks out from the election. It would suddenly turn the millions and millions they spent pushing the $87million issue totally against them. Instead of the Bush campaign's mantra it would become their scarlet letter.

Let the public know how Republicans refused to properly fund the $87million. Remind the Republicans that the American public is willing to make sacrifices to help fund soldiers even when the Republican's richest donors are demanding tax refunds. The White House refused to provide the $87million unless the cost was pasted on to future generations. Kerry and Edwards took a stand and demanded that the President both support the tropps and show fiscal responsibility at the same time. Bush made his choice.