Veto This

Steve Benen, pitchhitting at TPM, has a post this morning about the Repug Big Three bashing Hillary and Obama for voting against the (gutless, pointless, useless) funding bill the other day. He posits a question for them:

But I have a quick follow up question: If opposing money for the troops in a time of war is necessarily anti-military and un-American, why did Bush reject war funding less than a month ago? If supporting the military means supporting funding measures, didn't the president deny those in uniform the resources they need?

Or is it more likely that rejecting funding for the troops in a time of war is perfectly acceptable to Republicans, just so long as they think there's a good reason to do so?

I still think they should have followed Edwards' advice (admittedly neither he nor I have to deal with the politcal consequences) of just sending the original bill back repeatedly and letting Bush veto it.