Did I say I was justifying pork? My point remains this: the President has gone literally hog-wild in spending money on pork on virtually every program. So much so, he is outdoing Clinton in his first two years as President.
So with all this spending going on, the ONE item he decides he wants to veto is an extra spending bit for veterans. Sure, makes a heck of lot of sense to me.
It is the height of hypocrisy for Chu to say "we need to tighten the reigns on spending" to justify axing this bill, meanwhile spending 100 of times more on third world condom giveaways and illegal immigrant subsidies.
And if you can't realize that, then you're not seeing the forest through the trees.
posted on 06/21/2002 10:39:54 AM PDT
I can agree with you that this seems like a strange place for the administration to suddenly discover fiscal resposibility. If their has to be PORK of any kind, surely the Veterans are more deserving than others.
However, I dont think it is fair to blame Chu himself for the rampant spending of your President. He is to blame, he is a joke, and he is a liar.
Every American should be sick to their stomachs over the way that this president has abandoned the people who put him in office. No PORK is good PORK, and I didnt mean to suggest that condom givaways were more important than the Vets.
My point was that PORK is PORK from either side of the aisle, and it ALL must be stopped. Maybe if Bush would unwrap himself from the flag long enough to do something substantive, instead of lying to his followers, and breaking his oath to defend the Constitution, we might not be in this mess.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson