NY Times reported without refuting Bush's false claim about House appropriation earmark
A March 28 New York Times article reported without refuting President Bush's false claim that the $6.4 million for "the House of Representatives' 'salaries and expense accounts' " -- included in the emergency supplemental bill for the war in Iraq recently approved by the House -- was "not related to the war and protecting the United States of America." In fact, the provision to which Bush was referring is for funding for "contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations," which according to The Washington Post is "a highly classified upgrade of Capitol security that has been underway since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
On March 23, the House narrowly approved an emergency war supplemental spending bill that contained a provision to bring most troops home from Iraq by September 1, 2008. The bill passed 218-212. The March 28 Times article -- by reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Carl Hulse and headlined "Bush Rules Out Bid by Congress for Iraq Pullout" -- noted that Bush "reiterated" a "threat" to "veto any war spending bill that contains a [troop] withdrawal date," and noted that in his March 27 speech before the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bush took "particular aim at Democrats for loading the military spending bills with unrelated special interest projects." From the article:
The president has been saying for weeks that he will veto any war spending bill that contains a withdrawal date. He reiterated that threat on Wednesday, taking particular aim at Democrats for loading the military spending bills with unrelated special interest projects above the $100 billion he has asked for the war, including $3.5 million for visitors to "tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works," and $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' "salaries and expense accounts."
"I don't know what that is," Mr. Bush said wryly, "but it's not related to the war and protecting the United States of America."
That puts Mr. Bush in the difficult position of fighting the new Democratic majority on two fronts, both the war spending and the prosecutors. On Wednesday, he seemed in no mood to back down from the war spending fight.
But the text of the legislation specifically notes "[t]hat the amount provided under this heading is designated as making appropriations for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism." From the legislation:
For an additional amount for ''Salaries and Expenses'', $6,437,000, as follows:
ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES
For an additional amount for allowances and expenses as authorized by House resolution or law, 16
$6,437,000 for business continuity and disaster recovery, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as making appropriations for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant to section 402 22 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by section 511(a)(4) of 24 H. Res. 6 (110th Congress).
A March 28 Post article reported that the funds "are actually for a highly classified upgrade of Capitol security that has been underway since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001":
Bush singled out $6.4 million in the House bill for House salaries and expense accounts. "I don't know what that is," the president said to laughter, "but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America."
The funds are actually for a highly classified upgrade of Capitol security that has been underway since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Post article offers no documentation about the $6.4 million being for a "highly classified upgrade"...no sources...no proof.
Until then...it looks like the money is for House salaries and expenses...unless you can make something of the jibberish posted above by mmfa concerning the text of the amendment.
What part of "That the amount provided under this heading is designated as making appropriations for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations" is jibberish?? Seems clear to me.
OK...what does it mean?
Which word didnt you understand?
Same goes for you...why don't you explain what the money is going to be spent on?
And I don't need a regurgitation of the text...particulars please.
Well for one thing apparantly an upgrade of Capital security like it says RIGHT THERE IN THE TEXT.
Well "apparantly" the project is bigger than you thought...in addition to the $6,437,000 for House, Salary and Expenses:
US Marshals Service, Salary and Expenses, $2,750,000
FBI, Salary and Expenses, $118,260,000
DEA, Salary and Expenses, $8,468,000
Feberal Prison System, Salary and Expenses, $17,000,000
ATF, Salary and Expenses, $4,000,000
All of these earmarks come with the same proviso as the earmark for House Salaries and Expenses...Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as making appropriations for contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related operations
"Apparantly" it takes a mind reader to find a security upgrade for Capitol security...or are they all contributing to the security upgrade?
"Apparantly" you don't know what the money earmarked for House Salary and Expenses is to be spent on...or you would have stated it...a swing and a miss.
Apparently, you can read and comprehend straight-forward English. You share this trait with your president George.
And apparantly YOU CANT'T read which according to The Washington Post is "a highly classified upgrade of Capitol security that has been underway since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
So then because it is a highly classified program and I cant tell you the specifics that means I cant cite the program? Not a miss you on the other hand have already whiffed you just dont recognize it yet.
No soap...show the sourcing...documentation...or any other evidence that supports the Post story.
This effort is well below your usual standards...and mmfa got caught trying to slip us readers a mickey...tsk tsk.
No it didnt. Hide behind the fact the program is classified if you want, it only makes sense Congress would worry about its own safety after 9/11. The post is talking about a classified program those cost money. BUSH made the original claim it is contradicted by the post story. Bush has a history of lying like an oriental rug, he simply cannot be trusted the post story obviously cannot PROVE a classified program but if you are calling them LIARS that is YOUR claim back it up or give up. Exactly WHAT is your evidence the Post is LYING about the program?
I've not called anyone a liar...I have asked you to back up your blather with something more than an unsubstantiated claim from the Post.
- Drudge is the gossipmonger without credibility. Or that he lacks that credibility...he is a gossipmonger that doesnt DESERVE credibility. - solon
Either you can or you can't...there's your challenge...it's really that simple...the same standard that you cite for Drudge.
How would that work? Exactly how would the WP back up their statement about a CLASSIFIED PROGRAM? It is cute to pretend Drudge has the same credibility as the Washington Post but its not reasonable. He doesnt he never did. Drudge has shown himself to be a gossipmonger, the WP has not there is a difference between a credible source like the WP and Drudge. The WP has cited a classified program, either it exists or it doesnt if it does and their citation alone is a valid reason to say there is, not to mention common sense, then it the administration is wrong. So lets just go with their respective track records. The Bush administrations track record for lying is pretty clear. The WPs record for accuracy is pretty good, not 100% but they ARE a credible source. To hide behind the fact the program is classified which denies anyone the possibility to cite specifics about it to pretend it doesnt exist is disengenuous. By your standards I should pretend that alien babies are just as credible because the National Inquirer has pictures of them.
- The WPs record for accuracy is pretty good, not 100% but they ARE a credible source. - solon
Now there's a laugh and a half...a liberal supporting the Wash. Post as a credible source...while mmfa regularly plunders them for their perceived inaccuracies....with over 400 articles.
Sorry bub, but no amount of squirming or deflection gets around the challenge...show any sort of documentation or sourcing that backs up the claim of the WP..."apparantly" you can't...or you would have by now.
Looks like this train will arrive late...despite the best efforts of the "boss of the train"
"nless you can make something of the jibberish[sic] posted above by mmfa concerning the text of the amendment. "
Awww....When you can't read, simple prose looks like "jibberish[sic]" doesn't it? It's ok.
Nobody believes your right-wing smearing.
Go find some other site to troll.
Looks like somebody doesn't understand what "disaster recovery" means. Not surprising.
"Uh, excuse me, Mr. President," some brave reporter should have asked, "but how can you say it's not related to protecting the US if you don't know what it's for?"
Alright, this is indeed legacy pork that Bush has signed into law before, so, as far as a rationale (for a veto) goes, it's pretty low. If Bush is so eager to curtail runaway pork then where was his veto sword a year ago when he was penning into law the $233 MILLION for a bridge to 50 people on an island in Alaska?
Bush: the other hypocritical meat.
Randy