Wash. Post, LA Times uncritically quoted White House assertion that it opposes war funding bill because it includes domestic spending

In May 23 articles reporting that the White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times uncritically quoted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying, "This is the wrong way to consider domestic spending, and Congress should not go down this path." But neither the Times nor the Post pointed out that President Bush signed supplemental war funding bills that included domestic spending when they were passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in June 2006 and December 2005.

In June 2006, Bush signed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery (PDF), which included $19.8 billion for hurricane relief and $2.3 billion for influenza vaccine development. In a June 9, 2006, article, the Post itself reported, "The bill would also provide $19.8 billion in hurricane relief, exactly what President Bush had requested, but nearly $9 billion less than the Senate had sought. The package squeezed in a few other priority items, including $500 million in agricultural aid -- cut from nearly $4 billion in the Senate version -- along with the $1.2 billion in border security funding and $2.3 billion in avian flu prevention that Bush had additionally requested." Likewise, according to the Nexis news database, on June 16, 2006, the Times published an Associated Press article that reported of the bill, "Bush praised Congress for providing the money to 'fight terrorism, defend our homeland, enforce our borders and fulfill our moral obligation to help our fellow Americans in need.' "

In a December 2005 statement on the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act (PDF), which included funding for hurricane relief and influenza prevention, Bush asserted: "The Act provides resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from a potential influenza pandemic."

From the May 23 Washington Post article:

It was the day's second clear rebuke of Bush, who has promised to veto any measure that adds domestic spending to his $108 billion request to fund the war. Large numbers of Republican senators also joined Democrats yesterday in overriding Bush's veto of the $307 billion farm bill.

The White House opposed the expanded G.I. Bill, concerned that the price tag is too high and that the generous benefits could entice service members to leave the overburdened military rather than reenlist. Republicans and Democrats urged Bush to back off from his veto threat.

"I hope the president observes what he sees here and gives us a pat on the back instead of a veto with his pen," said Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) one of five military veterans in the Senate -- three Democrats, two Republicans -- who gathered to hail the bill's passage.

The White House showed no sign of that. "There's a long way to go in this process, and fortunately it takes two houses of Congress to send a bill to the president," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "Our position hasn't changed: This is the wrong way to consider domestic spending, and Congress should not go down this path."

The Senate measure extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks, funds levee construction around New Orleans, and guarantees that veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive education benefits equal to the tuition at the most expensive state universities.

From the May 23 Los Angeles Times article:

The measure must be approved by the House, and the White House has threatened to veto it. But the GOP defections -- followed by a lopsided vote to override Bush's veto of a farm bill -- underscored a growing willingness among Republicans to go their own way as they look ahead to their own reelection campaigns.

The new veterans education benefit also erupted as an issue in the presidential campaign, as Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, exchanged sharp words.

The White House has objected to the billions of dollars in spending included for such things as jobless benefits and energy assistance, which brought the bill's total to about $212 billion, including $165 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is the wrong way to consider domestic spending, and Congress should not go down this path," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The Pentagon has expressed concern that the new GI benefit, which provides returning troops with a free college education after three years of active duty, could spur retirements at a time when the military is struggling to retain troops.

But lawmakers were eager to show support for the troops before Memorial Day.