During the May 11 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid described the Iraq war funding bill that the House passed May 10 as “very clearly veto bait,” adding that in contrast to the House, the Senate “has said” that it “need[s] to pass something here the president can sign because we don't want to be accused of being the ones cutting off funding to troops in the field, while they're in harm's way.”

Reid's statement echoes a previous claim that Bush cannot -- as opposed to will not -- sign a particular bill and suggestions that that it is Congress and not the White House that would be responsible for “cutting off funding to the troops in the field, while they're in harm's way.” As Media Matters for America noted, when Congress passed a bill that provided $124 billion in war funding and required that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begin by October 2007 -- legislation that Bush vetoed -- CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre said the bill was one that Bush “can't sign.” Media Matters has documented several other occasions in which media outlets have asserted that Congress, not Bush, would be responsible for denying funding for U.S. troops.

From the 8 a.m. ET hour of the May 11 edition of MSNBC Live:

AMY ROBACH (host): Déjà vu on Capitol Hill. Just over a week after President Bush vetoed that war funding bill that would have sent a timeline for withdrawing our troops, a second Democratic attempt to reshape war policy is in the president's crosshairs. NBC's Chip Reid is on the Hill. So, Chip, this second bill that House Democrats passed -- not really coming much closer to meeting the president's demands.

REID: No, it's really not. He's made very clear that if this is what Congress sends him, he will veto it. In fact, a lot of Republicans argued in the debate last night that this one is even worse than the last one. The last one he vetoed because it had timelines in it, but the timelines didn't require troops to start coming out until sometime in the fall. This one could signal a major cutoff of funding as early as July. Also, they say, you just can't do any military, any war planning if you're only getting part of the money now and maybe the rest of the money later. So this is very clearly veto bait, Amy.

[...]

ROBACH: And Chip, in terms of this funding bill, have Senate leaders signaled what type of bill they may pass and how it may differ from the House's version?

REID: They sure have, and in fact, they are very uncomfortable with what the House is doing. The House is taking a very confrontational approach, clearly not worried about a veto. The Senate has said, hey, we really need to pass something here the president can sign because we don't want to be accused of being the ones cutting off funding to troops in the field, while they're in harm's way. So the Senate is going to try to kind of bring the House down off the ledge here, try to get them to agree to something that the president can sign, and that will take a few weeks. They probably won't get it to the president until the end of this month, Amy.

ROBACH: All right. Chip Reid, thank you.

REID: You bet.