Didn't Bush already admit the they had a working process to use funds allocated elsewhere for Iraq?

[bigtree]

Bush from April 10: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html

"In the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

Why take money from 'personnel' accounts?! There's more than enough waste in their budget. They should start with unnecessary weapons systems. More from Bush . . .

"This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be. "


Why should there be any impact at all on our troops? It's Bush's choice to push our troops in Iraq past the will of the majority of Congress and the American people. I think this cannibalism can work if we continue to assert what we think the priorities should be for our forces and how we intend for Bush to spend the money that's actually allocated or pilfered.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[LynnTheDem]

1. It ain't Congress threatening to veto funding for our troops, mr. bush.