All you Congress watchers, answer this.

[chelsea0011]

Bush claims he will veto the troop $$$$$$$$ bill because he just wants a "clean bill" with no strings attached that have nothing to do with troop funding. Question. Are there ever clean bills that deal with funding without any attachments? I always find the norm in Congress is to always throw in the kitchen sink with $$$$$$$$$$ bills.

[MissWaverly]

1. if there is no pork, he adds it himself

I saw a signing statement where he asked for 20 mil to reimburse DC for security costs.

[DCKit]

2. It's a stupid ploy to make the Dems look bad

Did he threaten to veto the bridge to nowhere? Of course not.

The Dems and their supporters just need to keep repeating "if he veto's, he's not supporting the troops."

[Kagemusha]

3. Generally these supplementals are not passed with end-the-war provisions, no

That's new for the duration of the present conflict and it's not a very common thing historically speaking. He's not talking about a bill with no pork. He's talking about a bill with no directive for him to end his precious war.