Bush War Funding Veto is Preposterous

Bush's stance on war funding is absurd and illogical. He wants to place blame for his impending veto of the war funding bill on Congress. Somehow if the troops aren't funded in time because of his veto the Democrats are to blame. According to this logic Congress must bow down and acquiesce to the President on any important or vital issue by virtue of his veto power. Somehow I don't think that this is what the framers had in mind when they created the system of checks and balances.

The entire debate illustrates that Bush apparently paid little attention in his jr. high and high school civics classes. The framers learned an important lesson from the British government, that the power of the purse strings would allow Congress to reign in an overly aggressive executive, specifically with regards to wars. They intentionally created a system where the American Congress would have a similar power. Perhaps such a funding stop was intended when a war had become horribly unpopular with the people, the Congress, and an election took place in which advocates of ending the war were overwhelmingly elected to the Congress? If this is not the appropriate time to force the President to end the war through restriction of funding I don't know what is. It is absolutely ludicrous for the President to claim that it is Congress' fault if the troops are placed in harm's way without appropriate funding. The Constitution was structured so that wars required the continuing consent of BOTH the legislative and executive branches of the government, not one or the other. Bush has no one to blame but himself for any harm that befalls the troops as a result of inadequate funding, either from a veto or Congressional refusal to extend funding. If funding is shut off then Bush MUST bring the troops home and not play a political game of chicken with their lives.

Madison