Even with the assistance of Paul Krugman, hilzoy at Obsidian Wings remains bewildered by President Bush's apparent ongoing lack of concern for the troops in Iraq:
"Bush could have included enough funds to fight the war for an entire year in the regular budget, rather than relying on a supplemental [appropriation], which is supposed to be for emergencies in any case. He freely chose not to, and also chose not to pressure the Republican Congress into passing a budget on time. Had he done these things, we would not be having this debate, since the troops would be funded through next October."
Is there some clever strategic reason -- or any precedent -- for funding a war through one supplemental appropriation after another? Or is this yet another case of incompetence and political posturing instead of taking seriously a key responsibility of the Executive Branch?
The really bizarre part is that he threatens to veto the supplemental if it contains so much as an advisory date for withdrawing troops from Iraq -- this from a president who regularly issues signing statements amending or nullifying the bill being signed.