In a statement following the veto,

Bush voiced his contempt for the views

of the majority of the American people

One of the most laughable lies dished out by Bush

is that he simply follows and implements

the decisions of his generals on the ground

General Paul D. Eaton, Bush’s former

ground commander in Iraq, offers his

commander-in-chief a harsh assessment:

"Your administration did not listen to our best advice

In fact, a number of my fellow Generals

were forced out of their jobs

because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear

— most notably General Eric Shinseki,

whose foresight regarding troop levels

was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril

Bush let it be known that he had signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, father of a marine, Dustin, who was killed in Iraq two years ago [yuck!]

A few hours earlier the Democratic leadership displayed their thespian skills when they signed the bill in front of television cameras.

It is unusual for Congressional leaders to make such a public spectacle at this stage in the legislative process, but the Democratic leadership was determined to ensure maximum impact from the day's events.

They timed the $124bn (£63bn) measure to fall on the anniversary of Mr Bush's speech in 2003 on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in which he declared hostilities in Iraq to be over, standing in front of a banner declaring "mission accomplished".

Hillary Clinton said: "Today is the fourth anniversary of what I consider to be one of the most shameful episodes in American history."

Bush vetoed the $124 billion bill to fund the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan Tuesday, rejecting provisions of the bill calling for a partial withdrawal of some US troops from Iraq.

Democratic Party leaders have already begun circulating drafts of a bill that will fully fund the Iraq war, without the restrictions that the White House opposes.

In a statement following the veto, Bush voiced his contempt for the views of the majority of the American population who oppose the war in Iraq. He said that the legislation “substitutes the opinion of politicians for the judgment of military commanders”.

That is one of the most laughable lies dished out by Bush - that he simply follows and implements the decisions of his generals on the ground.

In fact he consistently ignored them, accused them of “whining” in more than one phone briefing in which they attempted to engage him about problems they faced on the ground, and then fired or moved those whose discontent became public.

In cases I have documented earlier, generals were subjected to humiliating tricks after their opinions became a matter of public knowledge.

So: permission to speak freely. General Paul D. Eaton, Bush’s former ground commander in Iraq, offers his commander-in-chief a harsh assessment:

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice.

In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear—most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue.

This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power—military, diplomatic and economic.

The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs.

Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking—or have been broken already—by the length and intensity of this war.

This tempo is not sustainable—and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs.

We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops.

It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped.

In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

Scott Horton @ Harpers