President Bush today continued his efforts to extort money from Congress by holding the American Military hostage. In a speech made to soldiers at Fort Irwin, California, Bush stayed on his basic message: give me the money with no strings attached or the troops are going to get hurt:
Just as the strategy is starting to make inroads, a narrow majority in the Congress passed legislation they knew all along I would not accept. Their bills impose an artificial deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Their bills substitute the judgment of Washington politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. Their bills add billions of dollars in pork barrel spending, spending that is unrelated to the war that you're engaged in. Then, instead of sending an acceptable bill to my desk, they went on spring break.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking for our military. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chief of Staff of the Army have warned that if Congress delays these funds past mid-April, we'll have significant consequences for our Armed Forces. Army Chief of Staff says this: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardship on our soldiers and their families."
For example, the Army says that without these funds, it will be forced to consider cutting back on training for Guard and Reserve units, and eventually for active duty personnel. The folks at Fort Irwin know firsthand how important training is. Washington has a responsibility to ensure that you have the resources you need to keep this training going.
Soon Congress will return from its break. I urge them to work on legislation to fund our troops, but that does not tell our military how to conduct war and sets an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The enemy does not measure the conflict in Iraq in terms of timetables. They plan to fight us, and we've got to fight them, alongside the Iraqis. A strategy that encourages this enemy to wait us out is dangerous -- it's dangerous for our troops, it's dangerous for our country's security. And it's not going to become the law.
There are fine, fine people debating this issue in Washington, D.C. They're patriotic. They're people who have got passionate points of view about this war. And I understand that. Yet, we cannot allow honest differences in Washington to harm our troops in battle, or their families here at home. Members of Congress have sent their message; now they need to send me a war-spending measure that I can sign into law, so we can provide our troops and their families with the funds and support they deserve and they need.
I was angry yesterday, I'm angrier today, and if you're not angry about this then you obviously root for a political party the way you do your local sports franchise - loyalty devoid of thought, and a viewpoint barren of any concern for the country.
This President was Commander-in-Chief when troops were scavenging abandoned vehicles in an attempt to salvage the armor that they weren't given. This President rejected Democratic proposals to increase the size of the Army a few years ago because he thought that we wouldn't need the bigger force by the time the new units would be ready to field. This President has sent Congress annual budgets proposing annual pay raises for the troops that are less than the expected inflation rate. I will, however, set aside for the time being the anger I feel every time this President stands up in front of the military and tells other people to support the troops.
I cannot set aside my anger at the man's imperial arrogance quite as easily. He stands there, blissfully oblivious to the fact that he was elected, not anointed, and refers to the stand that Congress has taken as "a message." He goes on to declare that Congress "needs" to send him a spending bill that he would be willing to sign.
Presidents are not kings.
The problem that the President has here is actually fairly simple. He does have the power to veto any spending bill that this Congress sends him, and this Congress almost certainly won't be able to override the veto. Unfortunately for the President, in this case Congress doesn't need to override the veto. Congress has the power of the purse. The President cannot spend money on his own - he needs their approval.
If the President wants the money with no strings attached, he needs to convince a majority of both houses of Congress that they should vote to do just that. They do not "need" to give him one thin dime to continue this war. If they truly believe that the war should be brought to a halt, then they should stand their ground and refuse to send him the bill he is asking for. They have the votes to attach the timeline, and they should continue to do so even if the President continues to hold a gun to the Army's head.
If they cave in - if they put down their gun - the standoff will not really be over. The President will still have a gun to the hostage's head. And he will know that he can hold the troops hostage to get Congress to bend to his will.
So Mike, I'm wondering about why these items are in the Iraq War bill, and how they fit in with the principled stand the Democrats are taking?
$74 million for peanut storage
$25 million for spinach growers
$100 million for citrus growers
$16 million for more office space for Congress
$100 million for the political party conventions
$13 million for "ewe replacement and retention"
$24 million for sugar beet growers
$95 million for dairy producers
$3.5 million for the Capitol's guided-tour program
$40 million for the Christmas tree assistance program
$165.9 million for 'fisheries disaster relief'
I see a standoff in the making. When it gets to the point that the President feels he has to resort to blackmail to get what he wants, you know somebody's wrong -- probably him.
$3.5 million for the guide tour thing is a pittance compared to the approximately 35 BILLION for the different forces called out in the bill; it's 1% of 1%, hardly anything to get your knickers in a knot over. And by the way - the $100 million for political party conventions was to take that money OUT.
Gerard:
I definitely don't like the pork, and I'd be a lot happier if those items weren't in the bill. Pork has been a part of the political culture in this country for a very long time, but that doesn't make it good or right.
It's worth noting, though, that this is hardly the first defense bill in recent years to contain chunks of pork, and President Bush did not find pork to be a sufficient reason to veto any of the previous ones.
It would appear that as usual, much of the pork is actually Gang Of Pirates Pork used to get Republicans to vote for it. Citrus, Sugar Beet, Dairy, are all classic agribusiness, and any Fisheries Disaster relief is not likely to go to folk with a single boat.
It is like Mark Foley waving his own emails as proof the Democrats aren't doing enough to protect pages from predators.
If the Democrats took out the Christmas tree funding they would be crying about the silly "war on Christmas" BS.
It is indeed true that Bush has been reluctant -- heck, he's flat refused -- to veto pork. So much for principle. But what I'm appalled by is the show of fiscal piety the Dems made in February in cutting the largely Republican pork out of the continuing resolution, and then the eagerness with which they've added back their own pork to the March emergency resolution. I don't mind the deceit so much, but how stupid do they think we are? And the pork is more like 20% of the bill, not 1%.
As you say, only someone with the mentality of a sports fan could try to score this for one side over the other. Bush wants to continue the Iraq war. The Dems want to stop him. Both are going to try to play chicken with the appropriation, hoping their spin will be more effective. A plague on both their houses.
Citrus, Sugar Beet, Dairy, are all classic agribusiness, and any Fisheries Disaster relief is not likely to go to folk with a single boat.
The dairy belongs to Obey (D, Wisconsin) and Leahy (D, Vermont). The fisheries disaster relief belongs to Inouye (D, HI). He's very proud of it. He also has some of the sugar money. Aside from the Hawaii money, much of the rest of the fisheries goes to California for the Klamath Basin (Feinstein (D); Boxer, (D))
http://inouye.senate.gov/07pr/20070329pr01.html
"Their bills substitute the judgment of Washington politicians for the judgment of our military commanders."
Isn't that how the "surge" came to be?
I mentioned this comment on the current bill on my own blog. Trudeau has an amazing gift for finding the inherent absurdity in a situation.
"Yet, we cannot allow honest differences in Washington to harm our troops in battle, or their families here at home."
Couldn't he just as well have stopped just before the word "in"?
The anger in this article is directed 100% in the wrong direction, however, the author is clearly an anti-war, Bush-hating liberal with no common sense. Once you realize that, then the article makes sense in a twisted sort of way.
The author once again bases his article on a false premise. It isn't Bush blackmailing Congress, it's Congress trying to undermine our President and the War on Terror, ensure our defeat, jeopardize our security and confirm to our enemies that what they believe of the American people is totally correct.
OK, now that I've gotten the attention of all you left-wing, America-hating, pinko Commie liberals who STILL can't get over the repeatedly-established fact that Bush really did win in 2000, I will explain, even though reality is that you are the closed minded ones who refuse to consider any viewpoint other than your own. Before you go turning that around and saying that I'm the closed-minded one, I will have you know that I do listen to other viewpoints. The thing is, after I apply some common sense to those viewpoints, I realize that what is being presented equates to: black is white, bad is good, and surrender is victory. And that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
First, Bush is not blackmailing Congress, Congress is undermining Bush. How do I come to that conclusion? Mainly because Bush has gone down an unpopular route of sticking to his guns in the War on Terror and remained steadfast in his ultimate goal, whereas his detractors (i.e., 99% of the Democratic Party) are completely linguini-spined on this issue and flip-flop when it is politically convenient in order to gain political power for themselves. Case and point: The very Democrats who are now more concerned with their own vacations than making sure our troops have the resources they need to defend themselves in Iraq and don't seem to mind that playing politics like this could result in a surge of troop casualities are the same Democrats who repeatedly claim to "support the troops" and remind us constantly that we've lost about 3000 troops in Iraq. While any loss of life is regrettable, the number of troops we have lost in Iraq is infinitesimal compared to how many we lost in Vietnam or World War II. I shudder to think of what life would be like if the current Democratic party was in power back in 1940. Oh, did I mention that our President through World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a Democrat? My, how times have changed.
For my second point, the Democrats are working to ensure our defeat. Regardless of how you want to characterize their desire to get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible, should we fail in Iraq, the Democrat party will forever be known for that, and the repercussions of happily owning our defeat in Iraq will fall squarely on them as well. I predict that if the Democrats in Congress succeed in forcing the President to agree to an artificial timeline, or force an immediate withdrawal, within two years, Iraq will be symbolically "annexed" by Syria and Iran. In other words, while the country of Iraq may continue to exist on maps and globes, it will be dominated and ruled by Syria and Iran by proxy and turned into a breeding ground for terrorists. Within the following ten years, we will see another 9/11 happen here or something significantly worse, perhaps a nuclear weapon. If that happens, let's see if those same people who are happily championing a strategy of surrender now and meeting for cocktails with our enemies (Pelosi) are still feeling so good about themselves at that time.
I will concede that the war could have gone a lot better than it has, but then that's the fault of liberals and the media as well, i.e., instead of blaming our soldiers when they are forced to kill civilians who are being used as human shields by terrorists and sending them to jail for doing their jobs, can we please blame the terrorists who chose to use the civilians as human shields in the first place? Let's use some common sense and direct the anger in the proper directions, people. The simple fact of the matter is that regardless of how we got there, we are there, and we need to finish what we started and we must finish it in a way that presents the United States in a positive light, and that is not by bailing out when the job is only half-finished. That is precisely what the terrorists believe we will do. If we confirm those beliefs to them, that only gives them more to work with in propaganda and to recruit more terrorists. I personally believe that we can do more to combat terrorism by proving the terrorists wrong and leaving Iraq only when they have a strong government and an effective military and police force. I think that if we surrender in Iraq, which is what the Democrats are pushing for--let's be honest, it will do more to damage our standing and image in the international community than anything that Bush has allegedly done. A lot of countries have gone into this with us. Great Britian and Australia come to mind. If we bail out and leave them holding the bag, what happens when America is attacked again? I think Great Britian and Australia would not be so quick to come to our aid again because we would have shown that we can't be relied on or trusted. How does that help us?
The main problem and source of the disagreement between the Democrats in Congress and the President is that the Democrats want to do what FEELS right at this particular moment in time, whereas the President has a much more long-term vision and realizes it's going to be a hell of a grind getting there, but the hope is that once we succeed, our country will be safer and stronger and maybe more respected in the end.
It's how the entire Iraq War came to be.
"but the hope is that once we succeed, our country will be safer and stronger and maybe more respected in the end."
Dear Brett,
To follow your line of thinking:
Same question comes up: What defines and quantifies "success" in Iraq?
If we had a definition of success in Iraq, we would have an exit strategy, too. Perhaps I have overlooked it. Has anyone seen the proposal/concrete strategic plans for success by staying in Iraq?
Bush is really flipping out. such a petulant little child.
let's see 20% of 100 billion is ... is... $20,000,000,000
and the pork totals....what $500,000,000?
which is 1/2 of 1% of $100 bill and this stupid war has ALREADY cost $500 billion we don't have and will cost another TRILLON dollars before we are through.
And Brett fires off the usual knee-jerk neocon response: an instant ad hominem attack, tarring as pinko commie liberal, etc, etc, etc, before launching into the same, tired, "If you don't support Bush, you must hate America" garbage we've been hearing for far too long. Here's a little secret, Brett -- the reason we don't support Bush is because we love this country and deplore the things he's done to it and the situation he's left it in.
Of course, the most laughable assertion of Brett's is that Bush has a long-term vision that us "lefties" can't see. Excuse me? Bush is the poster-child for myopic planning. Shock and awe, out of Iraq within a year, no need to plan any post-invasion occupation as there won't be a need for any....
As for a hope to be more respected in the end? Hah, we'll be lucky if anyone in the world has much if any respect for this country due to Bush's folly.
Haha! Good one, Brett! You actually had me going until I got to this. It was just too far over the top, even for the "typical right-wing loon" character you were going for. Too cliched, I'm afraid.
Still, well done. I would never have been able to stay in character for such a long post. Kudos.
now they need to send me a war-spending measure that I can sign into law,
I find this "You need to do X for me" to be incredibly patronizing. It's the sort of thing you say to a 3yo ("I think you need to go potty now, dear"). That Bush uses it on Congress reveals the arrogance of the man, and his contempt for anyone who stands in his way.
As for Brett: I'm always amazed when I run across people who manage to out-parody Stephen Colbert's parody of the wingnuts.
The US invasion of Iraq is just another one of Dick Cheney's business deals. A child could see it.
What defines and quantifies "success" in Iraq?
If we had a definition of success in Iraq, we would have an exit strategy, too.
Bush's exit strategy is the only one sensible people can support in a war: the one called "victory." When Iraq has a stable economy and government that can handle its own security and protect its people from invasion by hostile neighbors, when our forces can leave without leaving behind an orgy of ethnic cleansing that will put Rwanda, Darfur, and the Cambodian Killing Fields to shame -- then we'll know we've succeeded.
As to how long it will take: it will take as long as it takes. To steal a line from my favorite SF show, only an idiot would try to set and keep a schedule for victory. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would try to keep to the schedule whether or not victory was actually being achieved.
That's why going to war is never something to be done lightly. It's one of the few truly irreversible decisions any head of state can make. You don't get any mulligans. You don't get to cash in your chips and leave because you're a few hundred down and you'd rather not lose any more. Once you're in, you're in til it ends. And there are only two ways it can end: victory, or defeat. Any outcome that isn't a victory is a defeat.
The fight over the Iraq appropriations bill is very simple: it's the Democrat leadership on the Hill trying to piss on the White House. That's all, there ain't no more. The Dems have rigged the spending bill so that signing it would mean defeat in Iraq. Bush won't allow that. He wants to win, and the Democrats don't. That's really all there is to it.
you're just mincing words, now. how do we know when we have achieved this thing ("success", "victory", whatever you want to call it) that we should be staying in Iraq for? how will we recognize it when we have it? how can we know whether or not it is even in theory possible for us to get it? and if these questions can't be adequately answered, why should congress keep funding violent efforts to pursue this nebulous, nameless something?
Wolfwalker wrote,
And then bemoans that,
Yet, Bush's methods for achieving "victory" are preventing an Iraq that can boast "a stable economy and government that can handle its own security," part of Wolfwalker's definition of "victory."
Bush's methods include:
==> building a gargantuan embassy
==> constructing several giant permanent military bases
==> 'surging' troops to terrorize Baghdad neighborhoods with tanks, guns, helicopters and occasional bombs
==> installing a puppet government
==> writing Iraqi law so that upwards of 75% of Iraq's greatest natural resource, oil, is delivered into the hands of multinational corporations and NOT the Iraqi people
and not much more.
Remember Humpty Dumpty? "All the King's horses and all the King's men cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again."
That's because the continuing presence of the US military is, in large part, the cause of the chaos throughout Iraq today. Our military personnel are trained to destroy and kill. I used this analogy in a late post on the previous thread:
The US military presence in Iraq is like a layer of large sharp burrs under a saddle. Every day the burrs remain under the saddle the more damage we do to both the saddle and the horse, and the more unruly the horse behaves. How does it make sense to say, "Let's leave the burrs under the saddle until the horse stops rearing up!"? Removing the burrs is only the first step to healing the horse and calming it down, but there can be no [further] progress unless this is done.
I am neither Democrat nor Republican anymore. But I take issue with your broad assertion, Wolfwalker, that Democrats do not want "victory" in Iraq. In fact, by their actions, I think the Bush administration has proved that they do not want "victory" in Iraq. An Iraq that can "protect its people from invasion by hostile neighbors..."? Haha.. or hostile forces from further away, like the US? The Bush administration wants and needs an excuse to keep US soldiers and marines in Iraq.
That said, it seems to me there can be no "victory" in any case. Humpty Dumpty is broken. It is going to take the US getting out, and a powerful, patient international effort to see that Iraqis have jobs, electricity, clean water, clean soil (removing the DU is going to take a LONG time, but our military isn't doing it), and the promise of a future that does not include foreign interference (ours, primarily) to make things better.
Well said, Wolfwalker. Where was this advice when the Decider "decided" over the objections of his own chiefs-of-staff, the international community, and many if not most of his own people, to lie the United States into a war that he was continually told would be more likely lost than won?
Oh yes--it was in the room with him. But he sent it away, didn't he?
I'm starting to think back to a column by Matt Taibbi responding to Joe Klein's assertion that "leftists" are "rooting for American failure" in Iraq:
When has ANY funding bill not been loaded with pork? Remember during the U.S. incursion into Kosevo?
Well now, if memory serves, good 'ole -is that a toupee or a cat on his head- Senator Lott funded his "Railroad To Nowhere" in Mississippi in that military funding bill. But well that was then when the GOP ruled the senate, and the Right-Wingers want us to forget that. Instead we should have the memories of may-flies when it suits the Right.
And what about fiscal responsibility? How come Bush has NEVER put the Iraq occupation on the budget? Does he want to kick the debt down the road for other Presidents to repay?
Republicans try to justify whatever they do; they're hypocrites.
"And what about fiscal responsibility? How come Bush has NEVER put the Iraq occupation on the budget? Does he want to kick the debt down the road for other Presidents to repay?"
***
That's exactly what he's going to do. At the rate that we're getting into debt, it will take a couple of decades to pay off, at the least, assuming a stellar economy and no other disasters, or budget shortfalls.
By not putting it on the budget, he's leaving it for the next president, who may be a Democrat, or a more liberal Republican to deal with. It's convenient for them, too. If, say, Rudy or John McCain is stuck with bag when the door opens, it'll just be another piece of evidence that liberals (or even moderates like those two) don't know what the hell they're doing with anyone's money.
Think of how easy it will be to skewer a Democratic president with allegations of shitty finances if they're stuck with this kind of debt. It's the favorite accusation for Republicans to use anyway, that Democrats are bad with money. They'll torpedo Barack or Hillary just the same as they'll do with anyone else.
Ever wonder why us in the military can't stand you on the left? This article says it all, Military knows who the defeatist are, Yes you liberals.
That's funny. My boss won't give me an unlimited budget with unlimited time and no oversight for my projects, but I don't hate him. It actually seems like a fairly reasonable position from a project management perspective.
"The only strategy is victory" is not an answer. Define "victory"? In 2003 "victory" was going to be a surge in democracy across the middle east, the end to fundamentalism and anti-american and anti-israel regimes. At the moment, anti-americanism is so bad in the region that the Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, once the staunchest of allies, have both cancelled trips to the United States. Sticking in Iraq until those pesky Arabs say uncle is about as irrational as you can get. BTW, there is a cross-party, rational strategy drawn up by (among others) a former Republican Secretary of State. What happened to that? And does supporting it amount to "hating America"?