Bush to Cut Off Troop Funding
Cross-posted Here
On Friday, the United States House of Representatives passed an "Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill" to provide neccessary funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has warned that if Congress does not approve emergency funding for our troops by April 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families. Upon receiving word of the House's actions, George W. Bush said the following from the Diplomatic Reception Room at the Whitehouse: "...I will veto it if it comes to my desk."?????
In his prepared remarks from the Whitehouse, Bush said, "Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job." ( Emphasis TLS) Let us understand why this bill has "no chance." :
"...I will veto it if it comes to my desk." - George W. Bush
So just what would George W. Bush veto?
Obviously, you must begin with the original $97 BILLION in direct support for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition this supplemental adds $1 BILLION to the Defense Department request to address the rising conflict in Afghanistan (where the Taliban and Al Qaida are increasing their base of power), $2.8 BILLION for Defense Health Care (which is $1.7 BILLION above the President's request.), adds $1.7 BILLION to the request for veterans health care, and provides $2.5 BILLION, in additional funding for the Strategic Reserve Readiness fund to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained. And just why might George W. Bush veto neccessary funds for our troops? Well, again from his prepared remarks:
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding.(see above, TLS) Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret". (Emphasis TLS)
And just what are these "rigid restrictions"?
*Unit Readiness.
*Length of Deployment.
*Time Between Deployments.
Now I'm not sure which "army of lawyers" George was referring to but I would submit that it would simply require the military's own staff to interpret their own regulations that ensure our troops receive the respect and support they deserve.
Now, granted, there are some things in this bill that George has a problem with; things that would actually require him to perfom his duties as Commander in Chief and accept accountability for his policies and statements. For instance, this bill demands that the Iraqi government meet the benchmarks set out by the Bush Administration with regard to Iraqi troop deployments and ties them to dates for the reduction and eventual removal of American forces. The bill holds Bush to his statement that American military involvement in Iraq is not "open ended" and sets an ultimate date for withdrawal of American forces. This bill contains language that prohibits any permanent American military bases in Iraq; something that Bush has said repeatedly and yet the same language seems to mysteriously disappear from every other appropirations bill before it reaches Bush's desk.
So after four years of Bush insisting that not voting for his mindless blank checks would show Democrats lacking in support for our troops he is faced with a choice. Mr. Bush, here is your money; strings and all. What is your answer?
Peace,
Bush to Cut Off Troop Funding | 10 comments (10 topical)
|