Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits
Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits
The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27.
ThinkProgress noted last night that the White House opposed the pay raise for troops:
Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. […]
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.
Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”
The White House says it also opposes:
– a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”
– additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees
– price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents
House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,” noting that Bush’s problems with the bill are over measures that benefit “the very people who sacrifice the most in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and who serve at home and overseas.”
UPDATE: VoteVets chairman and Iraq veteran Jon Soltz adds:
Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren’t sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we’ve heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn’t provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
148 Responses to “Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Why does George Bush hate our troops?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pmWhy does the President hate our troops?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pmBush is supporting the troops by making sure they don’t have to count too much money on their paycheck.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pmHouse Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC)
Dudes, I doubt theres a D as a minority anything in the house currently.
But something tells me if he veto’s this one, at least it’ll get overridden.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pmGeorgie, you go right ahead and do that.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pmLet’s see how that works out for you.
Support the troops, my ass.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm40$ more a month for widows? That’s 3 gallons of gas a week to get to work. Bootstraps women bootstraps
May 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pmsquegeeboo,
The vote was 397-27. He can’t veto that, as long as the Senate brings back a similar percentage. He’s an idiot for bringing it up.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pmJust wanted to point out that:
May 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm“House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,â€
should be:
“House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,â€
House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,†noting that
Ah, excuse me. If Clyburn is a D he’s the house MAJORITY Whip
May 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThat’s a hell of a veto record.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmFurther proof that Chimpy hates our troops.
They are just pawns to him and his goons.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmJust when you think this administration can’t do anything more stupid and uncaring, they top themselves again and again. If the Chimp-In-Chief vetoes this bill, he any any congressman who voted against it, can no longer say they support the troops. This is absolutely outrageous!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmCrump’s Brother
He can’t veto that
You sure? I thought the 2/3rds only applys to the vote to override the veto, not the original vote.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pmOne week’s worth of inflated gas prices?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pmGo ahead veto it, and watch the congress override it. They are up for re-election.
The shameless, arrogant, cheap, greedy Chimpy McFlightSuit clearly doesn’t appreciate the sacrifice of our troops that he put into harm’s way.
Let’s fire him.
- Tom
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmThe military should boot their Commander in Thief….ummm,..Chief.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmP.S. Cancel all the rest of the chymp’s photo ops with actual troops. He’ll have to use cardboard cutouts from now on.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmThey just continue to slap various groups of Americans, then we respond by saying, “thank you sir, may I have another”?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmIf they really were patriotic and loved their country, they would fight and die for free. If I give them a raise, it’s gonna make it harder for me to continue to cut taxes on my buddies in top tax brackets. I mean we need to think about our priorities here. I put these people in the desert to fight a war so that we could have a solid source of oil. Therefore my friends get rich. But if I have to pay these whiny soldiers more oney, well that’s like taking it away from the hard working top 1%.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmO’Reilly? Hannity? Limbaugh? Comments?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmthats how they support the troops… with absolutly no support
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pmBush is supporting the troops by making sure they don’t have to count too much money on their paycheck.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Right, that extra cash is such a burden to carry around.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm3403
3 troops killed today Baghdad (South of) - Babil
May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pmSo why aren’t the Democrats getting this on the front page of every newspaper, and on every news program tonight?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pmChimpy should veto this bill.
It will be the final coffin nail for the Repukes.
They will lose BIG in 2008.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pmIs there some point where even the Republicans decide that enough is enough and do the right thing for our troops?
Are they so beholden to the President, or so drunk with the power they once held as majority, that they don’t realize just how far over the edge that Bush has led them?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pmI bet they make sure the troops are unarmed when Chimpy does a photo op with them.
Otherwise, somebody’s rifle might accidentally go off.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pmThe vote was 397-27. He can’t veto that, as long as the Senate brings back a similar percentage. He’s an idiot for bringing it up.
Comment by Crump’s Brother
Let him veto it! :-D
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pmWAY TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS, GEORGIE! Color me sutpid, but a vote of 397-27, at least in the House, is Veto proof. Unless, of course, Bush has decided that the “unitary executive theory” ( aka dictator ala despot) grants him some far-reaching power to over-ride a veto proof margin and, once again, ignore the rule of law and the Constitution while fighting the “war on Terror”, while Pelosi keeps impeachment off the table. Perhaps even a “signing statement” from Bush will allow him to declare the over-ridden veto unconstitutional and he will simply ignore the legislation. Nothing is beyond this troglodyte….
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pm3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers - COME ON AT LEAST 10% MORE
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pmsquegeebooo,
A vote on an override that passes makes a President look totally weak. He wont even attempt it if he knows the votes are there.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pmWhere is m12 now? Come out come out where ever you are!
Olly Olly Oxen Free!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pmRUCerious,
You forget that I’m the Commander Guy!!! HeHe. They have to stand where I tell em to stand!! Shock & Awe!!! RATATATATATATATAT!!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pmOh, please do veto this bill Mr. President. Democrats can ride that horse right into the Whitehouse in ‘08. Especially when contrasted with this President’s blase attitude toward the billions of taxpayer dollars ‘misplaced” in Iraq. Every day the depth of contempt these crooks and liars have for the American people they “serve” astonishes me.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pmYeah, shrub, the troops are paid so well that this is the result:
“A bipartisan bill supporting the administration’s request to permanently exclude combat-related pay from income calculations for food stamps was introduced in the House on May 3.
“Feeding America’s Families Act of 2007,†a bill introduced by Reps. James McGovern, D-Mass., and Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., has a provision that would exclude from food-stamp eligibility calculations any additional payment received by a service member as the result of deployment to a designated combat zone, for the duration of the member’s deployment. The additional pay must be the result of deployment to or service in the combat zone.â€
They’re paid so fucking well and don’t need that half-of-a-percent because we’re going to let their families have food stamps while the troops are over getting their asses blown off. Fuck Bush! Support our troops- bring them home, now!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:38 pmBecause the media is owned by right wingers.
IOKIYAR
May 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pmI support the troops. Didn’t you see my commercials during the 2004 campaign that said so. Hell, I gave them a war to fight. What more could a bunch ingrates want.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmNot suprising given that the Bush “Administration” can’t even afford to give the troops a cogent reason as to why they are involved in this f-cked up fire fight anyways.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIt will be impossible for the corporate media to black out this story if Chimpy vetoes this bill.
If there are no timelines or benchmarks in this bill, Chimpy has no way to justify a veto. He would be vetoing a raise for our troops and their widows.
Chimpy is about to step in a huge pile of horseshit, but he thinks there’s a pony in it.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThis bill is a clear cut example of how Democrats don’t support our troops. Ya see, by giving them a pay raise, that directly undercuts the spirit of volunteerism that drives our fine Military. These young women and men volunteered. heh. That mean’s they’d be willing to die for their country for nothing, if we let them. So that’s what I plan to do with this veto. To send a message to our troops. And the message I’m sending is that they can die for nothing.
I don’t think that came out quite right.
/Bush
May 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmBAGHDAD - Mortar rounds hit a U.S. Air Force base north of Baghdad on Thursday, destroying one helicopter and damaging nine others, police said.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmI want the names of the 27 clowns who voted against this bill!!!!!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIt’s all going well…according to the New World Order Plans…
May 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pmDestroy the Middle class….Destroy the Military….Loot the Treasury…
Destroy the infastructure….. Destroy The United States……
IOKIYAR
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I looked that one up in a texting - type dictionary. Can’t find it.
I know this exposes me for the unsavvy old-lady type that I’ve become, but what the heck does that mean?
:)
May 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pmHe’s like a little child who just says, “NO!” everytime their mommy tells them to do something.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pmignatious,
I will veto it you little gnat!! I’m not running for anything in ‘08 you ungrateful low wage earner. You don’t matter to me. You people don’t even vote. Anyway, I’ll see to it that your vote wont count in ‘08…I mean that your vote will count!!! yeah that’s it!!
I’m a great American. You should all be thanking for my masterful use of the english language, making the rich in our country way more richer, and denying science.
You are just one of those intellectuals that think you know everything. WHatever. I’m the Commander Guy!!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pmand what did it cost for McCain to stroll “safely” through that Baghdad market?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#7 - Dr. Laura,
May 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pmGas is the least of a war widow’s problems. Survival and grief lead the list. I have an aunt who lost two husbands as a result of WWII. One was a PamAm pilot who happened to be flying to Peking (Name then, Beijing, now.) on 5 December 1941 and the other a Navy pilot three years later.
It looks like this could be veto-proof–in which case I hope bush does veto it.
Once a precedent gets set for overturning his vetoes, it will start to cascade, and the mere fact that he announces he wants to veto something will be taken as prima facie evidence that it’s something that should be enacted.
He’ll be shown for the impotent dickless wonder that he is and his castration will be complete.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pmOf course this is too much money for the soldiers.!! they say.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pmCompare this to politicians like Jiuliani & others who are making tens of thousands of dollars for ‘two hours of speech work’ cashing on 9/11 and other stories…
What country we are living in?!!
41 UPDATE said he saw about 16 damaged helicopters, some of them set on fire by the attack. The worker spoke on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
the surge included 150 new helicopters well thats 16 destroyed
May 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI’m OK if you are? Stretch, I know.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmIOKYAR means “Its Okay If You’re a Republican”
It is shorthand for the fact that Democrats get in big trouble for things that Republicans get away with.
And with “good Bushies” running the Department of Justice, that is really happening.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI know this exposes me for the unsavvy old-lady type that I’ve become, but what the heck does that mean?
It’s OK If You’re a Republican
It’s just a google search away.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmIOKIYAR: It’s OK If You’re a Republican.
google
May 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pmComment by trueblue
IOKIYAR = Its OK if you are a Republican
May 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pmThank you all.
**embarrassed**
May 17th, 2007 at 4:51 pmThe President has good reasons if he wants to veto this bill. I back the President on this one.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmWow. I can’t believe the WH would even let something like this be said to the public. I’m sure they will retract this one once they see the damage it is doing.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pmFailing to provide adequate pay and benefits to the troops emboldens the enemy.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pmm12, you and what army?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pm#58
Namejack, is not me.
Lefties, please cite where the President used the word ‘veto’.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pmm12,
You’re a great American. You got it right!!! More money for the upper crust means it will tinkle down… I mean trickle down to the rest of you poor bastards.
I would never hurt our toops. They don’t need a raise. Most people only get raises when they do a good job anyway. And you and I know that it’s not my fault this Iraq thing is going great… I mean badly. If the troops want a raise, they should Git ‘r Dun!!!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThe President has good reasons if he wants to veto this bill. I back the President on this one.
What ARE the “good reasons”. Oh, right, you like the taste of his azz.
See YOU in hell m12 (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
May 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
Bush is just showing the Republican true colors.
The Republicans really don’t give a damn about the troops at all.
If they did, Walter Reed, no body armor and the other issues would never have happened. Period.
I notice the trolls are avoiding this thread, after running rampant all day. Telling, huh?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pmm12,
I’m saying right now!!! VETO VETO VETO!!!
I mean business, I’ll do it so help me, me…I mean God. So help me God!!
May 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pmNamejack, is not me.
Lefties, please cite where the President used the word ‘veto’.
Comment by m12 — May 17, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Who would namejack you? And wingnut go google yourself. Nobody here needs to do anything for you trolls.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThe President has good reasons if he wants to veto this bill. I back the President on this one.
Comment by m12
And what might that reason be? I’m assuming you have a good idea as to what it may be, since you are so eager to “back him up” on this one.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAP is reporting bipartisan group of senators want 9/11 report released.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pmBush wanted to effectively freeze such programs and has pledged to veto spending bills that break his budget goals.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pmOh come on now, the money is needed for Halliburton and the contractors.
F the troops.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pmLefties, please cite where the President used the word ‘veto’.
Comment by m12
Stop the mealymouth crap, troll. Are you for the bill, or against it. Yes or no.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pmgeorge w. bush is a vile, mass-murdering frat-boy pig. he will surely go down in history as one of the greatest — if not the most stupid — villains of the 20th century, second only to mr. cheney, who, daily, as his insanity-infested head grows larger and his depravity grows deeper, with a fascistic utter lack of compassion or a shred of human decency, spirals into the hell that shall welcome him home, with extreme prejudice. no, the lord will not be kind to a vicious, remorseless bloodthirsty monster the likes of richard b. cheney. he shall spend out eternity with the hairs of his asshole on fire and his evil cunt wife banging liberal jews at greenpeace.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm#67
You tell me, Shane.
Again, you are asserting that the President has threatened a veto. Please quote exactly where he did this, because its not in the above 2 links in the original post.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pmIs the 12 in m12 his age or IQ?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pmStop the mealymouth crap, troll. Are you for the bill, or against it. Yes or no.
I have not seen the full bill, so I cannot comment. If it is a 3.5% pay raise, and only a 3.5% pay raise, I support it.
If it contains retreat provisions like the previous bill, I do not.
Mealymouth crap? Your bunch is putting false words in the President’s mouth!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pmAnd again m12, I don’t believe you were namejacked and I didn’t assert anything. Google the pay raise and find it yourself. Trolls are the liars not TP.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pmLooks like the troll is panicking, so he is nitpicking whether Chimpy threatened a veto.
I’m surprised the troll has enough brainpower to tell that this veto would be disasterous for Chimpy.
It is apparent from reading the entire article that the White House DID threaten a veto. Note Clyburn’s quote.
Looks like the troll is retreating further into his Bizarro World.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pmLast year Senator John Kerry was accused of not supporting our troops. Sure! Sure! Sure! George, you’re really the one not supporting our troops. What kind of dirty TRICK is this?
I call this disgusting lack of generosity a dirty TRICK. George is all talk and no action.
What’s next, George? I suppose George will be advocating widows to turn over a few TRICKS, if money is a little tight. Widows can just find themselves a madam and start punching a time clock. It appears madams would not be particularly difficult to locate in Washington. Just call Tobias for a few phone numbers. For that matter, I don’t think prostitutes would be particularly difficult to locate in Washington–female or male.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pmSomeone ought to shove these words back where they belong:
DICK cheney:”For eight years, Clinton and Gore have extended our military commitments while depleting our military power. Rarely has so much been demanded of our armed forces, and so little given to them in return. George W. Bush and I are going to change that, too. I have seen our military at its finest, with the best equipment, the best training, and the best leadership. I’m proud of them. I have had the responsibility for their well-being. And I can promise them now, help is on the way. Soon, our men and women in uniform will once again have a commander in chief they can respect, one who understands their mission and restores their morale.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2000/ 08/ 02/ politics/ main221310.shtml
Candidate Bush: “The Congress has got to keep in mind the needs of those who wear the uniform. (Applause.) And I expect quick response from the members of the United States Congress. (Applause.) When I ran for promise — I promised America that help is on the way for the men and women who wear our uniform. (Applause.) Today, I’m proud to say, help is arriving. (Applause.) I’m committed that America does a better job of supporting you all.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2001/ 07/ 20010724-1.html
Google “bush cheney help is on the way” if you want to read more pablum that will make you vomit.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pmIs the 12 in m12 his age or IQ?
Comment by Tom3
IQ, the m stands for minus
May 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pmI don’t think m12 is a real citizen of the USA. Either he’s a foreigner trying to stir us Americans up, or he’s a Rove plant who is paid to troll progressive sights. Because nobody in his right mind would say what m12 says. At least an American in his right mind.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pmIs the 12 in m12 his age or IQ?
Comment by Tom3 — May 17, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
YES
May 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pmMealymouth crap? Your bunch is putting false words in the President’s mouth!
Comment by m12
And when he vetos, you will come back and admit you are a liar, right?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:12 pmm12, the President has pledged to veto any budget that doesn’t stick to his plan. Should we take his word for the veto or not?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pmIt is apparent from reading the entire article that the White House DID threaten a veto. Note Clyburn’s quote.
Clyburn’s quote says nothing about a veto either. Words in mouth again.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm#83
I will admit that, yes. If he signs it, will you do the same?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pmIt is obvious from reading the entire story that the White House actually HAS threatened a veto of this bill.
The story also does not mention any timelines or benchmarks.
So, if Chimpy himself hasn’t threatened a veto, who in the WH has?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pmWatching Bush self-destruct does have its moments.or he’s a Rove plant who is paid to troll progressive sights
yup
May 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pmbush supports Wolfowitz giving his sex-partner a nice salary.
bush does not support giving war widows an extra $40 per month.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pmI think GWB should go to a base (Maybe Fort Belvoir) and tell the troos why there is no need to give them more money or increase survivors’ benefits. The troops will applaud his speech (since they have to) but they will be really pissed.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe President has good reasons if he wants to veto this bill. I back the President on this one. Comment by m12
And if the head lemming leapt off a cliff you’d follow because he must have had a good reason to leap?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pmI’m doing a Google News for “Bush Veto Threat” and it shows several stories from reputable sources that say Chimpy DID threaten to veto this very bill.
Go back under your bridge, troll. And for God’s sake, take your meds.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pmPrick!!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm“Lefties, please cite where the President used the word ‘veto’.
Comment by m12″
I don’t think anyone has claimed the president used the word “veto”; can you cite where they have?
The policy statement issued by white house budget officials mentioned a likely veto in regards to two different issues, identified in the first link.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pmBush is determined to drag the whole party down with him. Let’s pray that he doesn’t drag the whole world down before he’s done.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pmm12,
I’m not signing S**t. VETO VETO VETO!!!
I support the troops by making sure they have a base of uber wealthy Americans to die for. That’s enough!!
I gotta go do a bag of blow now!! “Condi sweetie, you got that line drawn? Yeah shake it girl!! Shock & Awe!!”
May 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pmChimpy is also threatening to veto because the bill requires the Pentagon to buy American.
Why does Chimpy hate America?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pm3 troops killed today
There. That’s at least $120.00 a month in survivors’ benefits saved just today alone. Imagine the extra savings as the surge continues indefinitely. Bush’ll get the budget into balance yet.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pmProof positive that W. does NOT support our troops. To the fuhrer, they are only useful as cannon fodder and photo op props, and not worth one damn bit more. Bush is TRULY a vile lump of shit.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI will admit that, yes. If he signs it, will you do the same?
Comment by m12
If he signs it will be a flip-flop of his current opposition to the pay raises.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI have not stated whether he said he would veto or not.
Unlike you I read all the links and did more searches
The white house opposes the bill.
Who runs the white house trollboy?
More money for the widows and military??? Can’t have that… How can Bush continue his tax cuts for his buddies? When this country is completely trashed he and his ilk need to be well invested globally in order to step out of the damage and carnage and into their new life. Paraguay?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI don’t think anyone has claimed the president used the word “vetoâ€; can you cite where they have?
The policy statement issued by white house budget officials mentioned a likely veto in regards to two different issues, identified in the first link.
Look at the headline:
“Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise”.
I am simply asking where the President said anything of the sort. So far, nobody has provided such a quote by George W. Bush.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm#92
Link?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:27 pmAgain, you are asserting that the President has threatened a veto. Please quote exactly where he did this, because its not in the above 2 links in the original post.
Comment by m12
Far be it from me to agree with a troll, but unless someone can come up with some documentation better than this, I have to agree. I did some searching and yes, it is true that GWB has threatened to veto this bill. It is disingenuous in the extreme, however, to suggest that the veto is because of the proposed pay raises.
See: http://tinyurl.com/2mwz3f
Primary objection appears to be to a “buy America” provision, which strikes me as stupid but still nothing like the propaganda that TP has posted with this headline.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe President has good reasons if he wants to veto this bill. I back the President on this one.
It’s like Gonzales, who knows nothing of the USA firings, but he KNOWS somehow that the White House had nothing to do with it.
It’s just pure blind faith, in a failed lying leadership.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pmSad thing is the troops don’t get to read the outrage on this topic. Administration thinks their “beautiful minds” need to be protected from the liberal bloggers who supposedly lack any sense of morality.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pmA quote from that link that gummitch posted:
“The White House also threatened a veto over proposed changes to the Pentagon’s personnel policies. The legislation would restore collective bargaining rights and access to an appeals process for certain employees.”
May 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pmclearly Bush is looking out for the best interest of our troops…
May 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pmHeya - “House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC)”…
That can’t be right.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pmSad thing is the troops don’t get to read the outrage on this topic. Administration thinks their “beautiful minds†need to be protected from the liberal bloggers who supposedly lack any sense of morality.
Comment by Lucy
It is a story in the Army Times, my son pointed out to me when he called me last night, from Iraq. They know. ( one of my 3 sons and a brother-in-law are in Iraq )
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pmJeez, is that idiot troll still trying to deny that Chimpy threatened a veto?
Give it up troll. Chimpy DID threaten a veto. He hates our troops.
You lose, troll. Go back under your bridge.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pmThe right of center Republicans I know are mortified. This should ensure that they will vote Democratic in 2008 if we nominate a true moderate like Al Gore, who needs to quit being coy and enter the race already…
I have a friend who is anti-abortion, Southern Baptist and pro-death penalty and she would vote for Al Gore… Because she wants an anti-Iraq, pro-Immigration reform, anti-NCLB, and pro-National Healthcare President with experience and the ability to speak fluent English.
Bush’s last two years in office might actually re-unite our country…
May 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm“3 troops killed today Baghdad (South of) - Babil”
There, you see? If not for GW’s strong fiscal leadership, those three dead soldiers would have cost the Department of Defense and the american taxpayers an additional $1460 per year. Unconscionable!
Plus, giving larger benefits to widows is like incentivizing soldiers to get themselves killed. Its hard to say how many have already to take advantage of the welfare state’s current benefits.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pmWell you know the President, he does not think you have reached your full potential as an American, blessed by its opportunity, until you are a single parent working three jobs to survive. This is merely an extension of that tough love approach to citizenship.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pmI’m really starting to think that Bush wants nothing more than to be impeached. I guess that’s one way of getting out of the way and letting good ole uncle Dick deal with the mess. It will be interesting to see how much longer it will take, and how many stupid decisions will be made before people are marching through dc demanding he be fired.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pmShorter GW: Mooching war widows…
May 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pm“Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes†both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.†”
Ok BowelMovement1-2, Bush just “strongly opposes” the pay raise
for soldiers and widows. Is that better?
Valiant Venus, comment on this one?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pmBecause she wants an anti-Iraq, pro-Immigration reform, anti-NCLB, and pro-National Healthcare President with experience and the ability to speak fluent English.
Comment by unbelievable
LMAO
May 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pmIt is a story in the Army Times, my son pointed out to me when he called me last night, from Iraq. They know. ( one of my 3 sons and a brother-in-law are in Iraq )
Comment by Wayne
May they return safely soon, healthy, sane, & whole.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pmHell NO!
… the troops (or widows of troops) can’t have a raise…
…THAT money is already earmarked…
…for Halliburton’s move to Dubai…
…Blackwater’s contractor’s pay…
…and Wolfowitz’s severance package!
…Questions???
May 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pmIt is a story in the Army Times, my son pointed out to me when he called me last night, from Iraq. They know. ( one of my 3 sons and a brother-in-law are in Iraq )
Comment by Wayne — May 17, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
I had no idea, Wayne. I hope they return safely.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pmWho were the 27 asshats who voted against? Links please?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pmGood luck Wayne…
May 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pmMay they return safely soon, healthy, sane, & whole.
Comment by Lucy
I had no idea, Wayne. I hope they return safely.
Comment by Zooey
Me too. And thanks.
My son is actually in the National Guard and this is his 2nd deployment,nowdue back in about 4 months, after the change from 12 to 15 mo.
My brother-in-Law is on his 3rd.
It really scares the hell out of me sometimes.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pmIt really scares the hell out of me sometimes.
Comment by Wayne
Somehow, I think that’s an understatement.
I’ll be keeping them in my thoughts, let me know if there’s anything else I can do. :)
May 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pmWhile the proposed increase is minimal, it’s the principle behind it that counts. What happened to Bush’s whole mantra about supporting the troops by getting them the funding they need? I suppose it is only pertinent when it involves Iraq. Bush’s line of logic here reflects his entire view on our current policy that has made enemies for the US.
The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation, yet Bush has decided to put $340 billion into the Iraq war. While contributing funds to the UN Millennium Development Goals would take money way from government spending, that money will make a difference that impacts the US also. What is this war tryng to achieve and what success has it had? Committing to addressing poverty would a greater impact on global stability than wasting billions on wars.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm“Outsourcing the War”
Jeremy Scahill, May 12, 2007
Bush’s Private Extreme Right-Wing Christian Army BLACKWATER Gets Preferential Treatment…
…While many soldiers lack basic protective equipment…they are in a war zone where they see the private soldiers whiz by in better vehicles, with better armor, better weapons, wearing the corporate logo instead of the American flag and pulling in much more money. They ask: Are our lives worth less?
…The testimony about private contractors that I hear most often from active duty soldiers falls into two categories: resentment and envy.
The second reaction is that the active-duty soldiers see the “rock star†private contractors and they want to be like them. So we have a phenomenon of soldiers leaving active duty to join the private sector.
There is slang in Iraq now for this jump. It is called “Going Blackwater.†To put it bluntly, these private forces create a system where national duty is outbid by profits. And yet these forces are being used for mission-critical activities. Indeed, in January Gen. David Petraeus admitted that on his last tour in Iraq, he himself was protected not by the active-duty military but by private “contract security.â€
……Just as there is a double standard in pay, there is a double standard in the application of the law. Soldiers who commit crimes or acts of misconduct are prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice….Despite the fact that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, have streamed in and out of Iraq since March of 2003, only two private contractors have faced any criminal prosecution. Two.
…US contractors in Iraq reportedly have their own motto: “What happens here today, stays here today.†That should be chilling to everyone who believes that warfare, above all government functions, must be subject to transparency, accountability and the rule of law.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pmBush is a traitor and needs to be dealt with as one.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:16 pmWow, what a good way to support the troops. But, this one he can go ahead and veto since the margin by which it passed is veto-proof. They will easily override his veto. How embarrassing it must be to be a Republic politician these days.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:36 pm“So why aren’t the Democrats getting this on the front page of every newspaper, and on every news program tonight?”
Sounds like a good idea. But, please tell me how they can do that. The Democrats have no power with the media. The media is owned by corporate conglomerates who are beholden to Bush for their billions of dollars of profits they are making off of this occupation. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:40 pmIOKIYAR= It’s OKay If You Are Republican
Said with a sense of utter entitlement like the effeet fops BEFORE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
Down with Elites!! Drive the Republicans out of their palaces and gated communities bought with the blood of the people!
May 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pmI’ll buy a steak dinner for the first troop who spits on the Draft-Dodger-Deserter-in-Chief. If any of them happens to think he’s worth wasting precious spit on. Which he’s not.
Still, the idea of a spit shower coming from all those troops he props up behind him at his speeches…………
May 17th, 2007 at 9:11 pmEven the discussion of stopping an increase in widower benfits should see Jr kicked back to Texas. I don’t think Sr would have even tried that one.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:32 pmLots of good stuff in that bill, coated with a meager increase to the service members and their families. Excellent to see the support for the war on drugs, increased funding for Ballistic missile tests etc that come with the huge 40 dollar a month pay increase each soldier would get. Why don’t they just pass one on it’s own merits and leave the garbage out.
Authorizes appropriations to DOD for: (1) procurement, including for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and shipbuilding and conversion; (2) research, development, test, and evaluation, including ballistic missile defense; (3) operation and maintenance, including for defense working capital funds, the Defense Health Program, drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and environmental restoration; (4) active and reserve military personnel, including end strengths and the Armed Forces Retirement Home; (5) increased costs for military activities and military construction due to the global war on terror (6) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program; (7) chemical demilitarization construction; and (8) Guard and reserve forces facilities.
Sets forth provisions or requirements concerning: (1) active and reserve military personnel policy; (2) military education and training; (3) military justice; (4) military pay and allowances; (5) retired pay and survivor benefits; (6) military health care; (7) acquisition policy and management; (8) DOD organization and management, including intelligence-related matters; (9) counter-drug activities and matters related to homeland security; (10) civilian personnel matters; (11) matters relating to other nations; and (12) cooperative threat reduction with states of the former Soviet Union.
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 for military construction for the Armed Forces and defense agencies.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:44 pmwith the huge 40 dollar a month pay increase each soldier would get.
Replace soldier with survivor please.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:04 pmAh yes! Yet another blatant photo-op for Chimpy Mc AWOL, using the troops as a backdrop.
What the hell. It’s worked before. Why not do it again? And again. And again. And again. And again.
The man is pathetic.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pmMr. “Support the troops” wants to pay 70% the military at 20% of market value. To keep the rest happy, he hires Blackwater to pay them $100K+ per year. If the US government was required by law to pay the 70% their full market value, plus full income benefits for their widows for the length of rest of their expected lifetimes, we wouldn’t have unnecessary wars.
Here is my proposal: Each man or woman in combat earns a minimum of $100K/year. If he gets injured, he gets red carpet benefits, everything that is medically beneficial plus a full-time attendant, if he needs one. If he dies, his heirs get that salary up until the year that he would have turned 65, after that, they get his pension until he would have turned 80. Details can be ironed out.
These people deserve it for the risks they take. As it is, they are being taken advantage of. The government needs to pay a steep price if they get injured or killed in the line of duty.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pmI have the feeling most folks don’t realize how little these soldiers get. My son’s a Pfc Marine now in Anbhar Province. He gets $2020 per month, and that includes his combat/hazard duty pay. Out of that he has to buy his own boots, camouflage uniforms, (Yes, they have to pay for those!!) and a lot of equipment that the Marines provide but doesn’t fit right (e.g., vests for his body armor), goggles, socks, etc. But of course when he gets promoted to lance corporal he’ll get another $75 a month. Whoopie!
May 17th, 2007 at 11:46 pmThis would be a PR disaster of mindboggling proportions — if, that is, the in-the-tank corporate media saw fit to report it, which they almost certainly won’t.
Still, I have to wonder what all those GOP zombies cheering for torture down in South Carolina Wednesday night would think about this if it was ever brought to the attention of their pea-sized brains. Would they be pleased to know their beloved leader is determined to keep the hired help dying for them at such bargain-basement prices?
Probably. They are Republicans, after all.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:32 amBush loves our troops to death!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:20 amBM12, still wondering, if we make the headline “BUSH STRONGLY OPPOSSES PAY RAISE FOR TROOPS”, would you have any other trollish criticism for this thread?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:37 amI’m sure others have mentioned this by James Clyburn is House *Majority* Whip. You had me scared that the Republicans had staged a coup.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:26 amThese are blue-blood Republicans in the grand Reagan tradition. Working people are nothing but a liability — a cost to be managed downward. They need care and feeding only to the extent that they need to be fed bullsh!t in order to obtain their cooperation. It’s the same in corporate America: just chew ‘em up, and spit ‘em out.
But in this case, the selflessness of the individuals being used is saintly, and the price they’re paying is extraordinary. The egregious profanity of the way they and their families are being treated, this being but the latest example, requires a depth of depravity, heartlessness, and sheer arrogance never before witnessed in the United States of America. How dare this chicken-hawk coke-snorting drunken coward deny ANYTHING to the people he’s sacrificing on the altar of oil company profits?
How much more of this vile cretin are we going to take?
May 18th, 2007 at 9:55 amThe fact that the Democrats aren’t getting this out across the press at every chance is just one reason I can’t bring myself to re-register as a Dem. They miss opportunities like this to demonstrate to the American people just how badly they’re being screwed, and you can’t miss chances like that when the opposition takes every chance, valid and otherwise, to poing out anything negative about your party. The Dems don’t want to win badly enough to do what it takes to win. They don’t have to break laws, they just have to play the game and use the rules to their advantage, but they won’t. And so, the right continues to march on, infected and wounded but still maintaining and attempting to heal itself - and the Dems give it time to do so. Pathetic leadership all around if you ask me.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:45 amIt’s not that he hates the troops, he just doesn’t care.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pmPost this link in as many places as you think appropriate! Read it first..
May 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pmhttp://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/309485032.html