Bush Puts ‘Immunity’ For Iraqi Government Ahead Of Bonuses For American Troops
Bush Puts ‘Immunity’ For Iraqi Government Ahead Of Bonuses For American Troops
In November, the Bush administration threatened that if Congress didn’t pass the Defense Authorization Bill, it would have to issue furlough notices for up to 150,000 civilian workers at military bases. The Pentagon distributed a document warning that the Army may cease to function if it did not receive the funds.
Congress eventually passed the defense authorization bill before winter recess and President Bush raised no concerns at the time. But over the break, the White House threatened a veto because of language that would expose the Iraqi government “to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime.”
Ironically, Bush’s refusal to sign the bill is leading to the very damaging effects that he was fearmongering about back in November. The Air Force Times reports that Bush’s veto is holding up re-enlistments and causing “some bonus programs for airmen” to expire:
All re-enlistments for airmen in Air Force Specialty Codes with a selective re-enlistment bonus or those with a critical skills retention bonus are suspended until further notice, the Air Force Personnel Center announced Monday. Instead, airmen can stay in the service by signing a “30-day best interest of the Air Force extension” as needed until the defense bill is signed into law.
Those career fields include security forces, air traffic controllers, explosive ordnance disposal and a host of other positions that are undermanned or require exceptional skills.
It is expected that the bonuses will be paid retroactive to Jan. 1 once the bill is signed into law, but there’s no guarantee. According to the personnel center, bonus programs are dependent upon congressional authorization and enactment into law.
While Bush vetoed the defense bill to protect the Iraqi government from liability, the Times notes that “[a]mong the people expected to seek a financial claim against Iraq were former U.S. servicemen held as prisoners of war during Desert Storm in 1991.” The bill Bush vetoed upgrades military health care and provides a 3.5 percent pay raise for service members.
Already, the Iraqi government is “thanking” Bush for preserving “the immunity of Iraq.” Bush, who repeatedly touts his support for the troops, is casting their interests aside in order protect his friends in the Iraqi government.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush clearly hates the troops and America.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pmBush, you have the bill. Why not veto it? Not so sure you can get the Repubes back in line to vote against an override this time?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pmLadies and Gentlemen, I give you the worst President in the History of the United States. George W. Bush.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pmplease take him
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pmI waiting for Exley to show up now, and tell us all how this is a good portent for our mission in Iraq.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pmThe hypocrisy of this man is not lost on those in the Middle East and the rest of the world…
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pmCronies over competence. It IS the Bush way.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm6, 9 No…the trolls will show up and say Congress should have rushed back into session to remove the provision. That is what they were saying last week…
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pmHave a look at what troops are saying about this.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmwhat the hell are those huge structures in the background?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pmIn a perfect world one would topple over and crush the sob.
Bush Veto Hurts Terror Victims And Troops
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pmBut over the break, the White House threatened a veto because of language that would expose the Iraqi government “to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime.â€
Correct if I’m wrong, but isn’t it pretty common for new, democratic governments to pay for miseeds of previous authoritarian regimes?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pmThe bottom line is that a pocket veto is the most craven thing the Presidunce could do. If you don’t like the bill as it was passed, veto it and see if you can jawbone enough guys that the veto won’t be overridden. Then negotiate. This is just a cynical excuse to blame Congress for more “troop hating”. Never mind that you’re sucking up to the Iraqi government when the iraqi people cry to sue for damages over the crimes of Saddam Hussein. I thought justice for the Iraqi people was one of your many reasons for invading Iraq, Mr. Bush. Lying sack of shit.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pmSovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.
After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22420862/
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm#12…it’s the air force memorial in DC somewhere….
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pmPersonally, I’m glad that he vetoed the bill. Now perhaps Congress can do the right thing and amend the bill to take out any funding for the Occupation of Iraq. They can start by de-funding the contractors. Without the contractors, Bush can’t continue to occupy Iraq. So, Congress has a way to bring our soldiers home without being accused of “not supporting the troops”. Besides, no one is buying that any longer considering everything Bush has done to diss our troops.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses bothâ€. – Dwight D. Eisenhower, (Inaugural address, 01-20-1953)
“All of us have heard this term ‘preventative war’ since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thingâ€. – Dwight D. Eisenhower, (Press conference 1953)
At the end of the day, the GOP, the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, will be remembered as the Grand Old Pharisee’s, the party of the hypocritically self-righteous. The only problem is they will, like the Biblical Pharisee’s, never admit they are wrong, and our society will suffer, just as theirs did.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pmWith extending the troops tures of duty and slashing not only combat pay but separation pay for the troops families at home this is very typical of the Bush administration. I’m betting that you’ll still find people saying that they believe voting republican is in the best interest of the military.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm“Bush, who repeatedly touts his support for the troops, is casting their interests aside in order protect his friends in the Iraqi government.”
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm————————–
Sometimes I wish TP would just report the facts and use fewer editorial comments like this.
I am waiting for Frank M to show up to blame Hillary.
Comment by Dr. Matt
Frank, Jason and several other trolls seem to be missing in action. I’m hoping that TP finally did a purge. Jason did pop back up as “Fairy Duster” for one day but after getting really tromped upon by the regulars, Fairy seems to have flown away.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm“Bush, who repeatedly touts his support for the troops, is casting their interests aside in order protect his friends in the Iraqi government.â€
————————–
Sometimes I wish TP would just report the facts and use fewer editorial comments like this.
Comment by Vet
Do you care to share with us what is untrue about what you quoted? It seems pretty true to me.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pmSeems like pretty thin reason to veto, pocket or otherwise. Why wouldn’t he have brought this objection to the congress while the bill was being crafted?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pmThe freakin congress has given him EVERYTHING he’s asked for, so what the hell is this, Oh, we have an objection crap about?
Trolls, clue us in on how this makes government work?
Manslagt, Bush just spit in the face of every service member. Too busy defending the Real copresident on another post I take it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pmMy father is a veteran of three wars and he understands what the f@#$ is up, what the hell is wrong with some of these Vets. I tell them to swallow their pride that they screwed up and supported this idiot.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pmDo you care to share with us what is untrue about what you quoted? It seems pretty true to me.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 3, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm—————–
The line is 100% correct, but it just struck me as sounding like an editorial as opposed to a news piece. Granted, TP has every right to post articles in whatever style they choose, and I’ll keep reading them either way…
There are like seven plaintiffs who might benefit from a settlement over their incarceration under the Hussein regime. How in the hell does this awol coward dare hold up pay raises for the entire service over this hair splitting crap?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pmManslagt, how does this make you feel for your fellow Semper Fi’s.???
Bush has made excrement, vomit, and slime feel good about itself, by comparison to him.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pmOT. Sorry..Go to independentprimary.com…….ABC and FOX are bumping several candidates in the next debate just before NH…..Call and protest. Don’t let the media pick who you must vote for…..Blessings
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pmKeeping Iraq immune keeps GWB immune. We wouldn’t want any unhappy Iraqi government types talking about stuff, now would we.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pmOne thing that bugs me about Obama, Clinton, and Edwards is that none of them are calling for the immediate withdrawal of the troops. The only one running that has the guts to say it it the only REAL republican running. Paul.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pmBush is vetoing everything to stay relevant, remember?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pmHello Congress. Hello candidates. Hello America. Wake up and take notice of what this disaster will continue to do. Congress, stand up to him and overide this with a super majority. Candidates, blast this irresponsible act. America, don’t allow another nutcase be our president.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pmRon Paul isn’t a Republican, he’s a libertarian who runs as a republican because it suits his purposes. A typical lying right-winger.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — January 3, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
##
Huh?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pmThe thing is, it’s not even immunity for the Iraqi government. They could get that anyway by moving all their financial assets out of US jurisdiction. It’s the banks who manage the money that Bush is protecting, not the government.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm382 days this sociopath has left in office.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pmNo longer am I calling him a moron as it appears his moron act has given him EVERYTHING he wants.
No longer am I filled with rage and hope justice will prevail, as we know it will not, but only look forward for the day he is gone…. gone with no further damage and destruction.
Ron Paul by his own claim is a republican, but he’ll probably run as a Libertarian and most likely draw democrat votes helping one of the idiots get elected like Nader did.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pmOne thing that bugs me about Obama, Clinton, and Edwards is that none of them are calling for the immediate withdrawal of the troops. The only one running that has the guts to say it it the only REAL republican running. Paul.
Comment by the Lone Voice of Reason
Actually, that is not true. Edwards wants all our troops home in 10 months. That is probably logistically not possible, but he is calling for an immediate draw down of troops. So is Kucinich. This has always been his stance. Your right wing tendencies are showing by saying that “the only one running that has the guts to say it is Ron Paul”. Kucinich was advocating bringing our troops home way before Paul even entered into the picture.
Paul is a one trick pony and no progressive or liberal is going to vote for him. Other than being correct on the war and corporations, Paul is a typical Libertarian who would like to privatize our government.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pmRon Paul isn’t a Republican, he’s a libertarian who runs as a republican because it suits his purposes. A typical lying right-winger.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 3, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
So, what is a Republican? A conservative? A neoconservative? Why can’t a libertarian be a Republican? The root theory of libertarianism is greed, which seems to suit the modern Republican party to a tee.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pmRon Paul by his own claim is a republican, but he’ll probably run as a Libertarian and most likely draw democrat votes helping one of the idiots get elected like Nader did.
Comment by the Lone Voice of Reason
I doubt that. Democrats are not that stupid. If anything, Paul will draw Republiscum votes since they are the ones that want to do away with our government and privatize it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pmThis would be treason, as he is clearly an agent of a foreign power. He has acted to harm citizens of our country to benefit the foreign power that owns him.
How many things must Congress have to impeach? still need sex scandal?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pmI don’t think the Bush Regime is all that concerned over tying up any assets Iraq has here in the U.S.
I just read Section 1083. It would open the door for civil suits related to 9/11. That would lead to fact finding, and real investigations.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pmBush, who repeatedly touts his support for the troops, is casting their interests aside in order protect his friends in the Iraqi government.
Bush, who repeatedly touts his support for the troops, is casting their interests aside in order protect his friends in the Iraqi government.
This fact is worth repeating over and over.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pmbilbo I only mentioned front runners, but thanks for the info on Edwards, it re-enforces my support. I do, although, believe he will take dem votes. Maher has been touting him bigtime, and getting major applause from an audience that is democrat.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm#21, Vet,
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pmThis is also the sentiment at VetVoice.com.
“He” I mean Ron Paul.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pmBush is finally hoist on his own pitard! Good! He deserves it!
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pmOldtree: Pathetic isn’t it that we have all of this treasonous evidence of Bush/Cheney violation of the constitution & international law and yet we need a sex scandal to do what needs to be done! Sad fact is that you couldn’t pay a woman enough to sidle up to either one of these decrepit, unattractive men. Now maybe some woman might have interest if permitted to use the “double bag” performance – a bag on her head and a bag on his head. Anything short of that simply will not fly.
Maybe Darth’s main squeeze, Pamela Willeford, might come to the rescue?? Oops, she already did that on the infamous hunting trip. Hey, where’s the impeachment for this impropriety of Cheney’s??
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pmGoogle Cheney’s Swiss Miss, Pamela Willeford to see for yourself.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pmHey, Chimpy, way to support our troops!!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pmBecause of the seriousness of, in particular THIS pres election, our primary system is out dated, unfair…
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pmIowa is 94% white, 2% Black, 0.3 Native Americans(one can just imagine how that happened), and isn’t their prime industry pig farming? Clearly these folks do not represent our country as a whole and yet they get first dibs on the primary.
Other states such as mine, Oregon, get no say as the primary candidate is already chosen by the time our May primary comes around.
isn’t their prime industry pig farming?
Uh, no, it’s corn growing, then pig farming.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 pmWe should move to a british style, six week campaign, with one primary/caucus day. Because we leave this up to the different states, we wind up with the mess we have.
We should move to a British style,
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 pmWe should also move to a British style of removing the corrupt and criminal in office instead of waiting 4 years for an election.
had enough ~ hear, hear!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pmF’n brilliant! It’s like sticking barbed wire in with the daisies.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 pmreminds me of a question i keep meaning to ask:
why NOT a single, nationwide primary voting date?
anyone know?
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 pmSo Congress can take this bill and put something else in the bill that baby boy Bush doesn’t like, such as holding Blackwater liable for the death of innocent Iraqis. This is going to get worse for Bush because it is an election year and the Republicans are beginning to get nervous. They are confused as to how close should they stand to Bush.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pmkaty – there should be one national primary voting date. I think the difference in the primary dates is a leftover from the horse and buggy days.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pmI do not plan to read the thread, I will simply state that the Bush policy is both sick and insane. Does he not have the least amount of empathy for our troops?
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pmWalt – Bush never cared about the troops. His narcissism gets in the way of really caring for anybody but himself.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 pmIraq already has immunity, as stated above.
The immunity reason for the pocket veto is a red herring.
Also read somewhere that the so-called pocket veto he pulled won’t fly; something about dates not jibing.
This is what I hate. bu$hler just makes shit up, pulls it straight out his ass, and everybody scrambles like it’s real.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm#65 Comment by OleHippieChick — January 3, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
This is what I hate. bu$hler just makes shit up, pulls it straight out his ass, and everybody scrambles like it’s real.
Well this was always their policy it seems. From Suskind:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pmThe aide said that guys like me were â€in what we call the reality-based community,†which he defined as people who â€believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.†I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. â€That’s not the way the world really works anymore,†he continued. â€We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.â€
- Ron Suskind “Without a Doubtâ€
We control the country with 95% of the worlds poppy production that just had a bumber crop and produced 150% of worlds demand and another with huge oil reserves. The Army can fund itself now. If you can not profit from being an Empire, whats the point.
But someone is profiting from Iraqs oil and Afghanistans poppy, ask yourself who? Once you answer that, you will know who runs our country, and the world.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm