Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The truth about the Iraq bill and the Bush veto

Posted by Bill Scher at 7:21 AM on March 29, 2007.


Bill Scher: It has nothing to do with funding current operations...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

President Bush, desperately trying to tamp down the rising tide of public pressure against the war, is seeking to misframe the Iraq bill he will soon veto.

Realizing he can no longer win the argument about the war itself, he is maligning the bill's backers as playing politics and risking the safety of our troops. In a speech on Wednesday, Bush said:

Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements [and] start providing vital funds for our troops … If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

This makes the eventual bill sound like it will cut off funds for troops already in the field, which it simply does not.

It would fund the troops while they are in Iraq, but calls for their redeployment by next year -- which only departs from public opinion in that the public wants troops home sooner.

There is no debate between Congress and the White House about funding those already in the field.

The debate is over our final goals in Iraq: do we want to permanently occupy Iraq, or do we want a free and sovereign Iraq?

Permanent occupation is a strategy for failure.

Iraqi support for attacks on our troops is directly linked to opposition to permanent bases (which already exist). Belief that such bases will be used to expand the war beyond Iraq's borders prevents essential regional diplomacy from working.

Both House and Senate versions of the Iraq bill ban funds for permanent bases.

Beyond the flexible timelines for redeployment, such a ban represents a fundamental change in course of our foreign policy goals -- away from continued failure.

Troops already in the field should not be hung out to dry. But funding a failed strategy does exactly that.

The debate is not about whether to fund troops in the field. It's about whether or not we should occupy Iraq forever.

The public is firmly opposed to permanent occupation. And Congress is carrying out the people's will.

But when Bush vetoes this bill, he will make it crystal clear he does not believe the people decide the direction of our foreign policy.

And the American people will know who to hold responsible for a failed foreign policy.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, bush, veto

Bill Scher is the executive editor of LiberalOasis.com and the online writer/editor for Campaign for America's Future. He is the author of Wait! Don't Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America, a weekly contributor to Air America Radio's The Sam Seder Show and a fellow at the Commonweal Institute.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush is bluffing--or else he's just too dense to see he's getting bad information.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 29, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot imagine the press will buy Bush's bluff. The headlines must read, in case of a veto, "Bush vetoes bill for troop funds."

I expect the first evidence of his predicament will be that he will sit on the unsigned bill as long as he can. Then he may let it take effect without his signature. However, I cannot imagine that he would dare even doing that.

He will sign it with one of his signing statements, and he will simply refuse to comply with the withdrawal plan provision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Writing...
Posted by: Wacre on Mar 29, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is on the wall. I get the feeling that GW might not be as quick to veto the bill that would begin the withdrawal from Iraq as many think because, despite the brave face he wears for the public, it may very well be dawning that his disastrous policy is unsustainable in it's current form, and by not vetoing the (primarily) Democratic effort he can take credit for any successes it brings, and on the other hand condemn Democrats for any perceived 'failures.'

Besides, the Bush Administration is a political trainwreck (you know, something so terrible that you wouldn't wish it on your worse enemy, yet at the same time you just can't help but to watch) and anything that provides distraction from their immense incompetence would be welcome.

Besides, he's very concerned about his legacy at this point; to be known primarily for systemic corruption and (as if systemic corruption wasn't bad enough) policy decisions that lead/led to the death of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is hardly what he wants to be remembered for.

The systemic corruption issue may be harder to tackle (being that is, essentially the entire basis of his administration). The Iraq aggression, though isn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question...
Posted by: Knowmad on Mar 29, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You Americans need to take a hard look, and ask yourselves how you got to the point where deranged criminals like cheny, bush, rove and the rest can so dominate your lives.

You must do this for two reasons: so you can define what needs to be done to get rid of these fools - and make it happen - and to give you the data and information you need to ensure it NEVER happens again.

Our fragile little planet is in enough trouble, without you allowing petulant, insecure children to gain power and be in a position to make far-reaching decisions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KUCINICH & DEMOCRATS & IRAQ'S OIL
Posted by: bbfmail on Mar 29, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer was a lot more positive about the Democrats funding bill than Kucinich. The complete interview is in Truthdig.com

Kucinich: We should be listening to what the American people had to say last October, and that is taking steps to immediately end the war. And that means to set in motion a plan to end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home using money that’s already in the pipeline to do so. At the same time there’s a parallel process of bringing in international security and peacekeeping forces to stabilize Iraq. And we can get that help once we end the occupation. Then you have to have a number of other steps that are taken. Most people aren’t aware that this bill that Congress passed sets the stage for the privatization of Iraq’s oil, oil industry. To have the Democratic Party involved in something like that is outrageous. Furthermore, we should be pushing for the stabilization of Iraq’s food and energy crisis. There’s no talk about that. Basically we’re blaming Iraq for the disaster that the United States and this administration visited upon them. We’re telling them, either they’re going to get their house in order or we’re going to leave. Well, you know what, this approach is wrongheaded and the Democrats should have known better and they should have done better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fact is, the real powers that be have an agenda and they will meet...
Posted by: Prophit on Mar 29, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that agenda come hell or high water no matter what they have to do to make it happen. I got that a long time ago. We are never going to leave Iraq and anyone who thinks we are is in for a rude awakening.

Bush is the mouth piece, Cheney the enforcer and handler, and the bankers etc are the order givers with oil as the payoff. So, don't expect this whimpy congress to do anything serious any time sooon to stop this internationalist elite agenda. They don't care what we want and for the next two years it will be business as usual.

I bet ya!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]