Oh That George Bush! He Was For The Troops Before He Was Against Them
George Bush’s misadventure in Iraq has had innumerable consequences, but what occurred on Friday evening while the rest of us were watching football bowl games may take the cake: Bowing to a corrupt Iraqi government that his administration keeps on life support, the president vetoed a sweeping defense authorization bill because it could expose the Baghdad government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror.
Let’s get this straight: Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is now not only dictating to his former puppeteer in Washington as to what he can and cannot do, in this instance vetoing the president’s own bill because it would expose Iraq to claims involving the man that provoked the Iraq war, but can suborn the needs of the military, as well as the will of Congress and the American people.
Shorter version: Iraq is not accountable to the U.S.
The provision to which the Iraqis objected would expand the ability of Americans to seek financial compensation from countries that supported or sponsored terrorist acts. They include Libya, Iran and Iraq under Saddam.
The administration was unable to explain why it had not acted earlier to object to the provision. Perhaps it’s because Harriet Miers is no longer the president’s legal counsel.
A deeply embarrassed White House promised that it will work quickly with Congress to restore the dozens of military and veterans provisions in the bill, which got overwhelming bipartisan support, once Congress returns to work in January. The new bill would not, of course, include the terrorist-act provision.
The provision was put into the bill by Senator Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, without public debate, a not unusual occurrance on Capitol Hill. It would help U.S. plaintiffs in lawsuits against Iran and Libya, including relatives of Americans killed in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and in the bombing of a Berlin disco in 1986.
“My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable – plain and simple,” Lautenberg explained.
In a “statement of disapproval,” or pocket veto that lets the bill expire on New Year’s Eve, Bush said the provision could result in injunctions freezing Iraqi assets in American banks – $20 billion to $30 billion, according to a senior administration official – and even affect commercial ventures with U.S. businesses. The horror!
“Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it,” said Senator John Kerry in a rephrasing of a familiar Republican attack during his unsuccessful presidential run in 2004 that he supported the war in Iraq before he turned against it.
And a perfect coda to yet another disastrous year in the Era of Bush.
More here.
14 Responses to “Oh That George Bush! He Was For The Troops Before He Was Against Them”
The veto was due to concern over junk lawsuits.
DLS:
Oh be still my heart!
Soldiers are denied a pay raise. The materiel pipeline to Iraq is disrupted. Veterans’ care lapses. All because of the threat of junk lawsuits.
So the real danger is not terrorism in Iraq but rapacious American plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Good one. How rich!
Shorter version: Iraq is not accountable to the U.S.
And when did you discover this well known 4 year old fact Shaun?
Would that mean less Bush-bashing and BDS on here, or would others assume the mantle you are holding currently? (If a tree were to fall in a deep Siberian forest, that would be Bush’s fault, too…)
I’ll be nice once again and let the illogical part slide by and note aloud: the problem is with junk lawsuits.
If you prefer Bush-bashing that approaches BDS: it’s a deliberately engineered coverup of the earlier Bush and Reagan administration activities on behalf of Hussein (and of the Iranians) in the 1980s.
* * *
By the way, when Bush, a pirate in the Caribbean, or anyone else laughs, it’s “hee, hee,” with two Es.
I bet it will be pounding on Inauguration Day 2009.
I wonder how the keeping Congress in session during the holidays will affect the veto vote. Does Congress have a time limit on when they can vote to override the veto?
Also, in Pelosi had delivered on her promise to work harder, Congress would have had all of the appropriation bills on President Bush’s desk back in September like what was originally designed into the Constitution. Maybe Congress was to busy having hearings on NFL pension or busy trying to avoid hearings on immigration instead of doing the mandated work of actually passing a budget.
[...] Shaun doesn’t seem to grasp the situation at all. Why was this bill not done properly the first time? Why wasn’t the bill handed to the POTUS for approval by Octomer 1, 2007? That date is in the rules. The Senate is in session. I suggesst they get their asses back to Washington on Monday. [...]
DLS:
I may not be a good schpeller (thank you for noting the error), but I know a richly ironic story when I see one: The president vetoes his own bill to prevent an attack on the homeland by litigious plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Honestly, doesn’t this whole thing read like something from The Onion?
The president vetoes his own bill
The president gets to write bills for Congress, Shaun? Even with the Dems in the majority? Wow, that imperial takeover thing has gone farther than I thought! With that kinda power he doesn’t even need to cancel the elections, he can just dictate from Texas.
The provision in question was quietly inserted into the bill by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), staunch friend and ally of the plaintiff’s bar. The White House’s representation of what it could be used to do is 100% accurate. Most of the funding that could be locked up and taken from Iraqi reconstruction by tort lawyers originated with the American taxpayers. Big payday for the tort bar, US taxpayers and Iraq get the shaft to pay for Saddam’s crimes. Good by you? Even if the suits filed were losers and were thrown out, that money would still be locked up in the meantime instead of being used for reconstruction. Hmmm, whose political interests would that serve?
Soldiers are denied a pay raise.
Soldiers would miss out on an additional 0.5% raise IF Congress doesn’t patch the bill and re-submit. The previous raise of 3% for 2008 was in a different bill, already passed.
The administration was unable to explain why it had not acted earlier to object to the provision
The bill was not forwarded to the White House until ten days ago. The subtitle list alone is several dozen pages long. The bill itself is over six hundred pages. Gee, what took them so long?
No. The Republican minority with the ability to filibuster any appropriation ignores their party leader and strikes out on their own almost every time. Just as they did as the majority for the past 7 years.
And OMB was completely oblivious to it. Yeah…. that’s the ticket!
The level of naivety in this comment is truly stunning. It’s freaking amazing what the 26%’ers are willing to swallow these days.
LMAO, Davebo. That’s right, make excuses for the complete lack-of-spine impotence of the Dems, even though they hold the majority in both houses. What was the vote on the bill again? 90-3 in the Senate? 397-27 in the House? Yeah, I can see it had some serious Democratic resistance.
No Republican wrote or inserted that provision. Did you miss that part? The provision would let trial attorneys enrich themselves at the cost of the US taxpayer and the people of Iraq. Did you miss that part? It could set back reconstruction in Iraq by years. Did you miss…oh wait, was that the part you were rooting for?
Lautenberg tried to pay off his buddies in the tort bar. He got caught at it. The secondary effects were apparently of no concern to him–and that’s the most generous interpretation. I’ll be generous, and just assume he was utterly ignorant of the possibilities.
The level of naivety in this comment is truly stunning.
I’m surprised to see you saying such things about yourself, however valid the criticism.
No, not the whole thing. (except in the case of press conferences) That’s where delusion or prejudice (and obvious pre-conclusion) comes into play. Despite what you may think, not everything that goes wrong here (much less elsewhere in the world) is Bush’s fault.
As for the spelling, I figure you checked what I said elsewhere before making the changes you made.
The provision would let trial attorneys enrich themselves at the cost of the US taxpayer
Why do you think the best-known “Medicare for All” bill (complete with unconstitutional refusal to compensate for lost profits when forced conversion to non-profit medicine would take effect) keeps the providers (nominally) private? It’s not just to fool the stupid supporters. It leaves the providers open to lawsuits.
If we ever had that, get ready next for mandatory malpractice insurance with (generous-to-lawyers) minimum protection (payoff) levels.
On more than one thread everyone was educated already about the junk lawsuits, and it doesn’t look good when and where anyone engages in flat-earth rejection of the obvious.