Over the years President George Bush has been accused by critics of doing the bidding of Big Business, oil interests, the religious right, defense contractors, big tobacco companies and other groups.
But now, in a development that surprised not only Democrats, it was announced that Bush will veto an important military bill in order to prevent legal action against the Iraqi government…. because the Iraqi government objected to it.
Is the tail wagging the dog?. The New York Times:
For months President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
Yes, as Bush as suggested, bogging down military bills and not passing them immediately could be seen as the equivalent of (a) keeping vital money and programs from the troops (b) showing you really don’t support the troops (c) a sign of politicos who put other interests before the wellbeing of the brave men and women in the field (and those who earlier served in the field).
But wait!
And then on Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Mr. Bush announced that he was vetoing a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraq’s new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein’s rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it would work with Congress to quickly restore dozens of new military and veterans programs once Congress returns to work in January.
Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect on Tuesday, and improvements in veterans’ health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen opposing.
Mr. Bush’s veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House had failed to raise its concerns earlier.
Why did Bush do it?
The White House later explained that Iraq was adamantly against a provision that could freeze its assets in the United States if Americans sue the country.
Iraqi officials raised their concerns with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about 10 days ago and when administration officials took a closer look at the provision they agreed that it could pose “grave financial risk” for Iraq, tying up assets needed for reconstruction, the White House said.
Iraq also discussed with the United States the possibility of pulling its assets, about $20 billion to $30 billion, out of U.S. institutions if the defense policy bill became law, a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity.
So Iraq viewed the provision as a financial threat and, apparently, made a financial threat to the United States.
“The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
The Bush administration is concerned that the bill would re-open lawsuits filed against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, some going back to the first Gulf War, and tie up the assets of the post-Saddam government.
The Iraqi government should feel grateful.
Most special interests or countries would have to hire costly lobbyists to provide them the kind of legal protection that Bush will be doing for them.
Various reports say the Democrats and some Republicans are upset. But there could be a way out.
The bill could be passed again but minus the provision that the Iraq government’s Washington lobbyist (Bush) wants X’d out.
The Financial Times:
Although the provision is not directed at Iraq, the White House said it feared that the bill would allow plaintiffs seeking redress for Saddam Hussein-era acts of terrorism to freeze Iraq’s assets, potentially tying up billions of dollars, and allow plaintiffs to refile lawsuits against Iraq that had already been dismissed. The administration said the provision would “unacceptably interfere” with the political and economic progress in Iraq by potentially imposing a “financially devastating hardship” on the country.
White House officials said the provision had caused some concern in recent weeks but that it realised the “acuteness and intensity” of the problems with the bill just 10 days ago, when concerns were raised by Iraqi officials. Passage of the bill could also affect US bilateral negotiations over immunity for personnel operating in Iraq, among other issues, the White House said.
The veto threat caught US lawmakers off guard. They expressed disappointment at the last-minute veto threat over a provision that had won strong support in the Congress from Democrats and Republicans. “It is a shame that the White House has taken this step to satisfy the demands of the Iraqi government for whom our troops have sacrificed so much,” said Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House armed services committee.
Other reports note that the “pocket” veto, expected by December 31st, won’t stop Pentagon and Iraq war funding because other legislation takes care of that.
The White House hopes to work with Congress to get a bill that is more acceptable to its legal client the government of Iraq.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.