CRAWFORD, Tex. — 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.
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.New York Times, December 29, 2007
The reasoning behind the decision is the $20-30 Billion that Iraq has in American banks.
It would expand the ability of Americans to seek financial compensation from countries that supported or sponsored terrorist acts, including Libya, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
When lawsuits are filed they automatically freeze the money until settlement. These lawsuits, many of which are already filed, were brought by veterans of the first Iraqi war for being held, tortured or injured by the government of Saddam Hussein. Section 1083 of the Military Authorization bill would reactivate the suits against Iraq; the money would be frozen; and the current Iraqi government could do nothing about it. Of course, the Maliki government screamed bloody when they heard about it.
First, if we are spending $275 million a week in Iraq, from where in the hell does this $20-30 billion come? Could it be the U.S. money that is missing funding being reported in the news for the last several months? Is it money that the Iraqi politicians have been stashing away?
The Tzar says that it is funds that the Iraqi government needs for rebuilding. If that's so, then for what is the money we're giving them right now doing? Is this like an Iraqi IRA? You know - a retirement fund?
Second, the veto of the bill stops the pay raises of military personnel. It was to increase the raise form 3% to 3.5%. It doesn't really seem like much, but to military personnel putting themselves on the line, it's important to them and especially their families also.
Third, it is part of a much larger military authorization bill - $696 Billion - for defense of the nation. That means Mr. Bush really doesn't care about defense as he so often accuses the Democrats when he perceives them as standing in his way.
Fourth, the Congress and the White House have been in negotiations on this bill for months. The Democrats caved on setting any type of timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq in this bill. At no time did Mr. Bush bring up objections to this section of the bill until yesterday - after the bill allegedly had the White House blessing.
Fifth, and what I expect is the primary reason, Bush is using a pocket veto. A pocket veto is used at times when Congress is not in session.
A quick Huckabee civics lesson: there are four actions on bills passed by Congress. The President signs the bill making it law; the President vetoes the bill preventing it from becoming law and sending it back to Congress for reconsideration; the President has 10 day, not counting Sundays, to sign a bill, if s/he does not sign it, the bill automatically becomes law because it has been put in his/her pocket; but, if the Congress is not in session and s/he pockets the bill, it is considered vetoed. The last two are important to remember. In both cases the President is actually not making a stand on the bill because in a veto when Congress is in session, s/he must give reasons for the veto. In the case of letting the bill become law by not signing it, s/he also is not making a stand on the bill.
So, what is really going on in this instance?
If you remember, Senate Majority Leader Reid over Thanksgiving did not let the Senate go into holiday recess in order to prevent the Tzar from appointing judges and government personnel that the Senate must approve and to whom they object. Reid has also kept the Congress technically in pro forma sessions over the Christmas/New Years holidays. This means that the Congress has not adjourned. It legally prevents Bush from making recess appointments and does not give him the ability for a pocket veto.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is saying that what the Congress is doing [pro forma sessions] is not legal by taking this pocket veto action, again placing himself above the law and contrary to the Constitution - Article I Section 7. He may also be hinting that he can make recess appointments because he doesn't consider what Congress is doing legitimate. We shall see.
So, here we are again - a full-blown Constitutional crisis precipitated by Tzar George. Another illustration of the contempt that the Bush/Cheney administration has for the checks and balances section of the Constitution.
And what's going to happen - nothing!
Bush/Cheney know that they have the Democrats and the Congress by the proverbial cajones. It's almost as if we don't have a lame duck president but a lame duck Congress.
So here's the question [you all know there is going to be a question when I do this stuff]:
How can Mr. Bush push democracy around the world - Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc - when he takes step after step, action after action, to destroy the U.S. form of democracy?
you know...,
i'm just asking...
No comments:
Post a Comment