Following
Bush veto, Democrats Prepare War-Spending Bill
With No Timeline
By Joe Kay
02 May, 2007
World
Socialist Web
US
President George Bush vetoed the $124 billion bill to fund the US occupation
of Iraq and Afghanistan Tuesday, rejecting provisions of the bill calling
for a partial withdrawal of some US troops from Iraq.
Democratic Party leaders
have already begun circulating drafts of a bill that will fully fund
the Iraq war, without the restrictions that the White House opposes.
In a statement following
the veto, Bush voiced his contempt for the views of the majority of
the American population who oppose the war in Iraq. He said that the
legislation “substitutes the opinion of politicians for the judgment
of military commanders”. This statement, which has become a major
talking point for administration officials, amounts to the insistence
that the US elections, in which the American people expressed their
opposition to the war, will have no impact on war policy.
In defiance of the will of
the American people, the escalation of the war, in which tens of thousands
of more troops have been sent to Iraq, will continue. Bush said that
it will be the end of the summer before an assessment of the consequences
of the troop increase can be made. In other words, these additional
troops will remain in Iraq until at least that time, probably much longer.
To justify the continued
occupation of Iraq, Bush again raised the specter of September 11, claiming
that most of the recent violence in Iraq was caused by Al Qaeda. This
is an enemy that “everyone agrees we should be fighting,”
he said, adding that if the war in Iraq was ended, Al Qaeda forces in
Iraq would carry out another terrorist attack in the United States.
While Bush’s veto is
a flagrant spurning of the democratically expressed views of the American
people, the Democratic bill that he rejected itself had nothing to do
with opposition to the war. Even if it were to be passed, it would maintain
a US military presence in Iraq indefinitely.
In the course of his remarks,
Bush also indicated that he understood the Democrats had no intention
of ending the occupation of Iraq. Democrats “have sent their message
and now it is time to put politics behind us” and pass a bill
without any timeline. In other words, the Democrats need to end their
posturing as opponents of the war. “Here in Washington we have
our differences on the way forward for Iraq,” he said, “and
we will debate them openly ... but surely we can agree that we need
to get our troops this funding.”
Indeed, this is something
upon which both the Democrats and the Republicans do agree. Bush’s
veto followed a ceremony by Democratic leaders held before sending the
legislation to the White House. In their remarks, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid again reiterated their
basic commitment to the war in Iraq and US military strategy in the
Middle East.
Pelosi praised the bill’s
“strong commitment to support our troops”. Reid repeated
his statement that “a change of course in Iraq” is necessary,
making clear that he favors a different strategy for US domination of
the country, not the withdrawal of US troops. “A veto means denying
the troops the resources and the strategy they need,” he declared.
Reid said that the bill “holds
Iraqis accountable for providing political solutions” and “redeploys
our troops out of an intractable civil war”. This was a reference
to the position of many Democrats that US troops should play a less
active role in the urban centers, retreating to military bases where
they can guard key US interests, including oil, while intervening when
necessary to crush resistance.
Reid’s reference to
“holding Iraqis accountable” has become a theme for Democrats,
who have sought to pin responsibility for the situation in Iraq on the
Iraqi government, rather than the American occupation. They want the
Bush administration to increase pressure on the government of Nouri
al-Maliki to crack down on opponents of the American occupation and
pass laws favorable to American corporations.
In their brief remarks, both
Reid and Pelosi stressed their commitment to the “war on terror”
as a justification for US military action in the Middle East and Central
Asia. Reid said that if the bill passed, then the two parties “can
refocus our full attention on fighting the war on terror”. Pelosi
referred to the bill itself as the “Global War on Terror supplemental”.
These statements are indications
of concern within sections of the ruling elite that the crisis of the
US occupation of Iraq is undermining the ability of the American military
to intervene elsewhere. Democrats have criticized Bush administration
strategy in Iraq for tying down US troops and making it more difficult
to threaten Iran, North Korea or other countries.
Nevertheless, both Reid and
Pelosi sought to present the bill to continue funding the war as a fulfillment
of the desires expressed by the American people in the November elections.
Pelosi claimed that the bill, which would provide non-binding restrictions
on the Bush administration and would leave tens of thousands of troops
in Iraq, “respects the wishes of the American people to end the
Iraq war”.
Following Bush’s veto,
Pelosi read a statement in which she sought to downplay even the question
of a limited timeline for withdrawal, declaring that the American people
voted for “benchmarks, guidelines, standards”.
In fact, what the American
people want overwhelmingly is an end to the Iraq war—a position
that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support.
There has been a strong element
of play-acting in this entire process. Before the bill was passed in
Congress, it was already clear that it would be vetoed and the Democrats
would then provide the administration with a funding bill without even
nominal constraints. The charade of the past several days has been an
attempt by the Democrats to present themselves as an oppositional force,
even as a deal is worked out that will allow the occupation of Iraq
to continue.
An article in the Washington
Times on Tuesday reported that Reid is courting support from Republican
senators for a new bill that Bush will sign. “Senior Democratic
aides say that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not similarly
talking to Republicans about a post-veto agreement,” the newspaper
reported, “she privately acknowledges that eventually ‘the
money will get to the troops without timetables’.”
House Democrats will make
a show of attempting to override the veto, but they do not have enough
votes to do so. Given a failure in the House, the Senate is not expected
to even make an attempt at an override.
On Wednesday afternoon, Bush
is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders of both parties, including
Reid and Pelosi, to work out some agreement on the war-funding resolution.
Bush indicated on Monday that he considered the prospects for a resolution
to be good. “I believe that there’s a lot of Democrats that
understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible,”
he said, “and so I’m optimistic we can get something done
in a positive way”.
A likely compromise will
see the removal of any reference to a timeline, while leaving in place
“benchmarks” for the Iraqi government to follow. These benchmarks
are the same as those proposed earlier by Bush. The most important of
these for the American ruling elite is the passage of a law that will
open up the country’s oil resources to international oil companies.
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Click
here to comment
on this article