Skip to main content

Bush will veto the Iraq emergency funding bill even though it would seem to be in his better interest to just approve it with a signing statement, something else must be at work here. The accumulated evidence points to what may be influencing this stance.


  • Additional troops in attack/blocking position. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font> [Note requests for additional troops in Diyala (east of Baghdad), perhaps diverting those going to Al-Anbar (west of Baghdad)].
  • Additional carrier fleet in position near Straits of Hormuz. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • Dick Cheney trotted the globe recently distributing the sensitive parts of the plan. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • (Continued on the flip side)

  • Establish permanent military bases in Iraq using reconstruction contractors and funds. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • While we as American citizens do not like being lied to and Congress doesn’t like being lied to, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress like the idea that we have gone into Iraq, we have built four mega bases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have probably, of the 150,000, 160,000 troops we have in Iraq probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four mega bases. Safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete. To operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or it stays one. No matter what happens, we have those mega bases, and there’s many in Congress and certainly in this administration, Republican and Democrat alike that really like that.

  • Begin illegally funded covert operations with Al-Qaeda-esque groups. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • Placed Chalabi in charge of the Surge. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • Crank up Iran rhetoric in the news media.<font color="00cc00">Check.</font>
  • Nancy Pelosi removed problematic Iran language from the "emergency funding" bill with little fanfare or explanation. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • New UN Security Council resolution 1747. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • All systems go. <font color="#00cc00">Check.</font>
  • A Gulf of Tonkin style kidnapping which will draw reluctant UK along. <font color="0#0cc00">Check.</font>
  • Money: a "clean" emergency funding bill. <font color="#ff0000">Uncheck.</font>
  • Oops the Dems did not quite cooperate as planned. Bush needs a "clean" emergency funding bill. One with no strings attached and telling them where to spend the monies. Much like the diverted reconstruction funds used to build those four permanent megabases, those monies he requested most likely included bribes and other things that will go towards our upcoming war with Iran. Making it even more unappealing was the cutting of certain funds: like the contractor funds. Hence a veto is forthcoming along with (prepare for it) some bigtime whining, "We need it Nowwww!"

    And even though it would seem to be in Bush's (and the troops) better interest to sign the bill and take advantage of the loopholes built in, it is obvious to me that Bush has "other plans" for the additional war funds, and will veto the bill just as he has threatened. All the assets, except the money, are in position, but they cannot remain there forever. The units on extended deployment will need to go home soon, and the second carrier battle group will also need to leave the region and the British seamen hostage crisis cannot go on forever.

    When Bush vetoes the bill, the push to get the money quickly will be strong, because the window of opportunity will start to close. The media will do their part by creating the image, Congress is hurting the troops. [Even though they passed a spending measure].

    It is within the netroots power to get out in front of the upcoming media condemnation of Congress. I think one good way is by writing positive op-eds and editorials about Congress and opposing that with the sheer bullheaded stupidity of Bush should he veto this legislation. I am sure there are other great suggestions out there.

    Originally posted to wolverine 06 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:42 AM PDT.

    Your Email has been sent.
    You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

    Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
    Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


    More Tagging tips:

    A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

    Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

    If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

    Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

    Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

    You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
    Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
    Rescue this diary, and add a note:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
    Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

    You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

    Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
    (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
    (The diary will be removed.)
    Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

    Comment Preferences

    •  Tip jar (4+ / 0-)


      Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. ~J. Madison

      by wolverine 06 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

    •  Isn't it obvious if Bush vetoes the bill. (0+ / 0-)

      That he alone is responsible for defunding the occupation of Iraq?
      All I have seen debated on cspan is the timetable, not the spending oversight.
      No permanent bases has to stand.
      Oversight needs to account for every dollar.
      Bush needs to be forced to put this fiasco on budget.

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        It does seems obvious, but the MSM, IMO, will still try to spin this.

        There is too much money involved not to spin it.

        Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. ~J. Madison

        by wolverine 06 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:54:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dems will fold like a cheap table (0+ / 0-)

      The Democrats, who barely scraped together enough votes to pass the feeble withdrawal bill in the House, are still so afraid of their shadows that one round of Limbaugh bloody-shirt waving will have them running to give BushCo a blank check.

      BushCo will start running attack ads showing weeping mothers of service men and women reading from letters about soldiers running out of food and ammunition in Iraq. Pelosi will say, "See, we won because we passed the first measure." and submit some ridiculously watered-down "compromise."

      This is a wounded, discredited President, with popularity numbers in the toilet, an administration covered with scandal, and a bloody, hopeless war, and the Democrats are still afraid to stop his war when THEY CONTROL THE CONGRESS.

      Not one more penny for the war without a pullout commitment!

      We are producing an increasing number of useful goods and services for increasingly useless people. -- Ivan Illich

      by ANKOSS on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

    •  I like your analogy (0+ / 0-)

      about the money being spent for something besides the troops and that is why he will veto it.

      Interesting catch.

    •  Bush is crippled without the money (0+ / 0-)

      He might sign it. If it passes the Senate, the Repugs are making Bush stand on his own.  Bush may sign it with an attached signing statement that the Congress cannot limit how he spends the money.  He'll then take credit for his great bi-partisanship from a bill that has been negotiated.  It would be a win for him, and the Democrats will look like they are continuing the war instead of ending it.

    •  Sen shelby on CSPAN, said things are improving (0+ / 0-)

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site