Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not One More Dime to Continue the Occupation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:50 AM
Original message
Not One More Dime to Continue the Occupation
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 11:14 AM by bigtree

NO one should be surprised to find Bush back at the public trough, looking for Congress to hand over another wad of taxpayer cash to fund his blundering Mideast occupations. The last time he went fishing for funding to cover his escalation of force in Iraq, Bush found a Democratic soft spot in the promises which had been made by the leadership that they would not hold funding intended for the troops hostage to their efforts to legislate a timetable for withdrawal.

After they had their timetable bill rejected by the White House, they went ahead and muscled through a funding bill which contained many Democratic priorities for the troops in Iraq, and was intended to cover those priorities for the troops through the period they expected to be debating withdrawal legislation. September was the point at which the Democratic leadership was assuring us that there would be some movement toward withdrawal by defecting republicans which would trigger the beginning of the end of the occupation.

That far-flung scenario of a legislated end to the occupation after September, obviously, didn't happen. Republicans pulled back from their rhetoric against the occupation and have decided to weather whatever backlash which may come their way come election day by insisting, along with their president, that the numbers of Iraqis our soldiers have been ordered to attack and kill under the pretext of fighting al-Qaeda represent 'success' and 'progress'; enough to justify continuing indefinitely.

There's every reason to expect that, if Bush is allowed to continue in Iraq with impunity -- if he's allowed to draw billions more from our treasury to fund his fiasco in Iraq and his misdirected defense of Kabul in Afghanistan -- that very capitulation will deepen the jeopardy our troops are in and make it that much harder to effect a safe and timely withdrawal. Like a spoiled child with an arsenal of dangerous toys, Bush is poking and taunting Iran at such a level that no one can be convinced he won't just leap forward with his particular brand of contrived aggression and unilaterally bomb the sovereign nation; carrying out one of the last, major planks of his right-wing benefactors' Mideast agenda before he leaves office. The troops in Iraq would, logically, be his ready-force for that aggression.

There is nothing left of the promises and benchmarks which Bush offered Democrats in congress as a fig-leaf for their summer stall. All there is to show for the faith the Democratic leadership put in republicans to confront their president is, yet, another yank of the political football and the moving of the goalposts.

In the period since Bush was given his latest infusion of money intended for Iraq, there has been none of the political reconciliation from the Maliki regime that was promised to be a cornerstone of any further commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq. The "surge" strategy was an obstinate response from the White House to the results of the November 2006 congressional elections which replaced Bush's republican majority in Congress with Democrats pledged to end the occupation. Bush didn't get any authorization at all from Congress as he began packing even more soldiers into the middle of the raging sectarian violence.

In every assessment from the administration of the effects of their increased occupation they have been reduced to citing their military 'progress' against the inflated 'threat' from those Iraqis who've taken on the moniker of the 9-11 fugitives Bush has allowed safe haven in Afghanistan. Instead of continuing to argue that our military occupation is defending some emerging Iraqi democracy in the Maliki regime, the justifications for continuing have evolved into the argument that we're actually fighting bin-Laden in Iraq by our soldier's killings of insurgents there (and, in some cases, innocent civilians).

Bush, shilling this week for his latest supplemental:

"Last month, General Petraeus said he believes that our successes in Iraq mean we can maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces. I accepted this recommendation that we not replace about 2,200 Marines who left Anbar last month," Bush said. "We expect to bring home another 3,500 soldiers by Christmas. The funds in the supplemental are crucial to continuing this policy of "return on success." Every member of Congress who wants to see both success in Iraq and our troops begin to come home should strongly support this bill," he insisted.

So, Bush is now walking away from the summer stall Democrats afforded him -- the 'surge' resulting in nothing but increased attacks on Iraqis by our forces, and producing none of the political reconciliation which Bush, himself, insisted was integral to any increased deployment. He's holding the troops in Iraq hostage to whatever he determines to be 'success' and he wants Congress to fund his open-ended militarism in Iraq to keep the bulk of the U.S. troops there, even after he leaves office.

There hasn't been any measurable amount of accounting for the almost a trillion dollars already spent on Bush's dual invasions and occupations; almost $200 billion on slate this year with his latest $46 billion supplemental request. Congressional investigations into official corruption in Iraq have been blocked by the administration; other investigations have been delayed by the absence of any accounting at all for money allocated by Congress and spent by contractors in Iraq.

The unsurprising news today was that defense contractors are raking in record profits from the demand for replacement equipment and supplies to sustain the occupation. WaPo reported today that:

General Dynamics said profit rose to $544 million ($1.34 per share) for the three months ended Sept. 30, up from $438 million ($1.08) in the comparable period last year.

Northrop Grumman's profits rose 62 percent, to $490 million ($1.41), on strength in the company's shipbuilding. Boeing said profit rose to $1.11 billion ($1.44). Lockheed said Tuesday that its profit rose 22 percent in the third quarter.


Before there is any more money spent to refurbish or replace the worn-out military equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, there needs to be a full accounting for the billions which have already passed through the industry's hands.

Moreover, there needs to be a full accounting of all of the money spent by the administration in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress begins to consider new funding requested by the administration in the Defense budget. Also, those funds which Congress intends to allocate for Iraq need to take a back seat to those concerns here at home which have been parsed out as miserly afterthoughts while over $800 billion since the invasion has flowed to Iraq, unabated by Congress.

There can't be any more cover for legislators who claim to be providing some necessary gear, equipment or supply for the troops because there is more than enough money allocated in the last supplemental to just bring the troops home. There isn't even a bit of pretense left of any reasonable or acceptable justification for remaining in Iraq that anyone serious about their opposition to the occupation should accept or support with a vote for more tax dollars thrown into the money pit.

Any congressperson or senator claiming to be anti-occupation who gives Bush another dime for Iraq without legislating an exit date will be no less complicit in its continuing than the duplicitous liar in the White House. Those couple of thousand troops Bush promises to bring home by Christmas should be joined by several thousand more. The best way to ensure that Bush allows more troops to come home will be to show the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, that Congress is finished with funding their Iraq fiasco.

Mullen told students in the Artillery Captain's Career Course at Fort Sill this week that, "the Army is the best trained and equipped in the world and is a model for other countries. The question, he said, is: "How do I hang on to all of that?"

Congress needs to dictate the answer to his question, and not just wait for fate, or the demonstratively flawed judgment of the administration, to (once again) prevail.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. agreed, not one more dime....
Good to see more folks coming around to this view. The only way out of Iraq is for Congress to refuse to fund more war-- more meaningless death and destruction, more profiteering by U.S. corporations feeding on the corpse of democracy, more war crimes in our names. Not one dime more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insanad Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. What the money we're spending could be doing instead....
This was researched a few months ago so the numbers have gone up considerably since then. I completely agree that the corporations and government officials who are profiting from this war should be held accountable, forced to pay for reparations, and otherwise compensate for the war that they have initiated, promoted, and profitted from. I believe Bush and Cheney are the worst and their wealth should be used to pay the bulk of these horrendous costs. Let them experience the devastation that they've inflicted on millions of Iraqui's and let them feel what it's like to live with the minimal compensation that a soldier or his family recieve.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=207&id=319&task=view
What the money we're spending could be doing instead....
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?op ...

The War In Iraq Costs SO FAR...

$456,172,238,408

Instead, we could have insured
273,157,028
children for one year.

Instead, we could have built
4,107,403
additional housing units.


Instead, we could have hired
7,905,524
additional public school teachers for one year.

Instead, we could have paid for
60,420,205
children to attend a year of Head Start.


Instead, we could have provided
22,114,244
students four-year scholarships at public universities.

SO FAR, and the counter is running with $4,100 for every American household;
$1,500 for every American;
$3,400 for every taxpayer;
$11 million per hour and;
$275 million per day.

Think what that amount of money could have done if we'd invested it in alternative energy sources. At $4,100 per household, we could have made solar, wind, or other natural and renewable sources of energy available to each home in America, making oil and coal nearly obsolete in the heating and cooling of our homes. If we'd spent that on our auto industries and created more fuel efficient, cleaner, or even electric transportation, think what that could do for our dependence on oil and the unstable countries we do business with.

I do sincerely hope that our nation will be able to hold George Bush and his cronies, and the companies he is in bed with accountable for this war and what it's cost all of us. I believe he should be held accountable for what has happened to Iraq, and on some part, the loss of lives of the Iraqi people. He is a war president as he always hoped, but he's also a war criminal and should be prosecuted as such. The money hurts now, but the loss of our military strength, the reputation and integrity of our nation, the loss of esteem of the nations of the world and so much more are the true legacy of George W. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagleswing963 Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wish it would happen
But I am not holding my breath!!

Pelosi is a chicken shit!!!
There I said it!

Edwards is right, send the same bill back over and over if Bush vetoes it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagleswing963 Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. And if GOP TV (Fox News) has a problem
Then lets see Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin and Rush "Anal Cyst" Limbaugh enlist and deamnd an immediate combat assignment in Iraq!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insanad Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hope you don't mind but I pasted your text in another blog
Hi bigtree,
I am registered on the Barack Obama website and posted your text along with some of my own thoughts on his site, hoping to encourage him and other powerful people to act on this. I listed your url so hopefully you'll get credit for your research and thought provoking words. It's good to see intelligent and creative people on this site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. that's cool, insanad
thank you for the compliment.

Here's a link to it's home:

Not One More Dime to Continue the Iraq Occupation

by, Ron Fullwood

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_071025_not_one_more_dime_to.htm


Best of luck with your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. Huffington: This is the time to force the president's hand.
Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball

Arianna Huffington

snip:

Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war -- if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: "Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion." The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority -- which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill.

I'm sorry for this refresher in Congressional Power 101, but Democratic leaders seem to need it. The White House cannot force Congress to spend money. Period. The end. The imperial presidency has not gone that far. At least not yet. So Democrats, who have the public behind them, need to be unequivocal that they are simply not going to continue to fund the war unless and until the president agrees to change course and set a date certain for ending it.

They need to make it clear that they are not pulling the plug on the troops -- indeed, they will be authorizing bridge funding for armored vehicles and veterans' health benefits, among other essential expenses, when they take up the annual defense appropriations bill in December. And they can make it clear that they will give the president and the Pentagon all the money they need to safely and responsibly bring the troops home.

It's a battle of wills. A test of leadership. And a contest to frame the debate in the public's mind.

The president took a preemptive shot across the bow on Monday, playing the funding-equals-troop-support card, and placing the ball squarely in Congress' court. Democrats can't afford to sit back on their heels and wait until next year to take on the president (or worse yet, have a replay of the 2007 supplemental funding fight and cave to the president's phony "before the holidays" demands).

They need to begin reframing the funding fight now -- hammering home the message that it's the president's obstinacy that is jeopardizing the well-being of our troops and the safety of our country.

This is not the time for caution and playing it safe. This is the time to force the president's hand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071026/cm_huffpost/069923
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC