But a worse scenario is he will leave the troops there until they are out of water, food, and bullets, let them be killed, then blame the Democrats.
He essentially implied a threat to the troops when he said something that made no sense the other day: if Democrats delay the money, troops will have to go sooner and stay longer in Iraq, saying in a speech to an American Legion post April 10:
In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be...
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan...
The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.
FULL TEXT OF BUSH THREATENING TROOPS SPEECH
How could he make the troops stay longer without funding? Likely what he meant was either:
- The troops are going to stay no matter what.
- He has the power to do what he likes with the troops and they will suffer if he is not catered to.
This would almost be acceptable hardball politics if the war was about our safety and freedom.
It is not.
It is increasingly clear that the only measure of success for this war is the Hydrocarbon Law that puts most of Iraq's oil wealth in American oil company hands, and they have a poor track record of sharing the profits with us. If they did not control Iraq's oil, whoever did would be unlikely to cut us off since we use 25% of the world supply.
Ironically, one of the things that freaked out the Bushies about Saddam was not that he would cut off our oil, but that he would open the spigot wider and drive down profits for the Saudis and American oil companies who enjoy maximum profits for minimum work.
Our troops and tax dollars are being used to pad their bottom line, and Bush has no regard for the lives and dollars spent since it doesn't come out of the pockets or families of his friends.
Someone needs to call Bush's "support the troops" bluff.
I know he would leave the troops in Iraq until the last bullet, and won't pull them out until there's a government in place that will protect his oil deals or until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground.
OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
iraq hydrocarbon law supplemental appropriation hostages support the troops iraq war privatization oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips smedley butler antonia juhasz greg palast GOP corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terrorworst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news