REPORTER MUST ASK BUSH: If Dems cut off war money, will you leave troops in Iraq until last bullet?

I think there is a good chance Democrats are just worried if they cut off funding they will be blamed for "losing" the Iraq War for a couple of decades just as they are blamed for Vietnam.

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:

1. The troops are going to stay no matter what.
   
   
2. He has the power to do what he likes with the troops and they will suffer if he is not catered to.

Oddly, he didn't mention anything about being forced to withdraw, or be late on payments to some of his defense contractor cronies, only that he would make the troops suffer if he was not obeyed.

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
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html


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

End Iraq War with 41 not 60 votes the GOP way

The filibuster is a nice procedural trick where the minority can block legislation from being taken up by holding the floor so nothing can go forward.

The GOP was not afraid to filibuster during the Clinton era, and was so afraid of Democrats filibustering their supreme court nominees that they threatened to do away with the filibuster if they tried to use it.

The one thing you can say in the GOP's favor is that they are willing to go balls to the wall, bet it all, then when they lose, double down.

The Democrats by contrast have gotten a little bolder in their words since gaining the majority but seem convinced the Republican minority can hamstring them with a filibuster if they try to do anything substantive.

I wish to fuck they had thought of borrowing some of those tactics the last six years.

But then, I don't think they are being careful of Republican feelings but of the money interests behind the scenes that choose the range of choices we get:

• Would you like your war with humanitarian window dressing?
  
  
• Self defense window dressing?
  
  
• Democracy spreading pablum?
  
  
• or would you prefer bare-faced looting and slaughter?
  

It's like going to IHOP. You have your choice of syrup, but you're going to get pancakes, and you better damn well like them.

KEY EXCERPTS:




It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War. Republicans Show the Way.
Filibuster to End the War Now!

By JOHN V. WALSH

We hear over and over again that it "takes 60 votes to get something serious done in the Senate." That is a lot of malarkey. It takes only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill. And then it takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster and prevent any proposed law from coming to the floor.

Thus, the present authorization for defense funding in the coming fiscal year can be stopped cold if it contains funds for the war on Iraq. And this can be done by just one courageous Senator, backed by 40 colleagues.

Let me propose the following scenario. Just one Senator, Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd, arises in the Senate and declares that he will filibuster the present defense authorization bill if it contains funds for the war on Iraq or Iran. That bill is then dead unless there are 60 votes (3/5 of the 100 Senators) to end the debate, i.e., to invoke cloture. That is it. Bush no longer has the funds to prosecute the war. He has to come back with a funding bill acceptable to the 41.

At the same time the filibustering Senator could put forth a resolution similar to Congressman McGovern's in the House, which is aptly named "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act." It provides funds to ensure the withdrawal of U.S, forces from Iraq in a way that guarantees their safety, and no other funding for the war. If the opponents of our hypothetical, courageous Senator wish to oppose such legislation, let them go on record in so doing. They are then on record as refusing funds to bring the troops safely home.

THE REST:
http://counterpunch.com/walsh02082007.html

budget funding president george w bush colonialism white mans burden professor smartass corporation fascism democracy war on terror public opinion opinion poll foreign policy al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot filibuster smartass comments