President Pockets Troop Bonuses

One of the many things contained in the recently pocket-vetoed Defense Authorization bill were bonuses for those men and women who serve our nation in uniform, reports the Army Times.

You'll recall after a vicious back and forth with Democrats in Congress, the president got the bill he was looking for, and promptly chose not to sign it. The reason is because of a provision that could allow Iraqi assets to be tied up by US Courts in cases of those suing Iraq for actions of Saddam's government.

My first thought is, did the White House not read the bill and notice this before Congress sent it to the president? Why no objection weeks ago? My second thought is, when you have troop bonuses and pay raises on the line -- in the time of war -- why couldn't the president have signed it, helped our troops, and called on Congress to amend the provision in question when they came back? I mean, at the end of the day, which is more important to this president -- long, drawn out court cases against Iraq, or our troops?

There's really not much more I can say than that. It's depressing to know where we stand with this White House. I would hope that every single presidential candidate of both parties would denounce the president for pocket-vetoing legislation that gives our troops the help they need. If you're in New Hampshire, now's the time to get the candidates on the record. Make this an issue. The media might be interested in the horserace, but you've got the power to make this egregious denial of bonuses to troops a national issue.

Comments

[Berettasskeeter]

You folks are so funny! I'll bet only one or two of you actually support the troops, i.e. celebrate their heroism and sacrifice.
When was the last time any of you went to a rally to celebrate the troops?
When was the last time any of you wrote supportive letters to the troops, without the political invective?
The President vetoed the bill not only due to the poison pill, but also due to earmarks surreptitiously inserted by the Democrats amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars not directed to DOD.
For 26 years in the Marine Corps, and with friends still serving, I was fully aware that the majority of GI's are very conservative (lower case c). The majority do not vote, largely due to their age and lack of concern. The majority that do vote, contrary to Jon's assertions, vote Republican or Libertarian, hence Kerry's attempts to stifle the Florida votes of out-of-state GI's.
Please don't pretend to be interested in our boys and girls in uniform. It only highlights your collective hypocrisy.
Semper fi

[desmirl]

Anyone who thinks for even one millisecond that either Bush or Cheney care ANYTHING for the troops or for their families is sadly, totally mistaken. For these two politicians, troops are pawns to be used and discarded, and their families are beneath notice or contempt. The trick, for those of us not caught up in this endless meatgrinder, is to learn from our long, national nightmare and not elect more of the same in November.

[rh654]

Sorry but this one has me going.

If I do the math correctly...

The Democrats voted a 3.5% pay increase for the Troops.

Let's take $40,000 as a figure - (more than many troops make but lets use it).

$40,000 * 3.5% = $1400 a year

That is $116 a month.

That is all the Democrats think our Troops are worth?

At a pay of $20,000 a year - that would be only an extra $58 a month.

Yes - they also increased care for wounded Vets - a very necessary step - but if it is a cheap as the pay increase - perhaps they are buying name brand band-aids?

If the Democrats really cared - why not DOUBLE the pay for the troops.

Personally, I think that the minimum pay for a Private in the Army should be $100,000 starting and go up from there.

So essentially the Democrats are UNWILLING to potentially take a political hit to stand up to Bush and say "Hell No - No Money until you give us a timeline".

Instead they tell our Troops: "Sorry we lack the guts to get you the out of that hell hole - but here's a hundred bucks a month - have fun"...

I really don't know which is worse - Bush for, well - just being Bush and screwing things up with such enormous results - or the Democrats who toss our troops a few bucks instead of risking their political lives - they let Bush throw away US Troops lives.

[rh654]

So - now the Left is all upset because the Troops aren't getting a pay raise?

BUT YOU KEEP GIVING BUSH THE MONEY TO KEEP THE TROOPS IN IRAQ WHERE THEY ARE DYING.

YES - the troops deserve a raise - but they deserve to GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

Why the sudden concern about a pay-raise instead of STOPPING THE FUNDING and forcing Bush's hand to start a plan to get the Troops out???

The Democrats are keeping the Troops in Iraq as much as Bush. They lack the balls to call an end to the War - but now want to toss the soldiers a few bucks - to what - help their guilt at lying to everyone about stopping the war?

[ErnestineBass]

Here's a radical idea.
Congress could SIMPLY refuse to fund EVERY LAST g_damned mercenary outfit (Blackwater, Custer Battle, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, etc.) "doing business" in Iraq on behalf of the State Department, and use THAT money to pay our troops the additional benefits THEY DESERVE!
Why the hell are our tax dollars being used to pay the exorbitant salary of that Ollie North lookalike, Eric Prince, anyway? This is an OBSCENITY!

[rh654]

My first thought is:

1) Why did the Democrats put the poison pill into the bill in the first place?

2) Why can't the Democrats send the President the bill without the poison pill and then they can take it up as a seperate issue.

I don't support the Iraq War - and am not a fan of Bush - but on this point - and it is a rare time - I agree with Bush on why he vetoed the bill.

I am a little surprised that the Democrats did not seem to care enough about the Troops to leave the poison pill out of the bill.

As for the Democrats - the Troops are STILL in Iraq - Bush is STILL getting all of the money he wants for Iraq.

The Democrats now own this war just as much as Bush - if they want to give him the money to keep the war going - they need to accept the responsibility that their power with the pocket-book brings.

[SPENCER]

I'm curious about something; Bush pocket vetoes the military appropriations bill; according to the Constitution, a President can only issue a pocket veto while Congress is in adjournment; the Senate is is a pro forma session right now, so it hasn't adjourned.

Therefore, is Bush's pocket veto unconstitutional?

[wolf58]

Jon once again this man has shown where his support for the troops is. Its with his fellow Iraqi brothers. Bush could care less about the troops during and after the battle. We have already seen how the disabled veterans have been treated and just what has happened to all those studies that Bush ordered? Mean while families wait but Bush first point of order is those poor poor Iraqi people who will make sure that Bush and company will get plenty of kick backs for his effort.
What really troubles me is that the main stream press has yet to report this. I found the story buried in the back pages of the washington post a couple of days ago and I again read about it in the Army times today. I guess the bottom line is this, once again we the ones who wear the uniform get cast aside by the very person who is supposed to watch over us. Bush has killed and wounded many of our brothers and sister by his actions. The only ones that have benefited by his actions are in his and Cheney's inner circle.
They are traitors and I hate this man with every ounce of my broken body that I gave freely for our country.

[aznurse]

The only one that might give this some exposure is Keith Ohberman, and he's now covering the Iowa event. Bush snuck this pocket veto in when a lot of folks who would have broought this out is on vacation ie;Randi Rhodes, Keith and others. Some of my friends, say Clinton did this and Clinton did that,blah blah blah, now they say they have no interest in politics because politicans are the same. They find watching the news too "depressing" Where are the protests? Part of me wishes there was a draft so more people would be affected and maybe pay attention. thank you.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, Jon, I say if you want to see our troops better-paid then you have to delve into the disposition of the hundreds of billions that've
been spent in the course of this war. Obviously
the lion's share did not go to the troops.

Further, I'd say if you REALLY support our troops then say/do things that'll see em returned to our soil and Bush and Cheney put out of office. Here's one such link below:
http://www.impeachbush.org
End the fraud, end the larceny, and help the
Pentagon clean its' own house by ending the war and demanding public accountability and transparency. End the oil war!

[mouselion]

It's Bush's way of showing that the lame duck is relevant.

He's doing it with everything congress sends him.

How can anyone who has been so irresponsible by so ideologically self-righteous?

[jackpinesavage]

Raises for the troops? Does that fall into the category of "support"?

I have in-laws in the service (one in Iraq, though relatively safe as he zooms overhead) and a good friend about to deploy as a second lieutenant. It doesn't matter how i feel about the decision to start the conflict or the way in which the action was prosecuted. The vast majority of service men and women have no control over those issues.

I am sick to death of our soldiers being used like political pawns. This is life and death for them; this about the health of families decades from now; this is not something that most of them will ever be able to "move on" from.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Give them respect, health care, and a better than average wage if we're going to put them in the line of fire. $400B+/year oughta be enough to pay the soldiers, if the bloated general staff would keep their hands out of the cookie jar for gee whiz gadgetry.

And i want to see the coffins too. What kind of country sneaks their war dead home in the dead of night, trying to ignore/forget the sacrifice?

[ultomatt]

"...which is more important to this president -- long, drawn out court cases against Iraq, or our troops?"

I can say, with little fear of contradiction (from sane people), that the troops are the last thing this President cares about. They're just bullets for his guns, and backdrops for his photo-ops and speeches.

[hopeless277]

Sorry, Jon, but the American people only have the power that the corporate sponsored media gives them. With the supplanting of the presidency by the unitary executive, the UE has total and unfettered control over the government and the population. The 'law' is what he says it is. This is what the candidates are salivating over. They know that no matter what they say or promise, they may do as they please once in office. So once again, Jon, I am very sorry to report that no matter who ends up being appointed unitary executive, the poor men and women occupying Iraq will be supported as they have been these last years. Supported to death.