Bush Threatens the Lives of Our GIs, While Continuing to Fund Blackwater and Other Mercenary Corporations

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Meg White

Brandon Friedman didn't listen to President George W. Bush's weekly radio address last weekend, but after receiving a "do you believe what this guy is saying?" e-mail, he sat down with the transcript.

"The first time I read it, I thought, 'This is what bank robbers do. This is what carjackers do,'" he said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "It's very unbecoming of the commander-in-chief."

Friedman is the vice chairman of VoteVets.org, a group dedicated to getting veterans elected, as well as the editor of VetVoice.com, an online network for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having served in both wars, Friedman was shocked by what he considered thinly veiled threats voiced by Bush in his radio address Saturday.

Bush called on Congress to pass a military appropriations bill without amendments, several of which have been tacked on to the bill by Democratic congressmen. The amendments range from a new G.I. bill to a timetable for ending the war. Friedman said Bush, in urging Congress to act, threatened harm and reduced pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. From Bush's Saturday radio address:

"If Congress does not act, critical accounts at the Department of Defense will soon run dry. At the beginning of next month, civilian employees may face temporary layoffs. The department will have to close down a vital program that is getting potential insurgents off the streets and into jobs. The Pentagon will run out of money it needs to support critical day-to-day operations that help keep our nation safe. And after July, the department will no longer be able to pay our troops -- including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Friedman had two points of contention with what Bush said in his radio address:

1. Insurgents kill Americans. So when the President says that the Pentagon would be forced to "close down" a program that gets "potential insurgents off the streets," he's really saying that he'll deliberately allow the threat to American troops in Iraq increase if he doesn't get his money. He's playing chicken with Congress at the expense of American lives in Iraq. Make no mistake about it: More insurgents on the streets would lead to more American deaths.

Perhaps someone knows more about this than I do, but I suspect Bush might be setting a precedent here. I'm not sure this has ever happened before.

2. Bush is also threatening to stop paying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is funny, because I don't hear him threatening to cut the contracts of Halliburton, Blackwater, SAIC, and DynCorp -- and thus cutting their employees' inflated salaries.

This is a clear indication that the Bush Administration is more loyal to contractors than to soldiers. When forced to cut spending, Bush would rather starve members of the Armed Forces than cut the exorbitant paychecks given to those who work for privatized military companies.

Friedman said Bush's attempt to scare Congress into funding the war will work. "Congress always blinks first."

Friedman's post spawned an online debate on VetVoice about Bush using funds to pay insurgents not to fight our troops abroad. He said that Bush's War on Terror rhetoric doesn't match up with a policy of buying peace from potential combatants.

"He bills this as a cataclysmic fight against Islamo-fascism," Friedman said. "He's trying to have his cake and eat it too."

As for pending legislation, Friedman is more concerned with the passage of a new version of the G.I. bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). House Democrats attempted to add it to the pending war-funding bill earlier this month, causing Republican representatives to stall the legislation by voting "present" on the measure.

"The Webb bill is great," Friedman said. "That's the thing we need to get passed." He lauded the proposed bill's $52 billion increase in education benefits for veterans as well as the fact that the bill will keep up with inflation in funding veterans' affairs initiatives.

Friedman expressed frustration with resistance to the bill from the White House and 25 senators, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). At a Memorial Day event in Arizona, McCain said offering increased opportunities for troops to attend college would harm the retention rate at a time when more combat personnel are desperately needed. Bush has expressed similar reservations about the measure, threatening to veto the war-funding bill should it arrive on his desk with the new G.I. bill attached.

Friedman said that kind of talk makes his organization reluctant to back McCain for president.

"At this point, we're taking a wait-and-see approach. Maybe John McCain will come around," he said about the possibility of endorsing a presidential candidate. He said he can't understand why McCain, a decorated war hero and former prisoner-of-war, isn't more supportive of American troops.

"I ask myself that every day," he said with a sigh. "It's very disturbing."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

###