I think just about everyone agrees our GIs have had their helmets and heads unscrewed by the Bu$h malAdministration and their necks have been toiletized by these evil criminals. I’m confident that everyone on the oxygen-breathing side of the universe believes that. Over there among the Bu$h Jugend they of course believe that Heaven’s gift to the Heimat can do no wrong. It‘s just a matter of Will, you know.

Suffering deaths and maiming because of inadequate armor, being sent into a combat zone with unarmored vehicles, given spoiled food and filthy water, attacked by patriotic Iraqis who resented the occupation of their country, dragged back to Iraq a third, fourth, and fifth time, their families shattered, divorce rife with children that don’t even recognize their fathers because they’ve spent more time with their platoons than with their families, our GIs have been through the mill.

Once more spitting in the faces of our soldiers, Mr Bu$h has vetoed a $555 Billion defense appropriation bill recently passed by Congress at his demand. The criminals in the White House don’t like a provision in the bill that might allow Americans or corporations suing the Iraq government to freeze Iraqi financial assets during any lawsuit.

The Iraqi government asked the USG to do something about this. Mr Bu$h did. He vetoed the bill.

A cynical man might think that if somehow Baghdad started looking like Saigon, 1975 in the near future the government of Iraq – you know – that “sovereign” entity that controls most of the Green Zone (except for the areas occupied by Backwater and the other Teflon mercenaries) – might have to suddenly shift the finds of that “sovereign” country to some other banking system in some other country with banking regulations a bit more opaque than in the US, if you get my drift and I think you do.

The veto threat startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a provision meant to help victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The veto is unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly. … "We understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in a joint statement. “The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto."

A White House spokesman said the veto would officially be delivered by Dec. 31. The dispute could be settled in late January when Congress returns if Democratic leaders agree to tweak the language before sending the bill back to the White House.

I wonder whether there really are any lawsuits that could endanger the bank accounts of the “sovereign” Iraq. A cynical man might wonder whether the US banking system could easily weather a sudden withdrawal of the Iraq money, following right on the heels of the subprime mortgage flim-flam meltdown. Is everyone up to speed with the idea that the banks are far more important that the troops?

At issue is a provision deep in the defense authorization bill, which would essentially allow victims of state sponsored terrorism to sue those countries for damages. The Iraqi government believes the provision, if applied to the regime of Saddam Hussein, could target up to $25 billion in Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks. Iraq has threatened to pull all of its money out of the U.S. banking system if the provision remains in the bill.

I know you will be surprised to learn that all Iraq funds were in fact frozen by President Clinton on February 16, 1993, by Executive Order 12722, and reinforced by Mr Bu$h in Executive Order 13303, as detailed in this Salon piece by Andrew Cockburn.

I haven’t been able to find any legal authority unlocking these funds, and would appreciate it if someone can point me to any such ruling or law.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the disputed provision "would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States."

So, if you were brutalized by Saddam Hussein’s government, and you thought you could get some justice by good old American revenge by cash, you’re just out of luck.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was angered that the White House decided on a veto long after the bill passed both chambers of Congress.

"It is unfortunate that the administration failed to identify the concerns upon which this veto is based until after the bill had passed both houses on Congress and was sent to the President for signature," Levin said. "I am deeply disappointed that our troops and veterans may have to pay for their mistake and for the confusion and uncertainty caused by their snafu.”

The item in the defense authorization bill causing all the hubbub was inserted by Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) with 30 Senatorial co-sponsors.

Lautenberg contends that his provision is aimed at holding countries like Iran responsible for state sponsored terrorism, including the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983. The measure would allow plaintiffs to target hidden commercial assets owned by countries that sponsor terrorism, and the language is not aimed at Iraq specifically. The Lautenberg amendment has 30 cosponsors, including a handful of conservative Republicans like Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

“My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable — plain and simple,” Lautenberg said. “After months of negotiations over this bill, it is hard to understand why President Bush would suddenly veto this bipartisan proposal at the last minute. The President should be listening to the pleas of Americans victims of terror and their families and should help give them the justice they deserve.”

The problem was known about more than a week ago, and was mentioned in this ABC News piece dated December 19th.

Mr Bu$h could have avoided all this by mentioning the matter before the bill was passed. We all know he’s quick enough to shriek in front of cameras and threaten a veto of other bills he considers too kind to the “little people.”

Yet, surprisingly, he waited until the very last second, after the bill was passed overwhelmingly, and transmitted to our desk in the Oval Office he occupies, to complain.

Government by tantrum is no way to run a railroad, Mr Bu$h.

A tip of the Kevlar helmet to reader Neil O’C for shoving this story over the transom.