House passes $696B defense policy bill
AP, Wed Dec 12, 6:02 PM ETWASHINGTON – The House passed a defense policy bill on Wednesday that would authorize $696 billion in military programs, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The measure, which covers the budget year that began Oct. 1, does not send money to the Pentagon. But it is considered a crucial policy measure because it guides companion spending legislation and dictates the acquisition and management of weapons programs.
The Senate intended to follow suit this week and send the bill to President Bush, who is expected to sign it. The House vote was 370-49. . . .
Final action on the bill comes as Democrats struggle for a way to pay for combat operations overseas without appearing to support Bush’s policies in Iraq.
Yeah, and thanks AP for that key word, “appearing.” Or, from the we’ve heard this song and dance before department:
Privately, Democrats say they have little choice but to give the president at least some war funding because Senate Republicans have vowed to block any final budget deal unless it has at least some of the war funding Bush has requested.
And we’ve heard this before too:
“The base will not be happy,” said one senior Democratic aide . . .
To know what the new funding means for Iraq, read Dahr Jamail:
Nov 28, 2007
Iraqi children are civilians too
By Dahr Jamail“Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him.” – Colonel Potter, M*A*S*H
From the beginning of the American occupation in Iraq, air strikes and attacks by the US military have only killed “militants”, “criminals”, “suspected insurgents”, “IED [improvised explosive device] emplacers”, “anti-American fighters”, “terrorists”, “military age males”, “armed men”, “extremists” or “al-Qaeda”.The pattern for reporting on such attacks has remained the same from the early years of the occupation to today. Take a helicopter attack on October 23 of this year near the village of Djila, north of Samarra. The US military claimed it had killed 11 among “a group of men planting a roadside bomb”.
Only later did a military spokesperson acknowledge that at least six of the dead were civilians. Local residents claimed that those killed were farmers, that there were children among them, and that the number of dead was greater than 11.
. . . Abdul al-Rahman Iyadeh, a relative of some of the victims, revealed that the “group of men” attacked were actually three farmers who had left their homes at 4.30am to irrigate their fields.
Two were killed in the initial helicopter attack and the survivor ran back to his home where other residents gathered. The second air strike, he claimed, destroyed the house killing 14 people. Another witness told reporters that four separate houses were hit by the helicopter. A local Iraqi policeman, Captain Abdullah al-Isawi, put the death toll at 16 – seven men, six women, and three children, with another 14 wounded.
The photo is from the Chris Floyd article, US-led raid kills civilians north of Baghdad. Different civilian deaths from the ones reported by Jamail, but not so different.
Keep shopping Amerika the war must go on.
