More on Bush stiffing the tortured soldiers

I posted earlier today about how the Bush administration is trying to prevent 17 soldiers who were awarded close to $1 billion by the courts as compensation from frozen Iraqi assets for tortured that they suffered during the first Gulf War. Tom Tomorrow posted the following excerpt from a morning press gaggle in which Scott McClellan attempts to present the White House's position on the issue. It seem that it isn't so much that the men don't deserve any money, but rather appears to be that since "no amount of money" could make up for their suffering, its better if the Bush administration just keeps it to use for the reconstruction of Iraq and the soldiers get nothing at all.

That's my take, anyway - can you make anything less vile out of it?

Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That's what our view is.

Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --

Q They think they're is an --

Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --

Q: Why won't you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q: Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q: But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through --

Q: -- you don't think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q: That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Q: Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q: No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was --

Q: But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --

Q: So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.

When McClellan talks about it having been "addressed earlier this year" he's apparently referring to the fact that, just before the war started, American confiscated all of the frozen Iraqi assets and once Saddam was ousted, removed Iraq from the list of terror-sponsoring countries. The law that allowed the suit only permits suits to be filed against countries that are considered sponsors of terrorism. The administration's position seems to be that, even though the suit was filed before the assets were confiscated and Iraq was reclassified, it appears that the Bush administration is asserting that since the assets no longer belonged to Iraq and since Iraq was no longer considered a terror-sponsoring country by the time the verdict was rendered, the soldiers didn't have any real right to win the case - their claims were no longer valid.

Obviously, I disagree with the government's position, and McClellan's tap-dance during the press gaggle is just pathetic.

Posted by thorswitch at November 10, 2003 09:54 PM | TrackBack