The image you see above you is an anti-Bernie meme, which aims to imply that Bernie Sanders was/is not so different than Hillary Clinton in his foreign policy, especially regarding the Iraq War vote. "I voted for the Iraq War! True, except you voted for the bills that set it up."
There are three major errors of logic within this bill that may not be obvious at first glance, that is: The meme conflates bills which issue statements calling for a change in regime without actually supporting military action. The meme misleads the reader as to the nature of "defense appropriations" bills, and that the meme includes other bills which have nothing to do with Iraq (which I will get to in "part 2").
First, lets quickly note the bills listed here which have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, either occurring before the Iraq War or having to do with an entirely separate conflict, they are: the Bosnia Troop Deployment Resolution, Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Foreign Operations FY98 Appopriations, 1999 Military Construction/Assistance, Extending the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, Missle Defense System in Europe, Military construction FY99 appropriation, 2009 Missle Defense System of Europe, S. Res 85 regarding the "no-fly zone" on Libya, and the U.S Statment of Support for Israel.
With those bills out of the way, lets attack one of the primary fallacies that this photo implicates, that having to do with "defense & military appropriations"
First off, the first defense appropriations bill cited, "HR 4059 - Military Construction FY99 Appropriations " was filed in 1998 several years before the Iraq War in 2001. In addition, like many of the bills with similar names mentioned in this graphic, defense appropriations just means general funding for the military. Take the terms of the Emergency Defense Spending HR 2004:
"Appropriates funds for FY 2005 for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guards. Appropriates funds for: (1) the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account; (2) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (3) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide; (4) environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites; (5) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (6) former Soviet Union threat reduction."
Similar terms are used in the HR 2863 - Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations, which this graphic says was "funding for Iraq and Afghanistan"
- Appropriates funds for FY2006 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, defense-wide, and at formerly used defense sites; (3) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (4) former Soviet Union threat reduction.
Again, to reiterate, within all of the "defense appropriation" bills, is the fact that "defense appropriation" simply means general funding for the military. The crucial term in nearly all of these bills is defense wide procurement, that means funding which spans the entirety of the massive Department of Defense, not funding specifically for the Iraq War.
Here, the "Bomber Bernie" meme posits an absurd standard; if you voted against the Iraq War, but voted to fund the military, you didn't really mean it. You're in no place to call Hillary a hawk if you're pro-funding the armed forces! For a senator to not vote in favor of some military spending is ludicrous, because although the United States military has grown to what is truly an unruly size, billions of dollars must still be allocated to keep the hundreds of thousands of military employees paid, as well as to maintain equipment and supplies for all five branches of the U.S military.
Now, to close out, lets look lastly on the the Iraqi Liberation Act as an example of bills listed here that demand change, but do not actually authorize military force The Iraqi Liberation Act (HR 4655), here its the terms:
Since this blog post has already gotten quite long, I am closing this off as "Part 1". I hope to create a "Part 2" within the next few days or week if possible, going into detail regarding the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the portions of the graphic I had listed at the beginning, which do not have anything to do with Iraq, but are still significant in general. Stay tuned.
I hope for now though, the credibility of this meme, and others like it, are severely damaged. As not only are many of the graphic's insinuations misleading, some of the bills, as I've pointed out, are either incorrectly named or don't even exist.
(Also, shout out to my brother from another mother who brought this up at first, you know who you are!)
There are three major errors of logic within this bill that may not be obvious at first glance, that is: The meme conflates bills which issue statements calling for a change in regime without actually supporting military action. The meme misleads the reader as to the nature of "defense appropriations" bills, and that the meme includes other bills which have nothing to do with Iraq (which I will get to in "part 2").
First, lets quickly note the bills listed here which have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, either occurring before the Iraq War or having to do with an entirely separate conflict, they are: the Bosnia Troop Deployment Resolution, Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Foreign Operations FY98 Appopriations, 1999 Military Construction/Assistance, Extending the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, Missle Defense System in Europe, Military construction FY99 appropriation, 2009 Missle Defense System of Europe, S. Res 85 regarding the "no-fly zone" on Libya, and the U.S Statment of Support for Israel.
With those bills out of the way, lets attack one of the primary fallacies that this photo implicates, that having to do with "defense & military appropriations"
First off, the first defense appropriations bill cited, "HR 4059 - Military Construction FY99 Appropriations " was filed in 1998 several years before the Iraq War in 2001. In addition, like many of the bills with similar names mentioned in this graphic, defense appropriations just means general funding for the military. Take the terms of the Emergency Defense Spending HR 2004:
"Appropriates funds for FY 2005 for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guards. Appropriates funds for: (1) the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account; (2) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (3) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide; (4) environmental restoration at formerly used defense sites; (5) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (6) former Soviet Union threat reduction."
Similar terms are used in the HR 2863 - Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations, which this graphic says was "funding for Iraq and Afghanistan"
- Appropriates funds for FY2006 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) environmental restoration for the Army, Navy, Air Force, defense-wide, and at formerly used defense sites; (3) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (4) former Soviet Union threat reduction.
HR 563 is actually a typo for a bill named HR 5631 (thank you brother-from-another-mother for pointing this out), which as we can see by glancing at it's terms, follows similar language to the HR 4613 Emergency Defense Spending bill we just covered:
Title II: Operation and Maintenance - Appropriates funds for FY2007 for operation and maintenance (O&M) for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the defense agencies, the reserve components, and the Army and Air National Guard. Appropriates funds for: (1) the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; (2) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; and (3) former Soviet Union threat reduction.
Title III: Procurement - Appropriates funds for FY2007 for procurement by the Armed Forces of aircraft, missiles, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. Appropriates funds for: (1) defense-wide procurement; (2) National Guard and reserve equipment; and (3) certain procurement under the Defense Production Act of 1950.
Finally, with HR 1585 National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, which the graphic claims gave "funding for Iraq and Afghanistan". The bill text is extremely long, but does contain a section on Iraq and Afghanistan, the following are the bills primary enactments as well as the specific section on Iraq and Afghanistan:
(Sec. 101) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, and other procurement.
(Sec. 104) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 for: (1) defense-wide procurement; and (2) National Guard and reserve equipment.
And...
(Sec. 1221) Amends the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 to extend the responsibilities of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to include authority over all reconstruction funding provided, regardless of its source or fiscal year availability. Terminates the Office of the Special Inspector General 180 days after the balance of funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq is less than $250 million.
Here the graphic is misleading, funding for the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the same as funding for reconstruction (building back up the Iraq army and other facets of government). Furthermore, the primary focus of the bill is "defense wide procurement" in other words, simply funding the military.Again, to reiterate, within all of the "defense appropriation" bills, is the fact that "defense appropriation" simply means general funding for the military. The crucial term in nearly all of these bills is defense wide procurement, that means funding which spans the entirety of the massive Department of Defense, not funding specifically for the Iraq War.
Here, the "Bomber Bernie" meme posits an absurd standard; if you voted against the Iraq War, but voted to fund the military, you didn't really mean it. You're in no place to call Hillary a hawk if you're pro-funding the armed forces! For a senator to not vote in favor of some military spending is ludicrous, because although the United States military has grown to what is truly an unruly size, billions of dollars must still be allocated to keep the hundreds of thousands of military employees paid, as well as to maintain equipment and supplies for all five branches of the U.S military.
Now, to close out, lets look lastly on the the Iraqi Liberation Act as an example of bills listed here that demand change, but do not actually authorize military force The Iraqi Liberation Act (HR 4655), here its the terms:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
The graphic states that "This was cited in HJ res 114 (Iraq War bill) as prior approval to invade Iraq" Yet, here is the crucial omission: While the bill does authorize "defense articles and services and military education education and training" it does not propose any means of actual military force. It is not at all a contradiction to seek the change of a government and not support a massive, illegal invasion of another country as a means of doing so. While the bill may have been flaunted as a justification, that does not mean any justification existed.Since this blog post has already gotten quite long, I am closing this off as "Part 1". I hope to create a "Part 2" within the next few days or week if possible, going into detail regarding the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the portions of the graphic I had listed at the beginning, which do not have anything to do with Iraq, but are still significant in general. Stay tuned.
I hope for now though, the credibility of this meme, and others like it, are severely damaged. As not only are many of the graphic's insinuations misleading, some of the bills, as I've pointed out, are either incorrectly named or don't even exist.
(Also, shout out to my brother from another mother who brought this up at first, you know who you are!)
No comments:
Post a Comment