Follow us on social

2022-07-28t000000z_1548835886_mt1nurpho000o20cdn_rtrmadp_3_nurphoto-scaled

GOP hand powerful pro-veteran burn pit issue over to Democrats

Now is not the time to suddenly grow a backbone over big government spending and oversight.

Analysis | North America

Republicans really stepped in it this time. Whether or not they find a way to work with Democrats to pass the super-popular PACT Act, which would provide unprecedented assistance to veterans suffering from toxic exposures, they have all but ceded pro-veteran issues to the Democrats.

This week, Republicans helped to kill a procedural bill that would have pushed ahead the PACT Act, which provides $250 billion to veterans and opens new opportunities for vets suffering from myriad illnesses they believe are connected to the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Veteran organizations have been fighting for recognition for their maladies — which include everything from irreversible respiratory conditions to cancer — for some 15 years. The PACT Act overwhelmingly passed the Senate in June but the House voted on a slightly modified version, sending it back to the Senate this week.

But Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey who had voted for the initial bill, say the current  legislation would create a slush fund of billions of dollars for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with little Congressional oversight. They say the bill would mandate not only would the $250 billion for PACT (which would avoid the regular appropriations process each year) but also an additional $400 billion of previous VA spending. (They also vociferously deny that the “nay” vote came after the the Democrats were able to finally push through the Build Back Better bill without their votes.)

While the fiscal conservatives may be making a strong argument about oversight, they seemed to have picked the wrong time to stiffen their backbones on an issue of fiduciary responsibility. This is, of course, a Congress that up until recently had no qualms about pouring billions into a slush fund (called Overseas Contingency Operations) when there were caps placed on the Pentagon budget. They have found ways to fund pork projects using fuzzy math after so-called earmarks were banned, and they continue to raise the Pentagon budget into the stratosphere year after year. 

In the wake of Republicans killing the bill, Democrats and veterans advocates exploded in condemnation. As I write this, veterans were engaging in a sit-in outside of Republican offices. Jon Stewart’s visage was blasted across the media — conservative outlets, too — to rebuke the GOP for letting veterans down.

“So ain’t this a bitch?” Stewart said Thursday at a news conference on Capitol Hill. “America’s heroes, who fought our wars, outside sweating their asses off, with oxygen battling all kinds of ailments, while these motherf**kers sit in the air conditioning walled off from any of it? They don’t have to hear it. They don’t have to see it. They don’t have to understand that these are human beings. Did you get it yet?”

It was clear from when I started covering this issue in 2009 that this was a grassroots effort, built by sick veterans and their families, their doctors, veterans organizations like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), American Legion and Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and, finally, members of Congress who have been advocating over the long haul. But at its core, the movement could not have progressed without its own fierce determination because the Pentagon and VA have been loath to take responsibility for toxic exposures, fearing the liability would break the bank. It was a fight all the way.

Well, Washington chose to send millions of men and women to their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — just like they did in the Persian Gulf a generation before and Vietnam a generation before that. (Those veterans, by the way, are also helped in the PACT Act because their illnesses — due to Agent Orange and exposures in the Gulf — have not all been recognized either). 

Republicans are getting politically slapped around today, and it is hard to defend them under the present circumstances. The movement hasn’t come this far to let politics get in the way now.


Veterans advocate Jon Stewart delivers remarks condemning Republican Senators for voting against the Honoring Our PACT Act. July, 20, 2022. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto)
Analysis | North America
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Top admiral resigns amid Venezuela ops: Who’s got the scoop?

Washington Politics

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Ken Vogel Devils' Advocates
Top photo credit: deskjacket for "Devil's Advocates/William Morrow and stock photo (Shutterstock/Lightfield Studios

The Cowboy lobbyist who claimed he fixed an election

Media

“Did I help fix an election? Yes.”

Or so claims foreign lobbyist Robert Stryk in “Devils’ Advocates: The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the Payrolls of Corrupt Foreign Interests,” a new book by New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel about the inner workings of American lobbyists working for foreign governments.

keep readingShow less
 Badr Abdelatty, Abbas Araghchi, Rafael Grossi
Top image credit: Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi in Cairo, Egypt, September 9, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany

Can Egypt really stop Israel from attacking Iran again?

Middle East

The telephone lines out of Cairo have been humming. In a series of carefully choreographed calls, Badr Abdelatty, Egypt’s foreign minister, has been shuttling between his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, America’s Middle East Envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, all in a bid to pull Iran, America, and Israel back from the brink.

Just months ago, Cairo’s influence was at a low-point, overshadowed by the oil-fuelled wealth of the Gulf states. While President Donald Trump was brokering mega-deals in the gilded boardrooms of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, America's ties with its old ally Egypt had become decidedly awkward. The relationship grew so strained that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi pointedly declined an invitation to the White House. The sticking point was Trump's audacious plan to permanently resettle Gaza’s more than 2 million Palestinians, turning the war-ravaged strip into a "Riviera of the Middle East."

But on the back of a torturous, yet ultimately successful, mediation that produced a fragile ceasefire in Gaza, Egypt has arguably re-emerged as the region’s essential interlocutor. Having co-hosted the Sharm el-Sheikh peace summit with Trump and being tapped to lead a planned global stabilization force in Gaza, Sisi is enjoying a diplomatic comeback. Even Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, now sees Cairo as the linchpin, stating, “What Gaza needs is Egyptian control.”

Now, Cairo is attempting a far more audacious feat: bridging the chasm between Washington, its Israeli ally, and Tehran. The task is gargantuan. The 12-day war in June, which saw American and Israeli bombers strike Iranian nuclear and military sites, left diplomacy in tatters. This has not stopped Trump, fresh from his Gaza triumph, from casting his eye towards a bigger prize. In a speech to the Israeli Knesset, he mused, "you know what would be great? if we made a peace deal with them [Iran]... Wouldn’t it be nice?"

This deal-making optimism is radiating from the White House. "Doing a peace deal is becoming infectious," enthused Witkoff, in a recent interview. He hinted at a broader diplomatic offensive, adding, "we're getting calls from the Iranians. We're there to, you know, hopefully have a long-term diplomatic solution with Iran."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.