Democrats Won't Budge On War Funding Despite Bush Plea

[Purveyor]

Source: CBS NEWS / Politico

(The Politico) Moments after President Bush gave a live Pentagon briefing calling on Congress to send him another war funding bill, Democrats rejected the request, saying they'll only give him the war money if he agrees to troop withdrawal goals.

While the Bush administration has warned that the military will have to cut thousands of civilian Pentagon jobs if Congress doesn't provide a least some of the $196 billion in war funding, Democrats have turned the tables on the debate.

"We have provided every penny that is currently necessary to fund Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a statement just released. "It is President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate who are preventing extra funds from reaching our troops."

Indeed, the House passed a $50 billion Iraq bill that had a soft "goal" of completing troop withdrawal by the end of next year, but the Senate fell short of a filibuster-proof majority on that measure before the Thanksgiving break. And Bush would have vetoed that bill anyway.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3556744.shtml

[bullimiami]

1. i guess the 450 billion + all the 'emergency' supplementals is just not enough

to fund the enormous war machine for a year.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. There seems to be a lot of different ways to handle the finances without MORE money

Ever since the Democrats (rightly) started being cranky about being asked to approve another bloated Iraq occupation funding bill, Bush, Gates, et. al have been making dramatic pronouncements about having to start cutting their civilian workforce at the beginning of next year. Why doesn't the government just cut out the military contractors and then they'll have enough money (I think) to pay for their civilian employees? What about making a serious effort to crack down on the rampant fraud and corruption that has been going on over there since 2003? Why isn't the Justice Department or whomever is responsible trying to recoup THAT money? Also, isn't it becoming conventional wisdom that things are "improving over in Iraq"? I believe that Senator Graham proclaimed that the "surge" is one of the most successful counterinsurgency programs in the history of the world (or something to that effect). Plus, we've been told that the "bad news" from over there is really not quite so bad in terms of the (unreliable) numbers provided by the Iraqis. So, all things considered, do we REALLY need to keep so many troops over there anymore? There seem to be several ways that Bush et. al could make up any shortfalls that would enable him to keep the bills paid and prevent the need for any civilian employees. Anyway, what do the civilian employees here in this country have to do with our occupation in Iraq and do they realize that they will be the ones responsible for laying off the civilian employees because they insist on maintaining the occupation of Iraq, apparently at all costs? Am I missing something here?

[BenDavid]

2. In ONE of the lastest polls from Pew a good organization

the people see a good improvement of the news coming out of Iraq and that is a good sign. Rose seven (7) points from last polling, but here is the ONE that counts. November BRING TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ 54% Rose 1% point from February polling 53%. So the American people want the troops home irregardless of the surge half to three fourths working.

In one area the right may have a talking point. 56% believe that democracy in Iraq MIGHT work....(MIGHT)

The big news is 56% polled said that Democracy in Iraq could possibly work which caused Rich Lowry on FNL and Brad Blakeman on Big Story to become intoxicated with confidence. Brad Blakeman's bravado was soon tempered by a brilliant Dennis DiConcini. 11/25/05

Dennis DiConcini and Brad Blakeman were the debate pair on a segment on Big Story wondering if Bush will ever get the credit for Iraq if it does work out. Gregg Jarrett, in for Gibson, brought up the Pew number adding that the media and academia polled did not think that Democracy would work in Iraq.

DiConcini said that it's not working now in Iraq adding that contrary to critics on the right all the American people would like it to work. Calling John Murtha a patriot, he credited him with forcing the Pentagon to make a recent decision to start bringing some troops home within a year. DiConcini graciously added that it takes time before we will know if history will give Bush credit.

Brad Blakeman was filled with unneccessary anger during his response. He immediately jumped on the "liberal media elite" for being out of touch with the American people adding they've been wrong time and time again. Then he made the inevitable Reagan comparison attacking Democrats for not giving him credit for ending the cold war.

DiConcini jumped in objecting to the comparison of Reagan to Bush claiming that Reagan worked to build coalitions with Democrats and went on TV to admit his mistake after the Iran/Contra episode. Blakeman was outraged bellowing, " Bush hasn't made a mistake!"

Then DiConcini finished him off announcing that 32,000 Iraqi's have died so far. Then comparing Bush to his Father, he said that Bush Sr had 500,000 troops in the Gulf compared to 160,000.

comment: Looks like that one Pew number really wasn't enough. In reality when the Pew Poll is examined, the Republicans would be better off ignoring it.
Pew Poll Gives Republicans A Talking Point
Reported by Deborah - November 25, 2005


Ben David

[Imagevision]

3. Bush's Iraq war credit is history, now it's pay as you go, month by month, it's abiut time they

stopped giving this punk a blank check when there has been no accounting of the 8.9 billion in CAS that went missing in Iraq. Who the hell sends cash by the pallots? Bush does...!

[Toots]

4. Didn't Leahy just announce they would give Bush* the money?

I think this is just bluster and when push comes to shove they will cave just as they have fromn the very first day Bush* rode into town..

[Robbien]

5. Yup, the Dems will cater to Bush. This is just Drudge/Politico ramping up GOPer ire

Drudge/Politico leading the hate Dems parade.

[Algorem]

6. Murtha Says He's `Optimistic' About Deal on War Money (cave)

Mhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aADFzM3Aag5s&refer=us

By Nicholas Johnston

Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic Representative John Murtha said he is ``optimistic'' that House Democrats and President George W. Bush can agree on Iraq war funding after an earlier $50 billion proposal linked to troop withdrawals was blocked in the Senate.

``Congress wants to come up with an agreement,'' Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on military spending, told reporters in a video conference from his office in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. ``Leadership may be willing to compromise'' on the time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq, he said.

Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress, are in a standoff with Bush over $190 billion in war funding requested by the administration. A $50 billion spending bill linked to troop withdrawals was blocked by Senate Republicans earlier this month, and Democrats have said they won't approve any more money this year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Nov. 20 that the military plans to lay off 200,000 civilian employees and close some Army bases as early as February if more money isn't approved...

[rocktivity]

7. I think it's long past due time that we asked for an accounting for the money

Why are we in this constant state of emergency while veterans are being denied benefits and troops equipment? It's time to start looking at where that money is going. I don't think that's too much to ask--WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY ON, GEORGE?

:headbang:
rocknation

[SoFlaJet]

9. I'd like to see money only for US troops

(with pullout conditions) and not a penny more for outside contractors like Blackwater

[Zorra]

8. It's time to force our little "Idi Amin, Jr." into learning how to work with

people that are far wiser, more practical, and more intelligent than he is.

If Bu*h vetoes a bill, he has no one to blame but himself if he doesn't get the money he wants.