Bush seeks 42.3 billion dollars more for Iraq, Afghan wars

Like supporting a drug addictOct 22nd, 2007 - 19:04:24

The U.S. is supposed to be a Democracy, but it's actually a Republic with representative government (recite the Pledge of Allegiance). Since we have the Internet and other means of polling, let's toss this one right to the general public.

The public should have a chance to say whether they want to sink another $200 billion into this, PLUS whatever Iran would cost. The public needs to understand that this is on the way to a $2 trillion expenditure over the time required to get the job done; ASSUMING Iraq ever comes up with a government capable of self-sufficiency. Congress needs to understand the national mood, as the incumbents should be interested in maintaining their seats in 2008, and their ratings are piss-poor, with the GOP's ratings markedly worse than the Dem's.

When you deal with an addict, you get tough, and put conditions on the deal. Bush has no control over the situation beyond some 'spot' successes, thanks to Petraeus, which the Iraqis themselves won't be able to sustain. They lack the aforementioned central government, and their current leadership is incompetent and/or corrupt, representing individual factions rather than Iraq as a nation. Every time Cheney opens his yap trying to solidify the GOP base, things get worse. If we're going to spend money, there should be a return on investment.

Our borders are not secure, and imported goods are not inspected. Pakistan is a major problem in terms of nuclear weapons, as they are the REAL home of al Qaeda, and the people support the fanatics more than Musharraf. Afghanistan is also deteriorating, and will require military expenditures to keep it from backsliding into a narco-state run by terrorists. Relations with Russia have gone from bad to awful, as Putin realizes that Bush has no influence on affairs comparable to his. High oil prices are making our adversaries wealthier, and we have zero national policy to reduce demand, as China and India and other nations increase THEIR demand for oil.

Credit for zero homeland attacks since 9/11 goes to the agencies involved doing the day-to-day work to keep it that way - from Homeland Defense all the way down to local police. Bush's policies have increased our potential enemies, who see the entire Western world as a target, and have struck many other countries.

Report this comment

This Week at War discussionOct 22nd, 2007 - 19:10:57

cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/20/tww.01.html

FOREMAN: There's a couple of important graphics I want to talk about for a moment here. One is a CNN opinion research corporation poll about the impression Americans have about this war right now. Basically what it's showing is that across the board, people think it's getting better or at least not getting worse. That's quite an improvement over earlier in the year. A second graphic I want to look at is the fatalities in Iraq. Combat deaths for U.S. soldiers - Back in May, 120. Now down to 42 combat deaths and 23 of those were non- hostile. Essentially, you're talking about accidents, things like that. This is an extraordinary change, but less, the same question to you. Can this be attributed to Al Qaeda being on the run?

LESLIE GELB, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I'm happy to see this data and I'm happy to see the decline in the violence and particularly of the American combat deaths. But I've been involved in insurgencies, civil wars my whole professional career. And I never talk about turn-arounds based on military data. Because all of these wars are really at their core political wars. As our generals have said from day one, there's no such thing as a military victory. You can only have a political victory. So anybody who goes around predicting that corners have been turned, until there are political corners turning, ends up being wrong.

FOREMAN: Les, my question is to what extent can these improvements overall, if you talk about the Kurdish area where you have economic improvements, you talk about some political improvements, some decrease in violence, can all of that help fight what is left of Al Qaeda no matter how big it is there?

GELB: Look, the issue is how much of this civil war and insurgency is really caused by Al Qaeda. The Bush administration has talked about Al Qaeda as if it's the center of things. (As if) it's the major part of this insurgency. And it isn't. It's the smallest part of it. The civil war, the wars among the militias and the other groups are the major part of it. And while that, too, has gone down, that is still the major problem we have. We could get rid of Al Qaeda tomorrow, maybe they are suffering mortal blows. But that insurgency and that civil war will continue.

Report this comment

The unstated costs to be metOct 22nd, 2007 - 19:25:02

We have landed hundreds of millions of TONS of equipment in Iraq which cannot be left behind after the drawdown. Some can be destroyed on the spot, but some is expensive, or advanced technology, and would have to be shipped home. The new MRAP's, arriving really too late for their purpose, are one example.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_(armored_vehicle)

It's critical that we maintain the option of using Turkey for logistics and basing of equipment, as we simply lack means of getting the equipment out in any timely manner. It will probably cost hundreds of to draw down both troops and equipment; just as it costs a business owner money to shut down.

There will be a continuing troop presence for decades - the question is how large, and where they'll be based. That giant embassy will need staffing and protection, as well as Balad and other very large bases.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/balad-ab.htm

www.balad.afnews.af.mil/

Report this comment

This is the time for Congress to ''draw down''!Oct 22nd, 2007 - 23:09:50

They don't need 60+% of the Senate to override a veto of a Congressional order to leave Iraq!

The Senate needs 41 determined senators, who will NOT end a filibuster which blocks ANY appropriation to the Pentagon, not just war appropriations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is: no more money to the Pentagon, period!

Suffice it to say that the Pentagon cannot account for funds far in excess of $1 trillion, so they must be laying around somewhere there. If the Pentagon cares for and supports our troops, it'll mobilize these idle, unaccounted for funds to get them home.

It's high time to reframe the issue and take it away from the administration. 'Do you support our troops?' is a bullshit question, as Noam Chomsky points out! The real question is: 'Does America support this administration's foreign policy?'

Hell, No!

Report this comment

When is a filibuster not a filibuster?Oct 23rd, 2007 - 01:15:05

RE: The Senate needs 41 determined senators, who will NOT end a filibuster which blocks ANY appropriation to the Pentagon, not just war appropriations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is: no more money to the Pentagon, period!
=====================================

While I fully agree with the sentiment, all it takes is one Senator sending in a note to say that they'll object; and it becomes a 'filibuster'. That's what the GOP has done all year long. The Dem's hold a majority, and the majority that allows legislation to the floor generally does not 'filibuster'. Bush can ask for the bill, and the GOP side can propose and sponsor it, but it has to get out of committee run by the Democrats.

The problem is with approaching primaries, Dem's in Congress have to have the guts to run ahead and say, as a group, that they're NOT supporting unlimited expenditures in Iraq without the Iraqi government standing up and doing their part, including the unmet becnhmarks. THAT's what the surge was about. They could, presumably, link war funding to the spending on SCHIPS, which has a lot of GOP support. Some states have a very large military population, and defense contractors looking for that money, and those are voters.

Nothing comes up for a vote until there's some good assurance of passage. Senator Warner of Virginia threw a wrench into Webb's plan last time by changing his mind, but he's not running again.

content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=132869&ran=75407

***********

crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=266710&

'Sponsor/Co-sponsor/Original Co-sponsor: The Member or Members who create a bill are the bill’s sponsors. Prior to the bill being introduced, members who agree to sign onto the bill are called original co-sponsors. Once a bill has been introduced, but before it is voted on and passed, Members who agree to sign on to a bill are called co-sponsors.'

'Referred to Committee: Once a bill has been introduced, it is referred to the committee that has jurisdiction over all or part of the subject matter in that bill. The committee decides whether or not a bill will ever reach the floor of the Senate for a vote and the chance of passage into law. If the committee does not pass the bill or otherwise discharge it, the bill dies in committee.'

Report this comment

Bill to sit in committee until 2008Oct 23rd, 2007 - 01:30:02

(The Democrats would prefer that it be a campaign issue, so they can slam the GOP for the increasing costs of a war that shows no signs of ending. If Petraeus manages to have some actual success by then, it should help the bill's passage - that's assuming Turkey does not invade and create a bigger mess, or a thousand other things don't go wrong. The Dem's did a poor job of asking Petraeus the right questions in September, and forcing the issues of Iraqi displaced persons and other infrastructure problems, as well as the political issues in Iraq - rather than letting Petraeus push the military side.)

(To make it more ironic, Bush is funding the war in the wrong fiscal year - this funding should have been asked for in early 2007 for Fiscal 2008 within the budget; NOT as a continuing series of supplementals. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded separately from the Pentagon's base defense budget. The administration's 2008 budget request for 481.4 billion dollars is still pending.)

today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=200 7-10-22T225646Z_01_N22151718_RTRIDST_0_IRAQ-USA-SPENDING-UPDATE-2.XML

Bush's request covers military operations for fiscal 2008, which began on Oct. 1, the White House said. If approved it would make 2008 the most expensive year in the Iraq and Afghan wars and would be on top of about $600 billion already approved for those conflicts.

House of Representatives appropriators said earlier this month they would not even consider the new war funding request until early 2008, and that they wanted to link it to a plan to bring U.S. combat troops home.

But they left open the possibility of paying for the war through an interim measure called a 'bridge fund.'

Report this comment

You were wrong, defeatist.Jul 31st, 2008 - 06:57:49

It's fun to go through some of PB's old posts and see how wrong he was.

Report this comment