Salon: "Stopping the Surge" -- new Iraq funding request this month?!

[pnwmom]

According to this article, Bush is expected to request more money for Iraq in January. We should get ready to make our voices heard SOON.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/04/iraq_plans/


SNIP

"Though Democrats now control both the House and the Senate, the president is the commander in chief. The only way they might be able to stop Bush from pursing a "surge" would be to cut his purse strings. In the wake of the Democratic election victory, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not seek to cut off funding: "As long as our troops are in harm's way," she said, "Democrats will be there to support them." But as signals mount that the president is digging in his heels, sources on the Hill tell Salon that "defunding" may be back on the table. A number of New England Democrats, including Vermont's Patrick Leahy, are said to be taking a new look at the money. In 2005, only 19 members of Congress backed a measure to cut all funds for military action in Iraq other than withdrawal. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who co-sponsored the bill, thinks the number would be larger than 19 today. "If it becomes clear the president is determined to send more troops there, I believe that will give us more support for this effort." Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, a member of the Appropriations Committee, has argued that the only leverage Democrats have is "holding up the money" in a way that does not endanger troops. In a column for a Virginia paper last month, Moran wrote, ", the President will request an additional $160 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will provide the new Democratically-controlled Congress with an opportunity to gain some control over the funding and direction for the war in Iraq." He made the same point on Tuesday to Tucker Carlson during an appearance on MSNBC. Backers: Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, Charles Rangel. Odds: A long shot, but shortening."

SNIP

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. He ain't gettin' his damn surge.

This is gonna be interesting...

[valerief]

2. Stop the escalagents.

The surge is to stop insurgents. But it's not really a surge. It's an escalation. So should we be saying that Bush wants an escalation to stop the escalators? No, he's the escalator. To stop the escalagents, then?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Surge, and accelerate the escalurgents.

It's the only way.

[stansnark]

4. does not endanger troops ? wtf ?

leaving the troops IN iraq is what endangers them

[teryang]

5. They need to limit the funding for Iraq 10 billion to get out....

They need to reverse course in Iraq very quickly, the only way
...is by killing appropriations. The so called allied Arab states are going to have to fund and support whatever resolution takes place in Iraq. You want to arm the Shia government, fine you can have money for that. Funds to remove US troops, fine. Funds to maintain and protect American troops while they are waiting for the next boat or plane out, fine. Funds to arm Sunnis and Kurds, fine. Nothing more. No more 100 Billion a year supplementals. You'll have to get by on 10 Billion a year for Iraq, that's it, from today on.

Frankly, traditional unethical covert support for factions and fighting in Iraq is all we need to allow the parties there to resolve their dispute on their own. We don't need 170,000 people to do that. It could be managed by a few thousands working from across the border. This is the traditional way it's been done for decades. The heavy handed approach is misguided leadership to line the pockets and advance the careers of various special interests in Washington whose day is over.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Will it be a blue surge?

I swear that's all I can think of when people use that word to describe what Bush wants to do. It seems so nonsensical a word in this context, which is probably why they picked it. It sounds nothing like what will actually happen.