Feb. 5th budget request -- $100 million more for Iraq

[pnwmom]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16514679/

WASHINGTON - Democrats now running Congress will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday, suggesting they could deny him the money should he call for additional troops.

SNIP

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorism-fighting efforts. The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds — a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush’s Feb. 5 budget.

SNIP

Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a “tragic mistake.” But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush’s military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.

“As a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop,”’ Biden said, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in persuading Bush that the strategy is wrong. “You can’t go in and, like a Tinkertoy, and play around and say, ‘You can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece.”’

SNIP

[IndyOp]

1. Center for American Progress - Dems CAN cut funding for Iraq!

According to Center for American Progress (CAP) * will be submitting a supplemental spending bill for at least $100 Billion to fund the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan through the end of FY 2007 (Kucinich says it will ask for at least $130 B).

Kucinich is arguing that Congress must not pass any more bills that will provide more funding for Bush (and I agree!). Many politicos - and some DU'ers - are resisting this idea because they believe that Dems will be seen as not supporting the troops or weak on defense.

Another possibility is suggested by CAP that would allow Congress to write and vote down a "New Iraq War Resolution" in order to refuse funding for escalation: "Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number. In addition, it can place limits on the mobilization of Guard and Reserve forces, and vote on key aspects of U.S. funding, including U.S. taxpayer money that is going to provide weapons and training to Iraqi security forces. At minimum, Congress should increase its oversight and demand a full-blown, detailed plan from the Bush administration on how it is preparing to stabilize Iraq and address the growing problems in the Middle East."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/iraq_memo.html

[pnwmom]

7. Can we write a bill that's signing-statement proof?

Because otherwise it seems that Bush will ignore anything we try to do.

[IndyOp]

11. If Congress does not write a bill to fund his escalation -- then there

is nothing to attach a signing statement to I would think. If they write a law saying that they will allow $xx.xx for the troops already on the ground and then no more - it is up to him how to spend it escalation for 2 months (for example) or current troop levels for 6 months (for example). Congress has to shut off the money supply.

[PSPS]

2. As usual, Biden is wrong

"You can't go in and, like a Tinkertoy, and play around and say, 'You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece."'

Of course you can, Joe. That's called the power of the purse, and Congress has absolute and full control over how treasury money is spent. Even "black box" items require specific funding by Congress. Whether they decide to exercise that control is another matter.

Biden is spineless and an easy roll for rove & bush. No wonder he thinks he can be president. Since he's up for reelection next cycle (2008), maybe we should give him a permanent vacation from politics.

[kentuck]

3. That would be $100 billion?

with a "b".?

[pnwmom]

8. Yikes! You're right! That's $100 BILLION.

Thanks for catching that.

[jimshoes]

4. At what point do we say

no more? This cannot continue, there are other priorities and more pressing needs elsewhere. Iraq is lost (to the US at least) forever. You cannot fix it with more blood or money. Our country is suffering from poor decisions and it must stop.

[whistle]

5. A surge of 30,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq would require $100 billion

...minimum, $100 million is the Bush/Cheney petty cash

[pnwmom]

9. The article was correct, my number was a typo.

[whistle]

13. Also, I apologize for playing into the KKKarl Rovian word-smith trap

....I promise not to use surge again....it is troop escalation!

[melnjones]

6. That's my birthday. nt.

[pnwmom]

10. Then you know what to ask them for your birthday, right?

They should spend the money here, instead.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. Biden is wrong

Is Joe Biden a lawyer or not? He should know better.

This is basic Constitutional stuff. Congress ONLY has the power to declare war. Congress did NOT declare war in Iraq OR Vietnam.

Congress also holds the purse strings. This is a major increase in troop strength, and if Congress passes it, they are doing it illegally under the War Powers Act. Murtha and Kucinich have said that the only way to stop this war is to stop funding it. That's the way they stopped the Vietnam war.

I sure hope the Ways and Means Committee is up to doing its job!!!