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

[IndyOp]

Congress passed the Military Spending Budget for 2007 last September - this is the money Kucinich says is "in the pipeline" that could be used to withdraw troops from 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


What do you think?

[leveymg]

1. A resolution spelling out the exact purpose of any supplemental

authorization should do it.

Language can be drafted for a Bill to the effect of the following: "No funds shall be committed for any increase in troop levels inside Iraq, these funds being allocated to pay for a phased reployment outside of Iraq. Further, it is resolved that this package shall be authorized in monthly installments requiring additoinal authorization as redeployment proceeds contingent upon progress toward completion of force redeployment by June, 2008."

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Why would that work?

Bush will just use the funds however he deems fit. If you give him 130B he will keep the war going another 130B's worth of time. The only way for congress to end the war is to stop paying the bills.

[leveymg]

5. Exactly - no more supplementals

If Bush wants to veto a carefully crafted DoD budget that explicitly forbids use of monies for expansion of Iraq war operations, then let him veto it.

A veto will effectively end all operations in Iraq at the end of the current Fiscal Year (09/30/2007).

[beachmom]

3. It would have to be tied to the Defense bill to work

Barney Frank said that if they passed a special law, the president would veto it. This is really tough, and I'm sure Dems are considering their options right now.

[IndyOp]

4. If the Dems refuse to pass a law to fund escalation - then he doesn't get the $$

he needs to escalate - right? They don't have to pass a special law - they just have to refuse to pass the supplemental budget that would fund his escalation. So his veto would not play a role is this scenario.

And the Dems must make it very, very clear that the money for escalation will NOT be forthcoming so that maybe, just maybe he will stop the escalation he could accomplish before the supplemental is needed.

:(

[Cass]

6. OT but this reminded me of the whopper we were told about how the war would pay for itself.

Remember that little gem? What a bunch of bull that was.