Bush's surge already in latest budget

Washington Times ^ | 1/13/07 | By Stephen Dinan

[JohnHuang2]

The White House yesterday said there already is enough money in the budget to pay for President Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq, leaving Congress almost no viable way to stop him before he commits the troops.

Some members of Congress had proposed using the power of the purse to cut off funds for the new troops, but White House press secretary Tony Snow said there's already enough money in the pipeline to begin the deployment of more than 17,000 soldiers to Baghdad to quell Sunni-Shi'ite violence and another 4,000 Marines to Anbar province to go after al Qaeda fighters.

"Funding for the forces and to dispatch them to the region, it's already in the budget. So we're going to proceed with those plans," Mr. Snow said.

That leaves Congress with few other options.

One possibility, proposed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, would rescind Congress' 2002 blanket grant of authority to use force in Iraq, and would require Mr. Bush to gain congressional approval before boosting forces.

Yesterday, Mr. Kennedy asked the administration to hold off on deploying the troops to give Congress more time to consider the issue.

[SolidWood]

If Ted Kennedy and Nazi Pelosi would have hearts, they'd eat it out now.

[vox humana]

Nancy is deeply disappointed.

[wodinoneeye]

Can somebody make up a bumpersticker saying

"We Surrender, Come and Kill Us"

and mail it to all the politicos in Washington who have voted to cut off the money for the troops ?????

[mathluv]

'Yesterday, Mr. Kennedy asked the administration to hold off on deploying the troops to give Congress more time to consider the issue.'

In other words, wait til we can find a reason to stop you from trying to protect us.

[ScaniaBoy]

Mr. Gates said if the plan succeeds, it will rebuild the public's confidence. "I remember that when [the] first President Bush made the decision to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, the polls showed about 15 percent of the American people supported that action," he said. "After it was successful, about 90 percent supported it."

Hammer, nail, head, hit!

[velund]

Teddy Roosevelt sent the "Great White Fleet" around the world as a display of U.S. Naval power. Some in the Senate tried to stop him but he already had the money and told them "try and get it back".

[silverleaf]

Sending reinforcements to the two areas of Iraq that are producing 80% of the violence.....

Hmm, I have yet to see the democrat alternative and the logic behind it.

If they would add a special tax check off for those who wish to pay a surcharge to fund the Bush plan we could probably pay for it without the swimmer's help.

[flynmudd]

Where do I send my check?

[Bigh4u2]

Just keep in mind, that, in order for this to work..

They need to through out all the REPORTERS first.

Besides. It's not like they couldn't make up a story about it anyway. They do that as it is.

[Bigh4u2]

throw <> through

[avacado]

"The White House yesterday said there already is enough money in the budget to pay for President Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq, leaving Congress almost no viable way to stop him before he commits the troops."

LOL!!! Ya gotta get up pretty early in the morning to out smart GWB! Teddy-boy, go have another drink -- you fat asshat!

[Condor51]

TYPO:

Yesterday, Mr. Kennedy asked the administration to hold off on deploying the troops to give Congress him more time to consider the issue find some liquor.

There, fixed it.

[mustang buff]

I don't understand why many on this forum support this surge of troops. General Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan, who co-authored this surge wanted at least 30,000 to 50,000 troops instead of the 21,500 to be there 18 months or so. Defence secretary Robert Gates, told congressmen that the troop build-up was expected to last "a matter of months" - rather than the 18 months proposed by Gen Keane. Also to put confidence in Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (a Shiite) to crack down on the Shiite militias, is a mistake. He has not delivered in the past and is constrained by the same people he represents. For instance Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army or militia represent 30 seats in the Iraqi 275 seat parliament. I can't see how this plan will succeed.

[dufekin]

Given the small size of the US Army and the severe political constraints in the Washington theater of war, 21,500 extra troops for nine months may be the biggest surge we can afford to mount. Defense appropriations will present a very nasty challenge to the Bush Administration, and the financial burden of the terror war may pass from the taxpayers to the troops and their families. Bush also must avoid impeachment; a Nancy Pelosi administration will not hesitate to surrender. Maliki faces onerous political constraints of his own. The Bush plan represents our last best hope to achieve stasis in the proxy war against Iran, Syria, and others while we await some event to trigger a political opening that might permit brief action toward victory.