• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats and Iraq Funding

Mike

Well-known member
Pelosi to take funding of Iraq to new heights. She will be taking an Appropriations Bill of $178 Billion straight to House floor.

THATS $70 BILLION MORE THAN BUSH IS ASKING FOR!!!!!!

I have wondered all along why the Democrats have not stopped the funding for Iraq and then turn around and chastise BUSH for all the spending?

Democrats are as screwed up as a soup sandwich. :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Because the little piece of cow flop's budget request only funds the war until he walks out of the White House. Then the new president and Congress will have to come up with more money to get our troops home or even keep them there. And people like you walk along behind him, scooping up the manure.

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

In confirming the decision, the White House refused to say precisely how much bridge funding will be requested for Iraq and Afghanistan in the new budget. But Republican and Democratic staffers in Congress predicted it would be between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years.

In preparing lawmakers for the new budget, administration officials have argued that the next president should rightfully make these funding decisions, and much still depends on the recommendations of the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, whose March report to Congress will influence the pace of future U.S. troop withdrawals.

“A budget is a reflection of military strategy, and we don’t want to prejudge the recommendations of commanders,” a White House budget official said in explaining the decision. But the end result is also that the new budget will understate the long-term costs of the war at a time when the government faces growing deficit problems, given the troubled economy.

New estimates by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday show a worsening situation, with the deficit jumping to at least $250 billion this year and possibly $350 billion once the full costs of the economic stimulus legislation are factored into the equation. The CBO forecast reflects a weaker economy and lower corporate profits but could very well prove optimistic since it was prepared before the recent spike in unemployment and downturn in world markets.

Apart from the deficit impact, the new budget’s approach to war funding could rankle both hawks and doves in the Iraq debate going into the November elections.

In the presidential race, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican contender, has made Iraq policy a centerpiece in his campaign. But by failing to spell out a full-year funding request, the administration will be effectively leaving office without ensuring the money is in place to sustain that U.S. commitment.

There's more at the link, but this explains why Dems are asking for more thana Bush:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8080.html[/quote]
 

TSR

Well-known member
fff said:
Because the little piece of cow flop's budget request only funds the war until he walks out of the White House. Then the new president and Congress will have to come up with more money to get our troops home or even keep them there. And people like you walk along behind him, scooping up the manure.

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

In confirming the decision, the White House refused to say precisely how much bridge funding will be requested for Iraq and Afghanistan in the new budget. But Republican and Democratic staffers in Congress predicted it would be between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years.

In preparing lawmakers for the new budget, administration officials have argued that the next president should rightfully make these funding decisions, and much still depends on the recommendations of the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, whose March report to Congress will influence the pace of future U.S. troop withdrawals.

“A budget is a reflection of military strategy, and we don’t want to prejudge the recommendations of commanders,” a White House budget official said in explaining the decision. But the end result is also that the new budget will understate the long-term costs of the war at a time when the government faces growing deficit problems, given the troubled economy.

New estimates by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday show a worsening situation, with the deficit jumping to at least $250 billion this year and possibly $350 billion once the full costs of the economic stimulus legislation are factored into the equation. The CBO forecast reflects a weaker economy and lower corporate profits but could very well prove optimistic since it was prepared before the recent spike in unemployment and downturn in world markets.

Apart from the deficit impact, the new budget’s approach to war funding could rankle both hawks and doves in the Iraq debate going into the November elections.

In the presidential race, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican contender, has made Iraq policy a centerpiece in his campaign. But by failing to spell out a full-year funding request, the administration will be effectively leaving office without ensuring the money is in place to sustain that U.S. commitment.

There's more at the link, but this explains why Dems are asking for more thana Bush:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8080.html
[/quote]

Bush must have inadvertently forgotten about one of his long term political aspirations :shock:
 

Latest posts

Top