House poised to give Pentagon $45 billion more for war effort

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Didn't they just give the Pentagon $82 billion a few weeks ago? Does anyone care that Iraq will likely cost the U.S. taxpayer well over $350 billion dollars before the end of the next fiscal year?

How can you people keep defending this insanity? When will you WTFU?

Nevermind. Stay asleep. It's probably too late already.

House poised to give Pentagon $45 billion more for war effort

06/17/05
The Associated Press
Respond to this story
Email this story to a friend

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The House is expected to give the Pentagon an additional $45 billion for wars next year even as public support for combat in Iraq wanes and lawmakers press for an exit strategy.

While President Bush has not yet asked for more war funds, lawmakers included money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill the House debated Thursday. A vote had been expected late Thursday but was postponed until Monday because of other business.

With no end in sight in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional war costs are certain and House lawmakers are reluctant to wait for the president?s request. The Senate also is considering adding billions for the wars in its version of the spending bill. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has given the president $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide. That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May; much of this money was for Iraq.

In the month since, polls have shown that the public increasingly is dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq war. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that only 41 percent of adults ? a low-water mark ? said they supported Bush?s handling of the war. A Gallup poll reported that six in 10 Americans want the United States to withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

Responding to the growing criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Americans to ??reach down?? into themselves and ??look for the kind of patience and generosity that we have exhibited in the past.?? ??Now, I do think that we owe to the American people to say again and again that this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term. This is going to be an Iraqi enterprise,?? she said.

Military officials said they hoped to reverse the downward trend in public support. ??It is concerning that our public is not as supportive as perhaps they once were,?? said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ??It?s extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their country?s behind them,?? Conway said.

Discontent about the war is evident among lawmakers. On Thursday, a small group of House members from each party introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by year?s end a plan for bringing home troops from Iraq and take steps to follow through. Withdrawal would have to start by Oct. 1, 2006, according to the measure. ??After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion,?? said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

Introduced the same day attacks west of Baghdad killed six U.S. troops, the joint resolution is the first such proposal offered by both Democrats and Republicans. In 2002, most Democrats and six House Republicans voted against sending troops to Iraq. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a resolution this week that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops.

The White House argued that a timetable cannot be considered until Iraq?s army is strong enough. The administration also has said any withdrawal plan would encourage insurgents to wait for foreign troops to leave Iraq.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
WTFU people. You're being robbed -- again.

On Bush's off budget accounting of his unprovoked invasion, I offer this...

Off-budget accounting for Iraq

By refusing to estimate the costs for the war in Iraq, Bush makes his budget deficits look much smaller than they actually are.

The Roanoke Times

With two full years of experience waging war in Iraq, President George W. Bush should have some idea of how much it will cost to continue the fight next year.

But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.

Instead, Bush insisted it would be impossible to know how much would be needed, so instead of including anything in the regular budget, he plans to continue the tradition of coming to Congress for emergency supplemental appropriations when war funds get low.

Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month.

Shortly after he submitted his 2006 budget, Bush went to Congress to ask for $82 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (most of which was for Iraq).

So far, Bush has asked for, and received, about $350 billion for combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in a federal budget measured in the trillions of dollars, that's a substantial amount to keep off the budget.

Congress is showing increasing signs of impatience with such irresponsible bookkeeping. After Bush submitted his 2006 budget, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.V., persuaded his colleagues to pass a resolution calling for the war funding to be included in the regular budget.

"The president will not tell the American people what the war in Iraq will cost," Byrd said. "By understating the deficits, the American people are being led down a primrose path. That is dishonesty."

The U.S. House appears ready to include $45 billion to fund the wars in its regular spending bills for next year. The Senate is likely to do the same, even without a request from the Pentagon.

If Bush won't honestly budget for the cost of these wars, Congress is right to do it for him.

The war in Iraq has a real cost, and a real impact on the federal deficit. Budgeting for that cost should not be an impossible task.

In fact, it's the least the nation should expect from the president who got us into this mess to begin with.

Far more than the $30 billion that lying scum Wolfowitz said it would take to finance Bush's illegal invasion.

And there will be many more appropriations to pay for Bush's lies to come.

Enjoy, suckers.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Fiscal "Conservatives" running the show? Anyone? Anyone?

?

:roll:

Ah hell, I forgot CaptNKirk's post....give me another tax break...all will then be well.

:roll:
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,961
278
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Fiscal "Conservatives" running the show? Anyone? Anyone?

?

:roll:

Ah hell, I forgot CaptNKirk's post....give me another tax break...all will then be well.

:roll:

Kirk's post does deserve a sticky. P&N at its best!