Bush, escalation, and a lesson on the power of the purse

January 4, 2007

Though it didn’t generate much attention, the Center for American Progress released a very interesting report last week recommending “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.”

It’s good advice. Bush has come to think of Congress as little more than an ATM machine when it comes to the war in Iraq — say very little, don’t ask any questions, and hand over the cash. The CAP recommendation, therefore, would serve multiple valuable functions, not the least of which would be demanding some accountability from the White House.

It looks like someone may have passed along the CAP idea to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who brought up a similar approach during an interview with Arianna Huffington.

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.” He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible” look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.” […]

He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”

Bush’s escalation plan appears to be a done deal, at least as far as the administration is concerned. Whether Congress, which has to pay for the president’s decisions, goes along, remains to be seen.

Good. Bush’s attempts at hiding the war money should now become very very public. I think Congress should make the same kinds of assumptions that Bush has made. Assume it’s in your power and go ahead.

  • I’d just settle for making BG2 pay for it with taxes on his rich buddies. That would stop it dead.

  • I wonder if the 150K cap would explain why The Surge is now “a bump.” Would it surprise anyone that Shrub would send in just enough troops to make more targets (because he Deciderated more troops are the answer) but not enough to open up that awkward can of worms about what he did with the other 100 gazillion dollars this jaunt has cost?

    Mission: FUBARED. The Sequel!

  • I’d just settle for making BG2 pay for it with taxes on his rich buddies. That would stop it dead.

    Absolutely correct.

  • Out of all the ideas I’ve heard and not heard, this makes the most sense on how to handle Iraq:

    “I’d just settle for making BG2 pay for it with taxes on his rich buddies. That would stop it dead.”

    Go after the war profiteers. raise taxes. Show a non-human toll to war, and all of a sudden, republicans would be the cut and runners.

    Maybe congress can stymie the financial interests of war and bring about change in our foreign policy.

  • Ummmm… the only problem with this is that it will backfire, majorly. Remember that $87 Billion supplemental back in ’03? (The one which got Kerry the ‘for it before he was against it’ line). Even though there were plenty of items in that supplemental to bitch about, the message which came out was ‘if you are voting against this, you are voting against the troops’.

    Yes, there should be some complaints (like, for example, how did funding for two F35 Strike Fighters- which aren’t even in production yet- get into a war-fighting supplemental?), but chopping things out has to be done very carefully to avoid that ‘not supporting the troops’ line.

  • Congress should make hay of the fact that this war, that even Bush admits will go on for as long as he’s in power, is off the balance sheets and is not part of any federal budget. Bush cannot be viewed as being supportive of our troops if a war in its fourth year is being paid for by asking for “oh, by the way” supplemental appropriations of funding.

  • I read the CAP report yesterday, but thought it was inadequate. Larry Korb is usually great, but this report is woefully unenforceable. (Sort of like the law that mandated Bush should appoint a North Korea policy lead by Dec 19th)

    I think the Murtha plan of ‘fencing the funds’ is similar but slightly different, in that it’s not an unenforceable amendment to the full appropriation, but focused on what $ amount is appropriated in the first place.

    I support the Kucinich plan – don’t pass the new bill at all, use funds in the pipeline to bring the troops home.

  • Castor – the ‘not supporting the troops’ line will happen anyway. The only answer is to argue loudly on every MSM opportunity against that flawed logic. Kerry was not able to do that.

  • Cut the funds off cold and bring the troops home NOW.

    ALSO tax the hell out of Bush’s buddies. And bring the CEO-to-average salary ratio back to what it was in the 1950s. Our economy was booming in 1950s (when a single salary could cover a home, new car, college and paid vacation) and people like the Bushes were taxed at 90% of all their income. Worked for Eisenhower … what makes the Shrub so special?

  • Another way for Congress to BYPASS Bush – Revisit the “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” passed by Congress in October 2002

  • I like that last one, also, Ohioan. When push comes to shove the war is illegal and based on lies, rendering the October 2002 motion void.

  • It goes nearly without saying that such a move would later be billed as “why we lost the war that we would otherwise have certainly won”, but it seems nothing else will stop Bush, who is still “governing” as if the majority were behind him. Maybe that’s what he thinks.

  • John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he’s helped throw a lot of people into it with:

    – his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,

    – his support for illegal aliens,

    – his vote for MFN-China

    but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?

    well, he voted for them too!

    About the only thing you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator

    You’ve got to ask yourself – ‘what did he do, with the power he had, when he had it?

  • Did you see John Edwards mentioned anywhere in the above topic? I must have missed it. You are beginning to sound like a spammer who knows what colour an orange is. The question is going to have to be harder, I guess.

    • Comments are closed.