Bush heads back to his ATM machine

October 22, 2007

At a press conference in July, the president said Congress has one, and only one, role to play in shaping war policy: handing over big bags of money, with no questions asked and no strings attached. “Let me make sure you understand what I’m saying,” Bush said. “Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That’s their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops.”

With that in mind, the president is demanding that his ATM pony up once again.

President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. “We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done,” Bush said.

The figure brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.

To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month.

The original funding request was for $141.7 billion. In July, Bush asked for $5.3 billion more. Today, it’s $46 billion more.

Of course, the pre-emptive demagoguery came before lawmakers could even raise an objection.

Bush made his request in the Roosevelt Room after meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of veterans service organizations, a fallen Marine’s family and military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. […]

Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.

“I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition,” Bush said. “I recognize their position and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.” […]

“We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done,” Bush said. “Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not, and that is America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people.”

Who would have guessed? Bush — who already vetoed funding for the troops once — insists that he get exactly what he wants, without exception, or his Democratic critics don’t really support the troops. Why, that just so happens to be the exact same argument we’ve heard every time the White House has demanded that the ATM on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue pay up again.

And, of course, it’s going to work, because it always does.

While I’m not surprised by this news, it fills me with such dread and nausea…that he has the cojones to demand it, and that the Dems in Congress are so neutered that they’ll give it to him.
Over the objections of everyone who embraces reality.
Over the objections of most folks who knows soldiers in this war.
Over the objections of MOST SOLDIERS in this war.

Bush will use fear and rhetoric, the only tools he has, the only tools he needs, to cow this Congress into giving in to his whims.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he only asked for this money TO PROVE Congress would give it to him, that’s how cocky he is, and that’s how pussified Congress is.

God I wish I were wrong. I would LOVE to be wrong. For all of us thinking the exact same thing to be wrong.

But I’m not. We’re not. None of us are wrong.

Congress is scared blankless that the day they deny funding is the day thousands of troops will die under some momentous blitzkrieg. It won’t be their fault – the soldiers shouldn’t be there – but the shrill on the right will say the Dems emboldened the enemy, and the soldiers died knowing the left had forsaken them. And they won’t know how to combat them.

Just like they’re scared blankless to REALLY lay into Bush on never finding Obama, lest that be the day he’s pushed out of his hole.

The Democratic party in inaction.

  • $35 billion, in the budget, for several years of children’s health care?

    NO!!

    $46 billion, all done outside the budget, for several months in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    YES!!

    That, ladies and gentlemen, is the “culture of life” and “compassionate conservatism” that defines the current day GOP.

    And, naturally, the Dems will probably cave and give Bush what he wants because they’re afraid of being labeled “weak.”

    **sigh**

  • I can’t understand how the Republicans have been so successful in framing the debate about the war as one of funding the troops, or not, as if we were hosting a big birthday party, and the nasty old Dems were trying to take away the party favors from the soldiers.

    This is about funding a mindless, horrible war, for chris sakes. It is not about being nice to the troops by lavishing them with hundreds of billions of dollars. Do the American people really believe this crap? And if so, why haven’t the Democrats struck back, instead of cowering?

    I don’t get it.

  • And to think that only a few threads ago we were discussing how to save Social Security from insolvency.

  • Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.

    And the thuggishness becomes a bit more blatant:

    “If you ever want to see your army alive again…”

    Let him use the Tuff Guy talk to demand a refund from contractors like Blackwater and Parsons.

  • Thanks, Harry and Nancy, for sucking so bad that a guy with 24% approval numbers gets to frame the debate.

    Thanks. A. Lot.

  • Dims! Grow a fucking pair.

    So, RWers how does this make you guys the fiscal responsibility party, again?

  • Fully-funded redeployment is the only thing they should give him money for – that would mean the troops would not be left stranded in the region with no way home.

    But even as I type that, I hear the sound of hundreds of Democrats folding like the lawn chairs they are. Actually, a lawn chair might be more useful.


  • “I know some in Congress are against the war … But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. ”
    “We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done,”

    What if your opposition is largely based on your concern that the troops can’t succeed in “getting the job done”? Whatever that job is. (It makes it hard to guess if success is plausible when the goal isn’t defined.)

    There I go again, asking for “benchmarks”.

    Oh wait, we did that. 15 out of 18 failed, but success is still plausible?

    Under what hypothetical conditions, Mr. Bush, would you admit the mission cannot succeed?
    Under these circumstances, if the mission could not succeed, would you call for withdrawal or is Valhalla your blueprint?

    Just curious, do you think Bush considers Emperor Hirohito a defeatist pansy?


    “I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. …

    I was told by those advocating a continuation of hostilities that by June new divisions would be in place in fortified positions [east of Tokyo] ready for the invader when he sought to land. It is now August and the fortifications still have not been completed. …

    There are those who say the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. … [He then made some specific reference to the atomic bomb]

    It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable. … ”

  • And now for today’s Blast from the Past:

    –Late 2002–

    Bush’s chief economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay adlibs a cost projection of a hypothetical Iraq war. His figure comes in at between $100 billion and $200 billion. He is then fired for straying from the talking points.

    Meanwhile, Bush’s budget guru Mitch Daniels poo poos Lindsay’s estimate and suggests a more realistic figure of $50-60 billion. But that’s only if we actually go to war and the president hasn’t actually decided to go to war yet (no, seriously).

    Ah, good times.

  • It’s time. It’s time for Congress to help the working parents who can’t afford health care for their kids yet don’t qualify for help because of the pathetically outdated definition of the federal poverty level. It’s time for Congress to stop talking and really help the veterans and their families who are struggling to return to a normal life. It’s time for the all elected representatives to make good on election promises and represent the people, not the special interests. It’s time for the Democrats to stop cowering to a White House that has the lowest approval ratings most people can remember. It’s time for the Republicans to take back their party from the evil evangelicals who believe they are moral just because they purport to act in the name of their god. It’s time to stop our country from bleeding money, respect, legitimacy and blood for ill-defined, unattainable purposes.

    Unfortunately, the voters can’t speak again until the elections. Those elected to lead the people need to stand up and represent the people. It’s time for our leaders to act now because I fear November 2008 will be too late.

  • Sorry I voted for Bush – it’s hard to tell time when one is not wearing a watch, and sadly, too many of those in the Congress haven’t got a clue.

  • Congress has “already provided” $455 billion for the Iraq war. The UN estimates Iraq’s population at about 29 million (Does that include the 2 million that have fled the country?). Dividing $455 billion by 29 million shows that we’ve spent about $15,690 for every man, woman, and child in Iraq. On the other hand, it’s all about the oil, right? Based on $112 billion barrels of Iraqi oil reserves, the cost of the war so far has been $4 per barrel of oil reserves.

  • From someone who stands behind the President (literally): do you really think that in holding up this bill-and denying our military the equipment they need to finish the job, and (in a sense) getting more of them killed-that you’re “supporting” the troops?

  • From someone who stands behind the President (literally):

    Look, it’s the guy who works the strings!

  • D, normally I refrain from ad hominem attacks, but when I read your line about finishing the job and “(in a sense) getting more of them killed,” I was just overcome with an urge to call you a fucking moron. But hey, I’ve got self-control.

  • D, @16,

    Could you perhaps, tell us what that “job” they have to “finish” actually IS? Because the guy in front of you doesn’t seem to know (or won’t share the knowledge with us)?

  • If the Democrats do not have the guts to defund the war then I don’t have the guts to vote for them in the next election. I would rather skip the election entirely than to vote for spineless cowards.

  • D: What exactly is “the job” and how do you define “finish”? Be specific. Provide examples. Give us a clear description of what a finished job would look like and details of your plan for getting from here to there. Americans are pretty fair and reasonable people for the most part. If you can make a compelling case, a factually accurate and intellectually honest case for the course of action that you advocate, I would not completely rule out the possibility that you might win a few folks around to your way of thinking. Slogans alone probably won’t do it though.

  • CalD, you humble me. Now my post makes me sound so inarticulate. I just figured the vacuousness of D’s comments were so glaring that being utterly dismissive was an appropriate response. The contemptuousness was just an afterthought.

  • C’mon guys, be fair to Dillard. Next you’ll be asking him why the troops have been in Iraq since 2003 but still don’t have the equipment to get “the job” done. Or what equipment they need. Or how long it will take to get that equipment to them. Or what happened to the equipment (or whatever) Bush’s last ransom demand purchased.

    Frankly, I think he’s a spoof who did a little work beforehand (the blog). Too bad his maiden flight here consists of the weakest of talking points.

  • Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.

    Nice military you got there, america. It would be a shame if anything happened to it…

    From someone who stands behind the President (literally): do you really think that in holding up this bill-and denying our military the equipment they need to finish the job, and (in a sense) getting more of them killed-that you’re “supporting” the troops?

    From someone who wouldn’t stand behind the Flatulent One (literally) even on a bet: do you really think that in pushing this bill – and casting our military into a hell hole of a quagmire where the job will never get finished for decades (if at all), and (in actual fact) getting more of them killed for a greedy frat boy’s (largely Saudi) pals in the oil business – that you’re “supporting” the troops?

  • I’m sorry to mention this, but ‘ATM’ is sufficient as the ‘m’ stands for machine.

    I really enjoy this site, but it hurts me when people say ‘atm machine’ or ‘CD disk’.

  • Pingback: Ending the War: Time for the Dems to Play Hardball - CommonDreams.org

  • I agree that the Dems shouldn’t fold the way they do. HOWEVER, they HAVE proposed to withhold funds so the war would have to simmer down and troops brought home. Each time they suggested that, they were accused of not supporting our troops and were told their actions would be aiding in getting our troops killed. So, yes, they then folded under the pressure and gave up the money. Now they’re being scorned for that as well.

    In my opinion, we are no longer “helping” the Iraqi people. Seems to me that the only people we are helping are the “contractors” who are paid “cost plus” for services they didn’t even have the need to bid for. And then, a year before the Bush administration is out of office, they just HAPPEN to move their HQ to Dubai?

    It’s not about oil OR spreading democracy, ladies and gentlemen. There are war profiteers at work here.

    • Comments are closed.