October 22, 2007
Bush Pressures Congress To OK $196B War Budget
Seeking to head off a fight that hasn't yet begun, President Bush warned Democratic lawmakers not to resist new emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as he tacked on $46 billion to the $150.5 billion the White House had already requested for the new fiscal year.
Recalling recent reports on progress in Iraq, Bush said that the extra funding was "crucial to maintaining this policy of success." General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared on Capitol Hill in September to tell lawmakers that the "surge" strategy was making headway in Iraq, and that as a result troops could be safely drawn down back to pre-surge levels.
The White House and members of Congress critical of the Iraq war have tangoed over war funding before. In May, Bush vetoed an emergency war supplemental that included a timeline for progress in Iraq.
"I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate their opposition. I recognize their position and they should make their views heard, but they ought to make sure the troops have what they need to succeed," Bush said, delivering an implied warning that anything less than expeditious passage of the funding request would be seen as impeding the work of the armed forces.
"Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.," the president said from the Roosevelt Room. Passing the funding request "is a chance for them to show it, that they support their troops."
The funding package is the most expensive to date, and includes provisions for programs that congressional Republicans might join Democrats in opposing. For instance, about $500 million will go toward anti-drug trafficking operations in Mexico and some other Central American nations.
Nearly $725 million will be set aside for U.N. peacekeeping efforts in Sudan. The bill also includes $106 million in energy assistance for North Korea.
The funding request comes less than a week after Bush vetoed a renewal and expansion of a state-federal health insurance program for poor children. The president argues that the bill presented to him was too expensive. Democrats countered that funds for such domestic programs were being diverted to Iraq, which has produced few successes for the large amounts of money being poured in there.
"Members of Congress should consider the supplemental promptly. They should keep it focused on true necessities, not pet projects," Bush continued, flanked by war veterans and families of those who've served in Iraq. "Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need."
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has said he will not take up the bill until next year. He and other anti-war Democrats have vowed to attach withdrawal language to the supplemental, a move surely to be squashed by a presidential veto.
It's not clear whether most Democrats will want to relive the ugliness -- and eventual defeat -- of last spring's battle over emergency war funds. The Petraeus and Crocker reports may have sapped some of the momentum to attach strings to war funding, particularly with brigades rotating back home as the surge winds down. There's nothing to indicate Democrats could attract enough Republican converts to withstand a veto this time around.
Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said he would deliver a report on whether troops could continue to pull out past the 130,000 mark next March. In the weeks and months preceding, debate over the direction of the war will undoubtedly flare up again. Adding pressure will be the 2008 presidential election and lawmakers' own re-election battles in a field almost grossly unfavorable to Republicans.
See AP's report for more details on how the supplemental would be divvied up.
Posted at 3:28 PM
Posted to:
Afghanistan, Asia, Bush Administration, Congress, David Petraeus, House, Iraq, Middle East, Military, President Bush
Share via
