War Funding Continues With Or Without Supplemental

Despite Supplemental Postponement, More Funds Poured Into War Coffers
By Maya Schenwar
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 October 2007

In the months leading up to the anticipated winter vote on the 2008 war supplemental spending bill, activists and progressive Congress members are pushing hard to cut off funding and begin an immediate troop withdrawal. However, despite the much-celebrated postponement of the supplemental vote and legislators' promises to stop unconditionally financing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, new funds continue to flow into the war budget every day.

Congress approved a continuing resolution (CR) at the end of September, which continues funding the war at status quo rates until mid-November, expending nearly $12 billion. Additionally, a share of the general 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, which passed both houses last week, may well be carved out for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a spokesman for John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. That sum, called a "bridge fund," has been included in Defense Appropriations bills for the past three years, and each year it has increased. The 2007 bridge fund supplied $70 billion to continue waging war in Iraq.

Democratic House leadership has kept quiet on the possibility of additional funding, instead emphasizing its conditions for Bush's 2008 supplemental spending request, which would put almost $200 billion toward the war. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey said in an October 2 statement that he would only bring the supplemental to the floor if it included provisions to end "U.S. involvement in combat operations" by January 2009. "I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo," Obey said.

However, the CR passed in September allows Congress to keep spending money on Iraq at the rate of fiscal year 2007, the most costly year of the war. Moreover, the language of Obey's statement - ending "combat operations" instead of withdrawing troops, refusing to consider a supplemental that perpetuates the status quo "in this session," as opposed to never considering one - leaves some policy analysts doubting his commitment.

"In January, when Congress's second session begins, Obey's commitment will be completely off the table," said Jeff Leys, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. "The Democrats can bluster all they want about not reporting out of committee a bill that doesn't have withdrawal provisions in it, but the reality is the Democrats aren't going to hold up war funding in an election year."

Obey's spokeswoman did not return calls for comment.

Passing a bridge fund - a smaller package than a supplemental - would allow Congress to revisit war spending after a few months, instead of a year, Murtha's spokesman noted. But Leys said this timing could be strategic: by funding the war in small increments, through CRs and bridge funds, and saving the supplemental vote for next year, Democrats in Congress are pushing critical votes on troop withdrawal language into the election season.

Murtha's spokesman stressed that a bridge fund would be included only out of necessity. "There comes a point in time when the bank runs dry," he said. "When it does, the people who will suffer are the troops in the field." However, according to House Appropriations Committee data originally reported in The Hill, the war could be funded through March 2008 by drawing solely from baseline defense funds.

House leaders may face opposition from the Senate Appropriations Committee if they introduce a bridge fund amendment in conference. "I am convinced that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home, and the only way to get them home may be to somehow restrict the funds for this disastrous war," said Robert Byrd, chairman of the committee, in a statement on supplemental funding in September. A spokesman for Byrd confirmed that the senator's position holds true for all war-related spending, saying there must be "strings attached to any funding for this war."

Public opinion is on Byrd's side. In an October 2 poll commissioned by House Appropriations Committee member Barbara Lee's leadership PAC, 69 percent of Americans reject the continuation of unconditional war funding. A majority of that number is in favor of approving Bush's $200 billion war supplemental spending request - as long as all of that money is used to bring US troops home safely.

"The president wants to pretend that Congress's only choice is to provide the funds he has requested unconditionally or 'cut off funding for our troops,'" Lee said at an October 10 press conference, where the poll was released. "That's just not true. We can use our constitutionally mandated appropriations power to end his failed policy, to protect our troops and to bring them home. We have the power to fully fund redeployment, and that is what we must do."

---

Maya Schenwar is a reporter for Truthout.org.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Chuck Hagel Sees Clearly

Getting out of this Iraq mess is going to make Vietnam look like a cakewalk.

Local View: In Iraq, a terrible familiarity brews
BY CHUCK HAGEL

Saturday, Apr 21, 2007 - WASHINGTON — Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.

If success in Iraq were simply a matter of the determination and ability of the U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality in Iraq is that after more than four years, America remains the country’s occupying power.

Iraq’s future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation — but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government — but that time is running out.

The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions and derided as “appeasement’’ constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what’s known as “the 80/20 solution’’ — meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaida’s base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.

There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaida. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.

If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament’s cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.

So what do we do?

We must start by understanding what’s really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a “self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis’’ and also includes “extensive Shia-on-Shia violence.’’

This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias — not al-Qaida terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaida branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is.

The Bush administration’s rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq’s anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.

So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences — at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?

First, we must recognize we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.

Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.

To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries and publics see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.

Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America’s continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended.

Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.

I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president’s policy.

We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.

The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff — with U.S. troops caught in the middle.

This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.

If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options.

The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress — no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.

Sen. Chuck Hagel is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate. This column appeared previously in the Washington Post.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Liberation of Democrats

The worm has definitelly turned:

Perhaps the Democrats are listening to the people. What a novel idea!

So, centrists are lining up behind the "left fringe," eh? Could that be because the anti-war left was right from day one? Sure seems like it. Every revelation, since the invasion, is mounting evidence that the anti-war movement, in and out of government, has been right all along and were wise to question the administration's motives.

Too bad no one listened; not the congress, not the media...no one!

Prediction: The word Liberal will cease to be a curse-word. It will be replaced by "Neo-Conservative."

WASHINGTON — Emboldened by President Bush's deeply unpopular proposal to send more troops to Iraq, congressional Democrats are shedding their wariness about tackling the war and embracing positions once primarily held by the party's most liberal fringe.

Less than two weeks after taking power, party leaders who had promised just an increase in oversight hearings on the war are now talking openly about cutting off funds for additional military operations.

Centrist Democrats are lining up beside longtime antiwar liberals, promising to do everything in their power to stop the president's plans to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Al Anbar province.And the war's most passionate opponents in the House, whose last meeting before the midterm election was relegated to a basement room, met last week in one of the grandest rooms on Capitol Hill and drew scores of supporters, television cameras and journalists.

"Ours is now the mainstream position," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), who two years ago saw her resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq crushed on the House floor.

Today, the congressional Out of Iraq Caucus co-founded by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) has more than 80 members.

Congressional Democrats, suddenly united in their desire to pass resolutions against the escalation, still face challenges in deciding how far to go in what could become a historic showdown between two branches of government over the course of a war. And any move to cut funding may quickly reveal fissures in the Democratic caucus.

The threat to cut off funds for more troops drew a rebuke Saturday from President Bush, who challenged war critics to offer their own plan for Iraq. "Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success," he said in his weekly radio address. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

"The Democrats' rapid embrace of what were once minority positions capped an extraordinary week on Capitol Hill as Congress stirred after years of standing by a wartime president. "It was a wild and woolly week," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank). Schiff was one of more than two dozen members of Congress who went to the House floor to condemn the war Thursday. Just one Republican rose to challenge them.Democrats, who campaigned against the war, seized majorities in the House and Senate last fall largely because of unhappiness with the president's policies. But when the Democrats returned to Capitol Hill this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other senior party leaders had planned to focus on a purely domestic agenda. They cautiously avoided talk of cutting funding or other measures to compel Bush to change course in Iraq. As recently as Monday, Pelosi had refused to discuss possible legislation to limit an escalation in Iraq.

But the next day, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), in a speech laced with references to the mistakes of Vietnam, announced his intention to introduce a bill that would require the president to seek congressional approval for any troop increase in Iraq.

Within hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would introduce a resolution the following week condemning any White House plans to send additional troops. Pelosi's office quickly announced that House Democrats would do the same.By the time Bush addressed the nation Wednesday night, congressional Democrats across the ideological spectrum were rallying to oppose the president.

"We have to take a stand…. We have to do everything we can," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo), a centrist Democrat who said she wanted to sign on to the House version of Kennedy's bill, which is sponsored by one of her chamber's most liberal members.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime military supporter, said Friday that he would use his position as chairman of the House appropriations panel's defense subcommittee to try to block funding for any troop increase in Iraq. Murtha said he also wanted to force the closure of the controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put limits on how long military service members could be deployed.

A Pelosi spokesman said the speaker had encouraged Murtha to explore the funding limitations.The same day, in a mark of how much has changed in Washington, House Republican leaders held a sober meeting to air complaints from their members about the president's plans. "It was not a typical conference," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), choosing his words carefully. Putnam is the No. 3 leader in a caucus that until recently rarely showed public signs of dissent.

By contrast, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) have urged House Democrats to be aggressive in exploring legislative options for winding down the war, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.) said.

Some Democrats remain wary of moving too quickly to try to cut funding, and it was unclear whether they could succeed. Reid must contend with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said he will try to block a resolution, forcing Democrats to get 60 votes. The Democratic caucus has 51 members.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), a fierce war critic who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said Friday that, because of the complexity of the defense budget, he doubted that Congress would be able to find a way to selectively prohibit spending for a troop buildup. "I don't know how the hell you do it," Obey said, pointing to the tortuous efforts by Congress two decades ago to limit funding for military operations in Central America.

Bush has signaled that he would not be deterred by congressional opposition. "I made my decision. We're going forward," Bush said in an interview with "60 Minutes" to be broadcast tonight.

But today, the president no longer can count on a Congress of Republicans who are unwavering in their loyalty and Democrats who are cowed by the fear of being labeled weak on defense.

And public support for the president and the war has plummeted. Some polling shows dissatisfaction with Bush's plans has reached 70%."The public is so disillusioned," Democratic strategist Mark Mellman said, "that we've gotten to the point where people think the war has actually made us less safe."

And that has made it increasingly safe for Democrats to challenge the White House."There definitely is a feeling of liberation," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a staunch war opponent who was in Congress when it last put limits on an unpopular war more than 30 years ago. "The question now is not if, but how, we get out of Iraq and when. The whole nature of the debate has changed."

noam.levey@latimes.com