Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

    Pelosi Turns to Confront Bush on War Spending
    By Jason Leopold, Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner
    t r u t h o u t | Report

     0aFriday 09 November 2007

     0aA year after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, due in large part 0ato the public's frustration with the occupation of Iraq, Democratic Speaker Nancy 0aPelosi unveiled a new plan Thursday that ties additional war funding to the withdrawal 0aof US troops from the region.

     0aThe so-called "A New Direction in Iraq" is an ambitious piece of legislation 0athat would provide the Pentagon with $50 billion in short-term funding to continue 0aoperations in Iraq through early March, and set a "goal" of December 0a2008 for pulling soldiers out of the country.

     0aThe White House said Thursday evening President Bush would swiftly veto the bill 0aif it reaches his desk. Pelosi fired back, telling some reporters following a 0ameeting with Democrats Thursday afternoon that if Bush balks at the proposal she 0aand her Democratic colleagues will not consider any Iraq funding for the rest 0aof the year.

     0aRepublicans said if that were to happen the Pentagon would be out of cash to pay for Iraq operations by as early as January, a time frame that the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, has disputed.

     0aAdditionally, should specifically allocated war funds expire, Congress could use 0amoney from the general defense budget, since the language of the budget does not 0abar it from being channeled into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     0aEarlier this year, Democrats hammered out legislation tied to a $99.4 billion 0aemergency-spending bill for Iraq that placed specific benchmarks on withdrawing 0aand redeploying troops. Bush vetoed the legislation. In July, Democrats surrendered 0ato White House demands, and criticism by Republicans who mocked their counterparts 0afor their "cut-and-run" strategy. Democrats relented on the issue saying 0athey did not have enough support to override a presidential veto and helped pass 0athe emergency funds removing earlier restrictions they put in place. The move 0aresulted in a widespread backlash against the lawmakers that helped sink their 0aapproval ratings.

     0aStill, Pelosi said Democrats would not hand the White House another "blank 0acheck," at a news conference Thursday. "This is providing funding for 0athe troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame."

     0aThe $50 billion bill proposal comes on the heels of the passage of this year's 0ageneral defense spending bill, which appropriates $471 billion for 2008, including $11 billion in Iraq-related funds. The general bill goes to the Senate today for 0afinal approval, and is expected to be signed into law by Bush early next week.

     0aIn October, President Bush called on Congress to approve nearly $200 billion in 0aadditional funds to continue the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. 0aIraq war costs have skyrocketed to roughly $2.5 billion a week, due in large part 0ato the 30,000 additional US troops Bush sent to Iraq earlier this year, just as 0aSunni and Shiite factions were at the height of a civil war. According to the 0aCongressional Budget Office (CBO), the total cost of the occupation could reach $1 trillion by 2009.

     0aThe "A New Direction in Iraq" legislation is scheduled for debate next 0aweek. Pelosi had scheduled a debate on the issue Friday, on the eve of the Veteran's 0aDay weekend, but some Democratic lawmakers said during a meeting with the House 0aSpeaker Thursday evening that they would not support the bill because it doesn't 0ago far enough. Specifically, the December 2008 troop withdrawal measure is non-binding. 0aIt also calls for the redeployment of an unknown number of US troops to an unspecified 0apart of the region. Some in Congress argue that all troops could be withdrawn 0asafely using only existing funds.

     "The Democratic leadership in Congress has the power right now to tell the 0aPresident, 'We will not give you one more dime for this war.' We do not have to 0akeep funding this illegal and immoral war. It does not take a vote," said 0aCongressman Dennis Kucinich in a statement two weeks ago. Kucinich has proposed 0ahis own withdrawal legislation, which would use already appropriated funds to 0abring all troops home within three months.

     0aPelosi said the legislation she is backing would redefine the mission of US forces 0ain Iraq to "diplomatic and force protection; targeted counterterrorism operations; 0aand limited support to Iraqi security forces."

     0aCongresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-California), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive 0aCaucus and one of the strongest voices against the continued occupation, said 0athat she is not satisfied with Pelosi's proposed legislation. "I'd 0arather we put something out there that's stronger than goals, [the bill 0acontains] goals instead of guaranteed withdrawal. That makes it soft for me," 0aWoolsey told The Hill newspaper.

     "What I don't want to do is get on this merry-go-round where we try to end 0athis war and negotiate it down to a blank check," said Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts). "It's time to play hardball."

     0aMoreover, the legislation calls for soldiers to spend as much time at home as 0athey have in combat. Thousands of troops have completed multiple tours of duty 0ain Iraq only to be called back to duty after a short stint at home.

     0aDavid Obey (D-Wisconsin), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, 0asaid in September after Bush's funding request, that he has "no intention" 0aof passing an Iraq funding bill through his committee "that simply served 0ato continue the status quo."

     0aSenator Robert Byrd (D-Virginia), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 0abecame visibly upset last month when Pentagon officials disclosed how much additional 0afunding was needed to continue occupying Iraq.

     "If granted, we will have spent more than 600 billion! - billion! billion! - dollars" on the "nefarious and infernal war in Iraq," Byrd said.