September Could Be Key Deadline in War

Lawmakers Call for Proof of Progress by Fall

By Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; A01

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

"September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration."

The fixation with September is all the more striking because funding bills that cleared the House and Senate this spring were looking well into 2008 to mandate significant changes. The Senate-passed bill set March 2008 as a goal for withdrawing U.S. combat troops, while the House envisioned combat troops being withdrawn by the end of August 2008. In the ensuing weeks, however, news from Iraq has shown little improvement, while public opinion has continued to harden against the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Democrats were crowing yesterday over what they saw as the clearest signs yet that Republican unity behind the president is beginning to crack. And House Democrats are preparing to up the ante with new legislation that would demand a turnaround in the war by the end of July.

House Democratic leaders are coming together around legislation that would fund the war through September but would withhold more than half of those funds until July, when Bush would have to report on the Iraqi government's progress toward benchmarks such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and sharing oil revenue equitably. Congress would then have to vote in late July to release the remaining funds.

The bill, which could come to a House vote as early as Friday, faces significant obstacles in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wants to allow the House debate to unfold, in part to see whether the plan will appeal to Republicans.

Some House Democratic leaders are worried that another showdown vote this summer will keep the party's domestic agenda off track. And White House spokesman Tony Snow pronounced the bill "not helpful."

But the new proposal's momentum in the House underscores just how quickly time may be running out on a war that is hemorrhaging political support.

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."

Democrats are ready to rush that process. The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

Democrats say that is a reasonable time frame for the first assessment of Bush's troop increase, since the last of the additional troops being sent to Iraq will arrive this month.

But Petraeus has said repeatedly that it will be at least another month or two after the troops are in place before it will be possible to assess the impact of those reinforcements and, just as important, of the new U.S. approach that is moving combat troops off big, isolated bases and into dozens of smaller combat outposts across Baghdad. When he visited Washington last month, Petraeus told members of Congress that he will be ready to assess his progress by September.

Not even the most optimistic military officials think Baghdad will be quiet by then, but they think they might be able to discern long-term trends.

Another major test will come in the form of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which under Islam's lunar calendar will begin this year around Sept. 12. In every one of the four years of the war, Ramadan has brought a spike in violence. If the Petraeus approach is not able to break that pattern, it will be difficult for many members of Congress to continue to argue that progress is being made.

September is also the last month of the fiscal year in Washington. Without tangible signs of progress, Congress is likely to demand tougher conditions on war funding for fiscal 2008.

All those factors point to this fall as the deadline.

"There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I think everybody knows that, I really do."

"I think a lot of us feel that way," agreed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report.

Why the Main Stream Media is Full of Shit

Thursday, 26 April 2007

by Larry C Johnson

Just logged on to get some details on the Senate vote to approve funds for our troops in Iraq while setting a deadline to require the start of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And what is the media focused on? The "narrow" victory of 56-41 and the fact that Joe Lieberman voted with the Republicans. Take a gander at the AP and NY Times versions:

Ann Flaherty reports that The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

NY Times reporters, Hulse and Zeleny, write--The 51-46 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto, came after a morning-long debate in which supporters of the bill called it a way to make the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, while opponents called it a blueprint for defeat.

Why do they ignore the important story?

Two Republicans--Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith--voted with the Democrats. And John McCain and Lindsey Graham were AWOL. There's the key story.

The Senate is within striking distance of overriding a Bush veto. Yet the mainstream media insists there is virtually no chance.

That is why I think they are generally completely full of shit.

Posted by Larry Johnson on Thursday, 26 April 2007 at 14:46 | Permalink

Government Report Slams "Emergency" War Funding Request

Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog.
Older stories at the overflow blog.
---
03/28/07 FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes -- Updated - PDF

Deadlines, War Money and Pork

April 23, 2007

Editorial

President Bush is taking every opportunity to rail against the troop withdrawal deadlines in the war-spending bills that Congress is readying for passage. He warns that Congressional attempts to set deadlines will harm the troops in Iraq, because a political fight over timetables will delay money needed for the frontlines.

The assertion is completely contrived.

--MORE--

Four Clear Voices Rise Above the Din on Iraq

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 23, 2007; A15

The Iraq war debate in Congress is a drama with many actors. But along with the usual headliners and party faithful, certain individuals have emerged as bellwether figures. It's a varied bunch: military veterans and antiwar liberals, New Englanders and Texans, representing both sides of the political aisle. Like many ordinary Americans, their views on Iraq are shaped by different life experiences and notions of patriotism and loyalty.

This week, House and Senate Democrats are expected to produce an Iraq funding bill that includes criteria for withdrawing troops. President Bush is certain to veto it, and Democrats are certain to cook up a new strategy for forcing the White House's hand. Here's a sample of the lawmakers who will be crucial to the outcome.

Moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe represents the staunchly antiwar state of Maine and is deeply unhappy with Bush's leadership on Iraq. She opposes the troop buildup that is underway and supported Democratic-led efforts to state Congress's opposition to it. She has proposed her own terms for changing course in Iraq; they establish benchmarks for political progress as conditions for continued U.S. involvement.

But Snowe has quietly remained within the GOP fold during the funding fight.

The senator, who often breaks with her party on fiscal and social issues, accepts the most contentious provision in the Senate Democrats' bill: a March 31, 2008, target date for ending combat operations. The language she finds troubling is the requirement that troop withdrawals begin within 120 days. "Having an end goal is less problematic to me," Snowe explains. But as long as the U.S. military is on the ground, she said, it should have "the maneuverability to do what's necessary."

Snowe, 60, has never had a chance to explain her concerns to Democrats. Despite her well-known willingness to switch sides on high-profile issues, no one on the majority side has gotten in touch on the spending bill. "It wouldn't take a lot" to win her over, said Snowe, who cruised to a third term in November, despite heavy GOP losses in the region. "But they haven't tried."

Nearly two years ago, when most Democrats were still hesitant to set withdrawal dates, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) proposed a flexible timetable similar to what the Senate approved last month. As his party inched forward with nonbinding resolutions, Feingold grew bolder, setting one deadline after the next. Most have already passed.

In January, Feingold was one of the first Democrats to raise the idea of using the power of the purse to stop the war. On April 2, Feingold hooked a key ally: Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The unlikely pair unveiled joint legislation to cut off war funding on March 31, 2008.

Serious, outspoken and one of the Senate's liberal outliers, Feingold has little in common with the more cautious and pragmatic Reid. Feingold is a Rhodes scholar and a Harvard University graduate; Reid is a miner's son, a self-made Las Vegas lawyer. But the Democratic leader counts Feingold as one of his most important partners in unifying the unruly Senate Democratic caucus.

"I depend on him for a lot of things," Reid said. "All I know about Russ Feingold is he's a team player, and I appreciate that."

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) has spent most of his nine House terms quietly warming the back bench. But last month, when the former fighter pilot took to the House floor to speak against the Democrats' Iraq war spending bill, a hush came over the packed chamber.

He recalled his tour of duty in the Vietnam War, when he served as an aide to Gen. William Westmoreland. He recounted his nearly seven years in a Vietnamese prison camp, more than half of that time in solitary confinement. Then Johnson conjured a scene that lawmakers saw unfold on black-and-white televisions or read about in history books, a scene of national defeat and humiliation, a scene that even younger members could not forget.

"Just think back to the dark day in history when we saw visions of American Marines airlifting Vietnamese out of the U.S. Embassy. Do you remember that? That's what happens when America makes a commitment, Congress cuts the funding and we go home with our tails between our legs," he told his colleagues.

Johnson is an unlikely standard-bearer for the war's cause, a lawmaker who has never sought the microphones or the television cameras. But for him, the Iraq debate is like a flashback. By the time Congress cut off funds for Vietnam, the war was largely over, but Johnson still languished in prison, fearing that his nation had abandoned him.

"I know what it's like to be on front lines for country when fellow countrymen don't support you," he said, vowing it will never happen again.

Johnson and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) saw two different wars in Vietnam, and they see two different wars in Iraq.

While Johnson languished in a North Vietnamese prison camp, Gilchrest served in the jungles of Indochina, a Marine fighting at a time when each week about 200 Americans died. After his combat tours, he returned home, and he read the Pentagon Papers, Washington's secret history of the war in Vietnam; he read about Ho Chi Minh's contacts with the Roosevelt administration during World War II and about Dien Bien Phu, the battle that drove the French from Vietnam.

When Marines evacuated the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, Gilchrest watched on television, deeply disillusioned about a war that had taken the lives of so many friends.

Gilchrest was one of only two House Republicans to vote for the Democrats' war spending bill last month, and he is helping write the final legislation.

He says that in Iraq, as in Vietnam, infantrymen are using bullets to fight ideas, such as conflicting views of Islam that go back more than a thousand years. After Vietnam, Gilchrest said, the administration should know that bullets do not defeat ideas.

"You see the eye of the person you're fighting. You take a human life. You lose your friends. That takes a toll when you experience it on a daily basis," Gilchrest said. "So before you put someone in that situation, you want to make sure everyone in the administration . . . is competent and there's no dogma, ideology or past ghosts getting in the way."

A Hostage Situation: PAUL KRUGMAN - Iraq Funding

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

A Hostage Situation

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 23, 2007

In response to a confrontation over financing for the Iraq surge, President Bush is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders.

There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.

But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

What’s at stake right now is the latest Iraq “supplemental.” Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.”

At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he’s broke and needs extra cash.

...

...Mr. Bush’s refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security.

--MORE--

Bush/Cheney Dig in to Win

consortiumnews.com

By Robert Parry

April 17, 2007

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are determined to secure another $100 billion blank check for the Iraq War despite a growing consensus among intelligence and military analysts that the war strategy is in chaos and on course to gravely damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Having solidified support among congressional Republicans and still backed by a powerful right-wing news media, Bush and Cheney appear to have concluded that they can force congressional Democrats to back down over legislative language seeking a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

If the President does succeed in this test of wills and wrests the war funding from Congress without strings attached, Bush’s supporters will tout his success as a political rebound. Republican strategists also hope the expected Democratic humiliation will drive a wedge between the national Democrats and the party’s staunchly anti-war base.

Already, prominent Democrats, such as Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Barack Obama of Illinois, have drawn criticism from the base for showing a readiness to run up a white flag rather than face a continued barrage of accusations about undercutting the troops. Those signals have reinforced White House confidence than Bush can prevail.

Over the past week, Bush and Cheney have ratcheted up the rhetoric with the President declaring on April 16 that the Democrats were pushing legislation that “would undercut our troops” and accusing the Democrats of playing politics at a moment of crisis.

“America is not going to be safe until the terrorist threat has been defeated,” Bush said. “If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won’t leave us alone – they will follow us to the United States of America. … We should not legislate defeat in this vital war.”

On April 13, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, Vice President Cheney took an even tougher line calling the Democratic-backed war funding bill “irresponsible” and dressing down the Democratic congressional leadership in especially harsh terms.

“Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early ‘70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret,” Cheney said. “Not this time, not on our watch. … We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.”

Political Victory

But military and intelligence analysts do not expect that a Republican political victory over Democrats in Washington will lead to a battlefield victory in Iraq.

In an Op-Ed article in The Washington Post, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan explained that he rejected a White House overture to serve as a special coordinator for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – the so-called “war czar” – because he found the administration confused about what strategy should be pursued.

“There is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region,” Sheehan wrote. “Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources. …

“We cannot ‘shorthand’ this issue with concepts such as the ‘democratization of the region’ or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to ‘win,’ even as ‘victory’ is not defined or is frequently redefined. …

“I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan – and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. … These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff.” [Washington Post, April 16, 2007]

Sheehan’s account of policy chaos at senior levels of the administration fits with the view of many analysts that Bush and Cheney have put political goals – splitting the Democrats and retaining White House swagger on the war – ahead of a sensible strategy for salvaging the best possible outcome in Iraq.

A revamped strategy that involved redeploying U.S. troops either away from Iraqi cities or outside Iraq altogether would require recognition that Bush had botched his ballyhooed role as “war president” and Cheney had bungled his vaunted work as “crisis manager.”

Bush and Cheney would have to face up to how their grand schemes for remaking the Middle East and their alarmist rhetoric about al-Qaeda creating a global empire from Spain to Indonesia no more match up with reality than did their earlier assertions about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program and his supposed stockpiles of WMD.

Instead, Bush and Cheney continue to justify the Iraq War by citing provocative public comments from Osama bin Laden about how he would relish an American defeat in Iraq. But Bush and Cheney keep ignoring intercepted communiqués from al-Qaeda leaders that indicate they actually want the United States to remain bogged down in Iraq.

For instance, a letter attributed to al-Qaeda leader Zayman al-Zawahiri worried that a rapid U.S. military withdrawal could precipitate a collapse of al-Qaeda’s position in Iraq, fretting that “the mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.”

Another intercepted letter, written by a senior al-Qaeda operative known as “Atiyah,” cited the need for more time so the terrorist network could sink down roots in Iraq. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote.

Yet, the political battle in Washington is taking place in a kind of parallel universe from the military conflict in Iraq. So, Bush may yet achieve his triumph of the will over the Democrats but that likely will do nothing to alter the unfolding disaster in Iraq.

[For more on how Bush and al-Qaeda’s goals mesh, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Bush-bin Laden Symbiosis.”]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here.

SENATOR REID COSPONSORS BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS, CUT OFF WAR FUNDING

How Congress can end the war without hurting the troops

Sen. Reid and I are introducing a bill that would require President Bush to begin redeployment and effectively end our military mission in Iraq by March 31, 2008.

By Sen. Russ Feingold

Apr. 02, 2007 | Many Americans remember the tragic deaths of U.S. troops in Somalia in the early 1990s, vividly portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down." Those 18 service members died in a misguided, poorly defined military mission that had dragged on without an end date and without the support of the American people.

As Congress debates the war in Iraq, the congressional debate over Somalia 14 years ago has some surprising parallels. Without question, Somalia in 1993 differs in many ways from Iraq in 2007, from the scope of the mission to the reason for that mission in the first place. What hasn't changed, however, is Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission, and its ability to use that power without endangering the safety of our brave troops.

That is exactly what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and I propose to do with legislation we will introduce when the Senate reconvenes next week. Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces. In other words, the current military mission in Iraq would be effectively ended. Sen. Reid has said he will work to make sure the Senate votes on our bill by the end of May.

Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when. The Feingold-Reid bill may be attacked by those who support this misguided war. But for many members of Congress, what they say and do now about Iraq flies in the face of what they said and did in 1993 regarding Somalia.

Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission. That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.

None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."

The debate about the Iraq war is the most important, and the most difficult, issue we face as a country. Any American, including any member of Congress, is entitled to support or oppose Congress' using its constitutional power to end our involvement in this disastrous war. But, in contrast to the 1993 debate about Somalia, today some wrongly suggest that ending funding for the Iraq war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops. That misleading argument makes it harder to have the thoughtful, responsible debate about the war that Congress and the American people so badly need.

Now is no time for phony arguments against ending funding for the Iraq war. There may be big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq, but Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops. As Congress debates Iraq -- and considers the new Feingold-Reid legislation -- we should remember Somalia, put false arguments aside, and have an open, honest debate about a war that drags on with no end in sight.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."

America has had it with Republican treachery. Soon they will see through the Democrats' betrayal as well.
Related
Obama to Bush: Yassa Massa

"If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday."
Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto, Obama says
---
Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; A01

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."

But even conservative Democrats insist their party is in no danger of overreaching its mandate from the November elections. Rep. Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a conservative Democrat who squeaked out a victory in November against the Republican who had taken the seat from him two years earlier, said he was concerned early on that Democratic leaders would mount a "witch hunt" against Bush and his policies. But, he said, they are far from any witch hunts.

The view is decidedly different from the White House. In three months, Democrats have pushed back hard on the Bush legacy. A House-passed bill would require the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, highlighting what Democrats consider a shortcoming of the president's landmark Medicare prescription drug law. Bush has promised a veto.

A Senate-approved measure would allow screeners at the Transportation Security Administration to unionize, prompting a veto threat. White House opposition to that in 2002 led to a legislative standoff over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that proved devastating to Democrats, who were painted as soft on terrorism.

A bill to ease the public release of official papers from presidential libraries also yielded a veto promise, although it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The measure would reverse one of Bush's executive orders, which has helped keep reams of presidential documents under lock and key.

Budgets passed by the House and Senate assume the expiration of most of Bush's tax cuts in 2012, and Democrats are demanding tough new standards for labor rights and environmental regulations as a condition of extending the president's authority to expedite trade negotiations.

The White House has also vowed to block two separate House bills that would extend whistle-blower protections to national security and rail security workers.

But it is the legislation coming down the pike that promises the real fireworks. Most Republicans are convinced the president will win his veto standoff over House and Senate war spending bills that would impose mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq.

"It's going to be like the government shutdowns" of 1995 and 1996, predicted Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."

That would slow their momentum as they challenge Bush on the territory he has made his political fortune on: terrorism. But Democrats are undaunted in their demands to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They also want to reopen last year's law creating military commissions to restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation methods that critics call torture.

"We have a very consequential and just system of justice. To create a system that is a dual system but not just is not acceptable, and that's Guantanamo," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Democratic leadership aides are most skittish about the Patriot Act, saying they would only temper it by eliminating a provision that allows the indefinite appointment of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation and by tightening the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain private information about U.S. citizens.

For Republicans, such legislative gambits could prove to be a political gift. When reports first surfaced of plans to close Guantanamo Bay and send terrorism suspects to military prisons in the United States, Republicans accused Democrats of planning to import terrorists to U.S. soil. Even after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested he could support the idea, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) pressed the attack Friday.

"The idea that we would import dangerous terrorists, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, into American communities is dangerous," Hunter said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, of which he is the ranking GOP member.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has already raised the specter of justice grinding to a halt as terrorists use their access to federal courts under the right of habeas corpus to blitz the judicial system with lawsuits.

And Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, warned Democrats not to tamper with the national security laws that Bush secured after the 2001 terrorist attacks. "Americans don't want to reopen the programs that have protected them since 9/11," he said.

The 'withdrawal' that isn't

KEVIN RYAN

By Kevin Ryan | March 29, 2007

IN JANUARY, President Bush announced the start of a "surge" that wasn't really a surge. Now the House and Senate have responded with a "withdrawal" that isn't really a withdrawal.

Last week, the House passed a bill that many believe would set hard deadlines for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This week, the Senate followed suit. The House bill would require that troop withdrawals start immediately if the president cannot certify that Iraq or the United States are meeting benchmarks in the war. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days. Even if the United States and Iraq are successful in reducing violence, the bill requires the United States to start a withdrawal by March 2008 and complete it by that August. The Senate bill requires a withdrawal to be complete by March 2008. Supporters of both bills claim they are forcing a withdrawal from Iraq, but a look at the fine print reveals otherwise.

First, to reverse the current surge the House bill requires the president to certify that every Army unit deploying to Iraq for a year-long tour of duty have a minimum of 365 days back home before deployment. (Marine units that deploy for seven months would have 210 days back home.) In addition, units in Iraq could not be extended beyond their one year (or seven months) assignment. This might be an effective way to halt the surge, except for the fact that the bill also allows the president to waive these restrictions in the interest of "national security." It's likely that the president already believes that he is acting in the interest of national security, making these restrictions superfluous.

Although the House and Senate bills set clear timelines for withdrawal of US troops, they also permit some troops to remain in Iraq as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting US facilities, citizens, or forces; combating Al Qaeda or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces. How many troops are we talking about? Potentially as many as have been there for the past three years.

--MORE--

NBC's Matt Lauer: 'Would Iraq withdrawal really make things worse?'

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Bush's lies are emboldening journalists - FINALLY

"What would happen in Iraq if U.S. troops just got up and left?" asked Matt Lauer in an NBC Today Show report on President Bush's stated intent to veto a bill sent to him by Congress that would impose a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

yes... what WOULD happen...? well, a lot has ALREADY happened because of us, and, if we stay, more of the same is on the way...

"The region has become more dangerous because we've been there, the longer we stay the more dangerous it will become," said former National Security Agency direction Lt. Gen. William Odom on the prospect of a heightened civil war.

"I think when you really scrub it, the prospects for outside intervention and a regional war are actually pretty slim," said William Reidel, who worked in both the Clinton and Bush National Security Council.

As for the prospect of an "emboldened" Al Qaeda, Odom suggested that terrorists now in Iraq are less concerned with transnational terrorist activities than with their domestic conflict. "They're homegrown Iraqi terrorists who are much more concerned with winning the civil war in Iraq," said Odom. Added Reidel, "Once you take away the American occupation, Al Qaeda's gonna find that it has an awful lot of enemies in Iraq, people whom it has walked over in the last few years and who are gonna want revenge."

where were these friggin' reports when we needed 'em...?

Congressional Democrats are a Pathetic Embarrassment

The bill was really about spreading pork around.

"not binding" translated: BULLSHIT.
---
Friday, March 23, 2007

What a pathetic joke this nominally Democratic Congress has proven to be.

Despite polls showing that 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq asap, the best that this crew can come up with is a call--not binding, of course--for the president to pull out the troops by next spring or even summer. That would be over a year from now, and more than five years (!) into this criminal and incredibly stupid war.

At the rate things have been going, it would also be perhaps 1000 more dead Americans, 14,000 more gravely wounded Americans, and 100-150,000 more dead Iraqis later.

And in offering this limp request, Congress is in the process of approving the appropriation of another $124 million in spending on the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan.

This is action? They could be blocking that funding altogether, and shutting the damned war down. Why can’t Democrats, who were put in their position of power in Congress by the voters, at least show the courage and principle of Republican Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), who is opposing the funding and says, “It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November.”

And those subpoenas. Congress is boldly demanding the appearance of Bush’s Rasputin Karl Rove and his ousted legal adviser Harriet Meirs. Fine as far as it goes, but what about the clear evidence at the Libby trial that his regent, Dick Cheney, orchestrated a smear campaign against administration critic Joe Wilson and his CIA wife Valerie Plame, obstructed the Justice Department investigation into that effort, and lied about what he had done? Shouldn’t there be subpoenas issued to the Veep himself and all of his staff?

What about the evidence at that same trial that the president himself was in on the cover-up and obstruction of justice conspiracy. Shouldn’t there be subpoenas of staff to pin that down, and a letter of interrogatories to the president himself?

While they’re at it, shouldn’t this 110th Congress that the people elected last fall in an effort to clean out the Augean stables of the Bush White House and to end the war be initiating an impeachment of the president, at least on his admitted felonious violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law? After all, a federal judge already tried that case and determined that the president is a felon. That’s an easy case to impeach on.

They could also be revoking the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. That’s the resolution Congress passed on September 18, 2001, which the president has ever since been claiming makes him a dictator--that is commander in chief in a borderless, endless “war” on terror--not beholden to the Constitution, and free to ignore or invalidate acts of Congress at will. It’s an astonishing abuse of power, exactly what the Founding Fathers feared could happen, and yet Congress is doing exactly nothing about it.

There’s no need for the 2001 AUMF. We’re not at war in Afghanistan anymore, after all. There is a new, elected government there, and it has invited in NATO to help it fight a resurgent Taliban. We’re just there as part of NATO, and so hardly need a special AUMF--especially one that can be falsely construed as an authorization to be a dictator. So why isn’t Congress revoking the damned thing?

The could revoke the 2002 AUMF too. Bush misused that one as an authorization to go to war against Iraq, since it actually required him to go to the UN for authorization--something he never bothered to do. In any event, we’re not at war in Iraq either, as much as it might look like we are. The war in Iraq is over folks. We’re not even occupiers there any more. Remember, we handed sovereignty over to the Iraqis in 2004! There’s an elected government in Iraq==an independent government--and we’re there at their invitation to help them with an insurrection problem. That’s not a war, any more than it’s a war in Columbia, where we’ve also sent troops at the Columbian government’s request. So why doesn’t Congress revoke the AUMF? It would be a good idea, because Bush is liable to misuse it further and claim it gives him the right to attack Iran at will. He’s said as much.

Again, listen to Republican Ron Paul, who says, “Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home. If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it. The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public.” (Of course, Rep. Paul has his own issues when it comes to guts. He has publicly stated that the president has committed impeachable crimes, and yet he has shied away from doing the obvious, and appropriate, thing: submitting a bill of impeachment. If he does do it, it would be the ultimate shaming of Democrats in the House.)

I’m fed up with the gutless mini-politics of this Congress. Who gives a damn whether they’ve passed a minimum wage bill? It’ll never get past Bush anyhow. Neither will anything else of consequence that this Congress passes.

Unless they start challenging the Bush administration directly and forcefully, Congressional Democrats aren’t going to do bupkis in two years and people are going to start wondering why they were voted in in the first place. People might even start to think seriously about letting the Democratic Party just wither away.

Wouldn’t make much of a difference without it, really, and we might even come up with something better. It wouldn’t be too hard to do.

6:19 am pst

Democrats lard bill to bring troops home from Iraq with domestic projects

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press
2007-03-10 08:20 AM

Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it is in with billions of dollars for farms, flu preparedness, New Orleans levees, home heating and other causes.

Some critics say the Democrats are being opportunistic, using a must-pass measure to authorize money for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry items that could not advance as easily on their own.

At the same time, Democratic leaders are trying to increase support for setting deadlines for ending U.S. military combat in Iraq, which they have made part of the larger legislation.

It is clear that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion (euro76 billion) for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums to the home front.

"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion (euro15.2 billion).

The funding _ ranging from $3.5 billion (euro2.66 billion) for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million (euro380.1 million) in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start _ has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.

"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said conservative Sen. Republican Judd Gregg.

Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill because of the add-ons. Still, a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions that set a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, is not waiting on the coming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million (euro215.1 million).

Those items and others, including $2.5 billion (euro1.9 billion) for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion (euro2.2 billion) for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million (euro558.7 million) to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmaker a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill regardless of feelings about the war itself.

Later Friday, the White House sent Congress $3.2 billion (euro2.4 billion) in revisions to its $94.3 billion (euro71.7 billion) request for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30.

The money would pay for 4,700 additional troops to support President George W. Bush's influx of 21,500 combat troops to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar province, along with additional funds for vehicles with V-shaped bottoms more resistant to roadside bombs. Another $510 million (euro387.7 million) would send an additional 7,200 troops to Afghanistan to prepare for an offensive expected soon by the Taliban and to train Afghan security forces.

To keep costs down, the White House eliminated several much-criticized requests for airplanes, including two next-generation Joint Strike Fighters, that never would have seen action in Iraq. Opponents said the Pentagon was using the war-funding bill to evade budget limits, much like the criticism being leveled at Democrats for adding domestic items.

Revealed: Blair’s billionaire buddies

March 04, 2007

Jon Ungoed-Thomas

TONY BLAIR is wooing some of America’s biggest billionaires with a Downing Street reception during his final days in power, including the tycoon who hired Bill Clinton after he left office.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, regarded as one of London’s most influential political hostesses, has arranged the select gathering. At least seven billionaires with a combined worth of more than £25 billion are on the guest list.

Among those invited are Ronald Burkle, the financier and grocery retailer who gave Clinton a multi-million-dollar post as adviser to a private equity fund. The event will offer a key networking opportunity for Blair as he prepares for life after government.

Invitations have been discreetly circulated among the super-rich in New York society in recent weeks. If wealthy benefactors are willing to donate at least $25,000 (£13,000) to the Tate gallery, they are automatically invited to meet Tony and Cherie Blair in Downing Street.

Organisers insist the centrepiece of the fundraising drive is a dinner in New York, which the Blairs will not attend. The trip to Downing Street is the “icing on the cake”. The event is being arranged by American Patrons of Tate, which is chaired by Rothschild and raises money for the Tate.

It is thought to be the first time that the opportunity to meet a serving prime minister in Downing Street has been offered in return for payment to a fund-raising drive, the details of which have been obtained by The Art Newspaper. The date of the event, Saturday June 16, indicates that Blair has no intention of quitting before the summer.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, said: “This might be for a good cause, but selling access is ingrained into this prime minister, as is his obsession with wealth and celebrity. It’s a long way from the Red Flag.”

Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican whose $30 billion fortune makes him the third richest man in the world, is also on the guest list. Others who have donated enough to attend include Len Blavatnik, the Russian tycoon; Sid Bass, an oil billionaire; and Richard Fuld, the chief executive of the global investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Blair already knows Veronica Hearst, the widow of the publishing heir Randolph Hearst, who is likely to be among the small group at the reception. Blair was entertained by Hearst at her luxurious Palm Beach home during his Christmas break in Florida.

Lady de Rothschild said the Blair reception was intended to help develop Britain’s cultural heritage and it was generous of the prime minister to participate. “Tony Blair doesn’t need this to network,” she said. “It’s about Britain, not about Tony Blair.”

She said the drinks with the Blairs were not being used as a selling point but were the “icing on the cake”. She added: “No one would use this as a way to see the prime minister. It’s much cheaper to go to a public event.”

Rothschild said 20 of the 35 tables for the New York dinner had been sold before Blair agreed to “meet and greet” benefactors. The funds would be used to buy American art that would be shown at Tate Modern, which she described as “the greatest contemporary art museum in Europe”.

Originally from New Jersey, she forged a highly successful business career before marrying into the Rothschild banking dynasty. She has acted as an adviser to Clinton and helped bankroll his election campaigns.

Rothschild’s husband, the banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, was revealed by The Sunday Times in 2002 to be bankrolling the Policy Network, the political think tank of which Peter Mandelson is honorary chairman.

American Patrons of Tate has been a big source of revenue for the London gallery, raising an average of £2.93m a year in donations since 1999.

Not all those who have bought tables will be able to visit Downing Street. After the reception with the Blairs, guests will be invited to a dinner at the Rothschilds’ London home.

Those who have bought tables and are also on the Downing Street list are some of the most influential figures in American society, including Calvin Klein, the fashion designer; Leonard and Ronald Lauder, brothers who are worth £2.88 billion and who inherited the Estée Lauder cosmetics empire; and Donald Marron, the investor.

The Blairs have been increasingly keen to court America as they prepare for life after No 10. Last July Blair attended a cocktail party in San Francisco hosted by Charlotte Shultz, whose husband George was secretary of state under Ronald Reagan.

Cherie Blair is represented by the New York-based Harry Walker Agency, which arranges lecture tours for her in the US. There has been speculation the Blairs intend to buy a home in New York after quitting Downing Street, but this has been denied.

However, Toby Young, author of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, about his failed attempts to break into New York society, warned: “Being a former British prime minister won’t necessarily open every door. Money talks in New York; everything else comes a distant second.” A Downing Street spokesman said: “The Blairs are happy to host this reception to help benefit the Tate gallery. It is one of many receptions hosted by the prime minister to support British arts organisations and will be held at no cost to the taxpayer.”

Additional reporting: Tom Baird

The Manhattan money-makers on the guest list

Carlos Slim Helu Worth: $30bn The third-richest man in the world in 2006, but his fortune has continued to climb. The Mexican businessman amassed his fortune through telecommunications, but like Blair is said to be looking to his legacy. He is channelling an increasing proportion of his wealth to good causes

Len Blavatnik Worth: $7bn Ukraine-born tycoon with holdings in oil, metals, media and telecommunications. He has Amercan citizenship, but also has a £41m home in London’s Kensington Palace Gardens

Veronica Hearst Hearst is the widow of publishing heir Randolph Hearst, the newspaper heir who left an estimated fortune of $1.6bn. Tony Blair was a guest of honour at a dinner given by Hearst at her Palm Beach home during his Christmas break in Florida

Donald Marron Head of Lightyear Capital, a private equity investment fi rm. Married to Catie, one of New York’s socialites Sid Bass Worth $1.4bn Texas oil tycoon who inherited his fortune from his uncle. His wife, Mercedes, is an art lover. Last year the couple gave $25m to the Metropolitan Opera in New York, the largest gift in the Met’s history

Calvin Klein Worth $700m Iconic New York fashion designer who sold his company in 2003. He is one of the most popular celebrity designers, with Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock among his clients

Leonard and Ronald Lauder Worth: $5.6bn The brothers who inherited the Estée Lauder cosmetics empire. Leonard and Ronald Lauder are worth $5.6bn between them.

Richard Fuld Worth $1bn Chief executive of Lehman Brothers, the global investment bank. Nicknamed “the gorilla” for his aggressive style as a young trader, he is said to have mellowed in older age. He is one of the biggest-spending art collectors in the world

Money for Nothing: Iraq War Funding, 2004-2007

Feb 15, 2007

What is it that the US military is doing so differently in Iraq today than it was last year or the year before that would justify such a tremendous leap in spending on Operations & Maintenance? Asks Jeff Leys.

On February 5, President Bush submitted his war budget for 2007 and 2008 to Congress. He is seeking an additional $93 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the period that ends on September 30 of this year, as well as another $142 billion for the coming fiscal year which runs from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. The February 8 hearing of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee suggested little hope that Congress will cut funding for the Iraq war. Representative John Murtha (Chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee) and Representative Dave Obey (Chair of the House Appropriations Committee) each emphasized that they will pass all funds necessary to "ensure the troops have all they need" (a paraphrase). Each stated he has worked to increase levels of funding for the war above and beyond what the White House asked for in prior spending bills, most notably in the so-called "bridge fund" passed last fall which provided $70 billion for the wars in this fiscal year. Murtha emphasized that he and Obey are committed to ensuring a vote on the bill by the full House of Representatives by March 14 or 15.

At the same hearing, General Peter Schoomaker stated that units which are deployed to Iraq are fully equipped. He stated that the problem which the military encounters is Unit A "borrows" the equipment of Unit B when Unit A deploys to Iraq and Unit B remains at home. The deficiency then becomes that Unit B is not able to adequately train. The issue is explicitly NOT that Unit A enters the war in Iraq without sufficient equipment, weapons, etc.

In this article, I aim to lay out an overview of the growth of war spending between 2004 and 2007, up to and including the current request for $93 billion more in supplemental war spending. I'll focus upon the three main categories of funding: Personnel; Operations and Maintenance; and Procurement. Within the Operations and Maintenance section I'll focus upon those funds appropriated or requested for use by U.S. military forces (including active duty as well as Guard and Reserve units), as opposed to those funds appropriated for such items as the Iraq Security Forces fund and the Afghanistan Security Forces fund. In doing so, I hope to maintain a control of sorts on the dollar amounts and categories discussed in the following analysis-comparing apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.

In the following discussion, the dollar amounts given for FY 2007 include funds provided in the "bridge fund" passed last fall and the funds sought by President Bush in the supplemental spending request. Dollar amounts are derived from the various House - Senate Conference Committee reports that accompanied prior war funding bills and the current supplemental request submitted by President Bush.

PROCUREMENT

The "Procurement" category covers the cost of buying new equipment, ammunitions, weapons systems, etc. The amount budgeted to buy new items grew from FY 2004 to FY 2006, but is now slated to take a gigantic leap in FY 2007.

FY 2004 -- $5.5 billion

FY 2005 -- $18.8 billion

FY 2006 -- $23 billion

FY 2007 - $44.6 billion

When Congress appropriates Procurement funds, it specifies that the money will be available for expenditure over the following three years. This is the standard life cycle of the procurement process, as it takes time to bid out the contracts; to produce the item; and to get the item shipped to the field. Indeed, at the February 9, 2007 hearing of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, General Peter Schoomaker and Secretary of the Army Frances Harvey both stated that it takes at least 18 months for equipment to be secured once funds have been appropriated for the purchase of an item, giving the example of an 18 month lag time for obtaining a vehicle transmission.

Because Procurement money is carried over from one fiscal year to the next, it becomes difficult to determine exactly how much money is available in a given fiscal year for Procurement. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that as of June 2006, $2.17 billion remained to be spent of the $6.8 billion appropriated in the fall of 2005 for FY 2006. In June 2006, Congress appropriated an additional $14.7 billion for FY 2006. This means that, as of June 2006, $16.8 billion remained to be spent of funds appropriated for procurement during FY 2006. The GAO concluded that the bulk of this $16.8 billion would most likely be rolled over into and spent in FY 2007. If indeed most of this $16.8 billion rolled over into the current year, it would mean that the Department of Defense would have upwards of $61.4 billion to spend on Procurement alone this year (the $16.8 billion carry over, plus the $44.6 billion to be appropriated for Procurement for FY 2007).

Now, let's take a look at the incredible increase in procurement monies being appropriated by Congress-a stunning 94% increase from FY 2006 to FY 2007, or $21.6 billion more this year than last year if the supplemental spending bill is passed.

If the supplemental war funding bill is passed, Congress will have approved $44.6 billion for Procurement this year alone-nearly as much as the $47.3 billion approved by Congress for the past three years combined.

While details are very sketchy about what these funds will be used for, some limited information is available within the supplemental request. The Army will receive the lion's share of these funds. For example, the subcategory for "weapons and tracked combat vehicles" is slated to receive $6.9 billion this year-compared to $5.3 billion total for the last 3 fiscal years combined. "Army aircraft" is to be funded at $2 billion this year-compared to $1.1 billion the past 3 fiscal years combined. "Army other" is to be funded at $14.9 billion this year-compared to $17.1 billion for the past 3 fiscal years combined. This "other" category includes the acquisition of such items as tactical and support vehicles; communications and electronics equipment; and other support equipment.

Spending on procurement of Air Force aircraft is also slated to leap in 2007, with $4.9 billion total being appropriated if the supplemental spending bill is passed. This compares to the $1.1 billion total appropriated in the last three fiscal years.

Again, it is important to stress that just because the funds are appropriated now does not mean that the equipment and weapons systems will automatically appear in the field for use by soldiers tomorrow. A one to three year lag time exists between the time funds are appropriated and the time an item is available to soldiers in the field. The funds being appropriated now are not to provide for soldiers in the field today. The funds being appropriated now for procurement purposes are to provide material for soldiers fighting the war in Iraq one to three years in the future.

PERSONNEL

The funding levels for personnel costs have remained remarkably consistent, despite fluctuations in levels of personnel deployed to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, personnel costs for FY 2007 (the current fiscal year) will be almost identical to personnel costs in FY 2004 (the first full fiscal year during the Iraq war):

2004 -- $17.8 billion

2005 -- $18.6 billion

2006 -- $16.5 billion

2007 -- $17.5 billion

Items included in this category are: special pays like foreign language proficiency; costs associated with stop-loss orders (forcing people to serve beyond their original end-date for enlistment); hazardous duty pay; increased life insurance payouts; and the like. Personnel costs do include the base rate of pay plus any special pays for members of the Reserves and National Guards who are on active duty.

Congress also made the political decision to fund the build up of the military through supplemental spending rather through the regular appropriations process. Each branch of the military is funded through the regular appropriations process for a set number of positions. Throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military has exceeded this number-called "over strength". Congress decided politically to fund this "over strength" through supplemental spending bills rather than including it in the baseline Department of Defense budget.

OPERATION & MAINTENACE (O & M)

The Operation & Maintenance portion of the budget continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Assuming the supplemental spending bill is approved, spending on O & M will be $77 billion this year-a 29.2% increase over last year and an astounding 108% increase over the 2004 cost.

Here's the growth in spending on O & M since 2004:

FY 2004 - $37.2 billion

FY 2005 -- $46.5 billion

FY 2006 -- $59.6 billion

FY 2007 -- $77 billion

As in past years, the Department of Defense's justification materials fail to provide much in the way of concrete and detailed information on how these funds will be expended. Nor does it give any indication of why the costs are growing so exponentially yet again.

This is a common critique of the funding process, especially as it relates to the area of Operations and Maintenance. The Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office each issued reports or testimony in the past year which are critical of the accounting process. Each asserts that it is simply impossible to determine the purposes for which monies are spent.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in November 2006 that "…in fiscal year 2005, close to 26 percent of obligations reported in the operation and maintenance account were in 'other supplies and equipment' and 'other services and miscellaneous contracts.' This trend has continued in fiscal year 2006."

In testimony given on February 6, 2007 before the Senate Budget Committee, J. Michael Gilmore, Assistant Director for National Security of the Congressional Budget Office stated that according to reports of the Defense Finance and Accounting Services of the Department of Defense, "…about $98 billion was obligated for military operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism in fiscal year 2006. Of that amount, almost 25 percent ($23 billion) was allocated for purposes described as 'other'. Little information was provided to suggest how those 'other' funds were obligated."

Absent any concrete justification materials or line item accounting of expenditures, it is indeed impossible to determine why the costs of Operations and Maintenance are skyrocketing. Is it the cost of fuel? Are more bombing runs being flown by the Air Force? Has the cost of food risen that dramatically? What is it that the U.S. military is doing so differently in Iraq today than it was last year or the year before that would justify such a tremendous leap in spending on Operations & Maintenance?

Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org) and a national organizer with the Occupation Project campaign of sustained civil disobedience to end Iraq war funding. He can be reached via email, jeffleys@vcnv.org

An alliance of Palestinian-Israeli dialogue groups will lobby Congress

Related
Let us coexist
---
Dialogue groups to lobby

An alliance of Palestinian-Israeli dialogue groups will lobby Congress for funding.

The Alliance for Middle East Peace will host a conference for its 36 member groups March 13-15 in Washington, on the heels of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy forum.

The representatives will train in writing applications for grants from private foundations and government.

They will spend March 15 on Capitol Hill lobbying for greater U.S. funding of Arab-Jewish encounters.

Cost of troop buildup not in budget

2008 SPENDING PROPOSAL: MILITARY, HEALTHCARE

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
February 6, 2007

Graphic

Proposed fiscal 2008 budget

click to enlarge

Graphic

Boxes of budgets

click to enlarge

Related Stories
-	For California, Bush's budget gives and takes
-	Medicare may get a $66-billion trim
-	Energy efficiency, aid to poor suffer in priority shuffle
-	Edwards' stiff healthcare medicine: taxes
-	Bottom line for Bush's '08 budget: contention

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's $142-billion war budget for next year leaves out money for the planned troop buildup in Iraq, a strong indication that the Pentagon views the increase as a short-term tactic to stem the escalating violence in Baghdad.

But Defense officials could not provide assurances Monday that the troop level would fall back again by next year, and acknowledged they may be forced to return to Congress for more money to pay for the extra forces if sectarian conflict continues to rage.

In unveiling the Defense Department's budget request, Tina Jonas, the Pentagon budget director, told reporters that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates provided instructions to treat the troop increase as "a near-term initiative" that would not need to be accounted for in the 2008 budget. But Jonas acknowledged those assumptions could change.

"I think we know that it will be wrong," Jonas said of the war-cost estimate.

"Obviously, things will change and we'll have to adjust at that point."

President Bush announced last month that he would send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to help stem violence, a move that was widely criticized in Congress and met with disapproval by the American public.

The issue of how long the troop level will remain higher is highly sensitive within the Pentagon as well, with apparent disagreements over its size and duration occurring even between the outgoing and incoming commanders in Iraq.

$725 billion for defense

The $142-billion war budget submitted Monday was part of a complicated defense spending package that surpassed $725 billion. It also included $481 billion for non-war defense spending in 2008 and a $93-billion supplemental request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the remainder of 2007.

Added to $70 billion approved last year for 2007 war spending, the extra $93 billion requested by Bush would bring this year's war spending total to $163 billion.

Congressional Democrats charged that, even without money for the additional troops, the war funding request is so high that it shows that the White House has no intention of reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq before next year's presidential election.

"The new funding requests for the war in Iraq submitted today give the American people no hope that President Bush has plans to reduce our military involvement in Iraq for the foreseeable future — in fact, just the opposite," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

The 2008 budget — which covers the fiscal year, October 2007 through September 2008 — includes projections that show war spending dropping to $50 billion in 2009.

Bush hastened to say that that projection did not foretell a reduction in the U.S. presence, and administration officials said the 2009 figure was seen as a "placeholder" to be adjusted in the future.

The Pentagon said Bush's decision to increase troops in Iraq would cost $5.6 billion through the end of 2007, a figure that officials said would cover the buildup for at least eight months. That was well below a Congressional Budget Office estimate issued last week that argued the cost could spiral to $27 billion for a yearlong buildup because of the number of support personnel needed to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops.

Long-term plans

Even without the additional funding for the escalation in 2008, however, there were signs of the administration's commitment to a long-term presence in Iraq in their budget proposals, including hundreds of millions of dollars for military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2007 portion of the budget includes a $318-million request for construction in Iraq, most of which will fund projects on two of the military's huge bases within the country: Al Asad Air Base in western Anbar province and Balad Air Base north of Baghdad.

It also asks for $650 million for military construction in Afghanistan, nearly half of it for projects at Bagram Air Base, the sprawling facility north of Kabul that serves as the military's prime operations center in the country.

In testimony shortly after becoming Defense secretary, Gates told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. did not want permanent bases in Iraq. But both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill remain skeptical. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) reintroduced legislation last month that would prevent the U.S. from establishing permanent bases in Iraq, a bill that has in the past garnered bipartisan support.

Despite the prospect of continued high troop levels in Iraq, the budget also assumes the Iraqi security forces will begin to take over more responsibilities by next year.

U.S. funding for the Iraqi security forces would rise 83% in 2007, to $5.5 billion, under the new proposals. But the funding would drop to $2 billion in 2008. By that time, according to budget documents, the Pentagon assumes the government of Iraq "will have taken on primary financial responsibility for sustaining the Iraqi security forces."

Afghan forces would get an even larger influx of funding in the proposed budget: $7.4 billion for the Afghan army and police, nearly triple last year's amount. However, funding for security forces is due to drop to $2.7 billion by 2008.

The Pentagon also for the first time detailed the cost of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps over the next five years, saying the additional 92,000 soldiers and Marines would add $117.6 billion through 2013. That includes $5.3 billion to be spent this year and an additional $18.6 billion for 2008.

---

peter.spiegel@latimes.com

Times staff writer Julian E. Barnes contributed to this report.