Bush wants $50 billion more for the war. Will he get it?

From WaPo:

In the current political climate on the war, will this calculation work?

It’s times like these I think the Flag should have a Warbler’s nest on it and the presidential seal a Cuckoo bird

Cause we just keep getting suckered feeding his egg.

Of course he won’t get it. The Congressional Democrats would never stand for it.

This is quite true. Which is why they will pass the legislation while sitting down.

What do you think?

So far the President has treated the Congress as if it were an unlimited withdraw Automatic Teller Machine. Nothing has happened that would dissuade him of that view. Nothing has happened that would make anyone think that the Congress won’t continue to dish out the money on demand.

The real question is how much our legislators are willing to spend in the nation’s treasure, blood and credibility to stave off a nearly inevitable all-out civil war and ethnic cleansing in Iraq for a few more half-years.

Yes, he gets the money because it costs legislators nothing to hand out money. If the legislators had to pay a price (something of value, such as the future wellbeing of themselves or their family) then they would approach such matters with more care.

Right now, the only thing they might be concerned with is not getting re-elected, but that hasn’t stopped them from approving money in the past.

And so far, they’ve treated him like he’s their best customer.

Of course he’ll get it. Hell, if he makes enough references to terrorism, “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” and “giving our soldiers the equipment they need” then I imagine he could get even more. I bet he doesn’t even need the money, he just wants to humiliate the Dems at least once per month.


Er… it is Opposite Day today, isn’t it?

Assuming the Dem’s win the White House in a year will they get more money for the war? Should they? Why or why not?

Until the US decides to pull out of Iraq, a decision that seems to be lacking atm, I think its sort of a silly question to be honest. If Bush can justify the need for $50 billion more needed for our current committments there then the Congress would have to come up with a damn good reason to reject the request. “I don’t like the war” not being a damn good reason…IMHO.


I think a lot depends on what Petraeus and Crocker say in their testimony (not in their report, which it is understood the WH will write).

Testimony, shmestimony. They will duck and weave, every statement will be loaded with trapdoors and qualifiers. They need only establish credibly (whatever the hell *that * means, anymore!..) that some progress is being made. However transitory and insubstantial is beside the point. They will quote from their report to such an extent that their testimony will amount to little more than a public reading of said report. Which will be “tweaked”.

They need only offer the tiniest glimmer of false hope for those eager to receive it, and have no chance of convincing anyone with the good sense that God gave a goose.

*Feh!, * as they say in Lubbock.

I don’t think you all are being sufficiently fair to the stalwart Dems.
I would be very surprised if they do not accompany their funding with a sternly worded nonbinding resolution.

They will give Bush whatever he wants, short of endorsing an order to stand them against a wall and shoot them.

Maybe. Seems like most of the Congresscritters have already made up their minds about “the surge”, but maybe there are a few who are keeping an open mind. At any rate, the surge, in and of itself, is meaningless-- without political progress, nothing changes. And I don’t think there is anything on the political stage that isn’t well played out in the press, so I don’t see that Crocker’s report will be particularly enlightening.

Congress needs to end the war. They need to revoke the AUMF, and get us out of there. Unless they don that, they pretty much have to give Bush (the Commander in Chief) what he needs. If they don’t, it’s the men and women fighting over there who will suffer.

Exactly. Until that time I don’t see what else Congress CAN do wrt the war in Iraq. Its unreasonable for people to think that they can just magically cut off funding (or stifle further funding if its deemed necessary) as long as we have troops in the field over there.



If they’re feeling real frisky, there could be indignant C-Span speeches.

I just don’t know that things have gotten that bad yet. You don’t pull out the nuculer option for a minor tiff like this.

Woof! I suspect by the tone in some of the more recent threads that I may not be the only one voting 3rd party this time around…