It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Congress Use Power of the Purse to Stop Troop Surge?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
President Bush will address the American people on Wednesday evening, and it is expected he will announce plans for an additional deployment of some 20,000 troops or more to Iraq in a "troop surge" aimed at ending sectarian strife and keeping Iraq from sinking into all out civil war. Now it looks as if Congress may deny funding for the additional deployment of troops, if it is so ordered by the President.
 



www.foxnews.com
President Bush is expected to say in his prime-time address that he will send at least another 20,000 troops to Iraq — what is being labeled a troop "surge" — as well as place political benchmarks on the Iraqi government in an effort to stem sectarian violence that is tearing apart the country.

Democrats on Capitol Hill Monday, however, began focusing not only on Bush's plan, but how Congress can affect the war through the budget and appropriations process. Key questions they seek to answer are: Can Congress put conditions on upcoming spending proposals that will parse out costs associated with the surge from ongoing operations? Can they make payments for the war conditional on political milestones Iraqis are being asked to reach?

Bush submits his annual budget next month, which the White House says will include funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. But Congress is likely to get an emergency supplemental spending request to cover the $100 billion more that the Pentagon says it needs to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I stated a while back in an exchange with WestPoint23 that the only way Congress could reign in the Bush administration and its warmongering was to invoke the power of the purse. Imo, that is how Nixon was forced to withdraw from Vietnam, Congress took away his funding.

At the time, there was a GOP majority in both houses, and WP23 seemed pretty confident it would stay that way. That wasn't how the '06 election turned out though, was it? We now have Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, and it looks like they are getting ready to pull the plug on additional spending for troop increases in the Iraq War.

Will the power of the purse be invoked to control additional troop deployments for the Iraq War?

Related News Links:
www.nctimes.com
www.foxnews.com




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Absolutely not, it would be political suicide. They'll complain about it to score points with the far left, but they'll still fund it.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Even if they cut the funding Bush will simply veto their action, and they may have a majority, but thats not enough to over ride a veto.

Besides, to have to face the public in their next election with a vote of having cut funds for the troops in a time of war would be a political death sentence.

This is just posturing, nothing more.


apc

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Absolutely not, it would be political suicide.

Have you even been listening to their rants? These are not rational people we're talking about here. At this point there isn't a whole lot that would surprise me. The Easter Rabbit's fossilized remains being unearthed accidentally while digging the hole for Saddam... that might.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I'm not so sure.

Support for the Iraq War and the Bush Administration are low, and we have a newly minted Democratic majority in Congress just looking to flex its muscles.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

"We're all hopeful that the president will make a proposal that we can all work together on. But the president needs to know — and that's what I was telling him yesterday — is that congressional oversight is alive and well in the Congress of the United States,"

and

"If the president is proposing an escalation, we want to see a justification for the mission," she said. "I think you will see a supplemental subjected to some pretty harsh scrutiny."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.:

"This surge has to be stopped. It's a reckless, mindless approach to a desperately difficult situation, so we have to look at all options,"

On the other hand, Joe Biden put the situation rather plainly with this quote:


"There's not much I can do about it — not much anybody can do about it. [Bush] is commander in chief."

"If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop,'"

I believe that if President Bush goes ahead with this "troop surge" and it fails to have the desired result, and I think it will fail, then he is pretty much done as President.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Certainly people are now thinking that going into Iraq was a mistake, but they still want to win the war. If Democrats deny funding for a troop surge (which was part of the Iraq study group recommendations), Bush and the Republicans can blame the Democrats for failure.

They won't let that happen.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
Even if they cut the funding Bush will simply veto their action, and they may have a majority, but thats not enough to over ride a veto.

Besides, to have to face the public in their next election with a vote of having cut funds for the troops in a time of war would be a political death sentence.


I thought about this, but the fact is, many Republicans don't want more troops sent to Iraq either...there are some hawks, but I think most sensibly want this war over ASAP and many may side with the Democrats.

Pelosi didn't say they would stop funding for the troops there now, but block funding for the additional troops thus making it very difficult to sustain them over there and them being brought home or not sent at all. I think that would be a good political move as one poll indicated that about 12% support a troop surge. And most want troops coming home.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Yes congress can stop bush from putting more troops in Iraq denying the additional budget.

The budget allocated for the already troops present in Iraq is nothing they can do about.

But with bush asking for more money, yes they can stop it.

That is why congress is now democrats, people didn't elected them to keep the war going in Iraq but to find a way to stop bush from his happy spending.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I believe the failure has already happened, and sending in more troops is simply delaying the inevitable. Just look at the amount of taxpayer dollars already spent on this misbegotten farce (How much is it so far, anyway? Anybody have a current spending figure?), and a supplemental request for the current fiscal year is a foregone conclusion.


Congress is likely to get an emergency supplemental spending request to cover the $100 billion more that the Pentagon says it needs to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

And apc says the Democrats are not rational people? If that's the case, then our entire government is being run by raving lunatics!



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
? Anybody have a current spending figure?), and a supplemental request for the current fiscal year is a foregone conclusion.
of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.


Well I got this link that will show how many private companies has been awarded contracts with tax payer money in Iraq.

www.publicintegrity.org...

Now the question is . . . have this companies deliver what they promised?

Well not really, see,



While some 150 U.S. companies received contracts for work in Iraq following the invasion, the big reconstruction winners (after Halliburton) were: Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, Louisiana ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, Calif. ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion).



Is a big problem this money has gone on waste and abuse our tax payer money, because instead of hiring Iraqis they are bringing foreigners to work, sabotage, insurgency attacks has make impossible for these companies to deliver what they promised.

The people also is against them in Iraq because they have over step over the Iraqi companies for American backed ones.

The Iraqis knows that is million of dollars for reconstruction that never went to benefit them.

Even the Iraqi study report said that Bush should handle all reconstruction money to the Iraqi government so they can handle the Reconstruction to Iraqi companies and like that provide for needy employment.

www.globalpolicy.org...

Yes congress have the ethical right to ask bush why he needs more money and what he is trying to achieve with more troops.

Unless the new proposed supplemental budget is to hide the fact that he wants tax payer money to finance the private oil companies drilling in Iraq if they get the rights to their oil.

I am very angry that our tax payer money has been abuse and misused by this administration and ending in the coffer of corporate barons.


apc

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
And apc says the Democrats are not rational people? If that's the case, then our entire government is being run by raving lunatics!


Well, duh! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Isn't the name of that song "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who? How apropos.



We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

link


No, no!



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Well I got this link that will show how many private companies has been awarded contracts with tax payer money in Iraq.

www.publicintegrity.org...

Now the question is . . . have this companies deliver what they promised?

Well not really, see,



While some 150 U.S. companies received contracts for work in Iraq following the invasion, the big reconstruction winners (after Halliburton) were: Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, Louisiana ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, Calif. ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion).



Is a big problem this money has gone on waste and abuse our tax payer money, because instead of hiring Iraqis they are bringing foreigners to work, sabotage, insurgency attacks has make impossible for these companies to deliver what they promised.
....

Unless the new proposed supplemental budget is to hide the fact that he wants tax payer money to finance the private oil companies drilling in Iraq if they get the rights to their oil.

I am very angry that our tax payer money has been abuse and misused by this administration and ending in the coffer of corporate barons.





Good stuff marg. Well done.


So the Bush Buddies get trillions - our boys' families get Food Stamps - and we get scrood. Again.

Charmin.'



BTW - Had to do it:



You have voted marg6043 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.






PS. Icarus. GREAT song.


[edit on 8-1-2007 by soficrow]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I can see it now...

20,000 more troops sent in to Iraq/tours extended/more contracts

fast foward a bit...

Israel attacks Iran's facilities

With the 20,000 troops we forget Iraq and guard Iran from going into Iraq with covert missions and stabilize Iraq with the rest.

Draft reinstated or rediculous sign-up bonuses ($$$)...

Full blown Middle East conflict.

attack on our homeland, Martial law declared.

America bankrupt.

NWO is put into full swing to repair the international money damages.

I hope i'm totally wrong; this whole situation is uglier the more you think about it.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by jaguarmike]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
He'll ask, but Congress will fiddle-faddle and waffle and delay the vote and probaby approve half of it.

The situation in Iraq will continue to grow out of control as the Civil War marches on.

I don't believe that the Contractors have actually done anything for the Iraqi people, I believe they have tried to get the oil systems working, and spent huge amounts on "support" (LOL) for our armed forces. It's just a big 'ol money bag that the Invited get to partake in.

How soon will the Soldiers signing up realize that they don't get the bonus unless they COMPLETE the service period?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
How can anyone still talk about 'winning' in Iraq? There is no winning in Iraq, just like there was no winning in Vietnam. Creating a democracy was just a fall back position because all their other excuses to go to war had been proven false. Yellow cake,no; WMD, no; role in 9/11, ludicrous; fight terrorism, a joke. Remember 15 of the alledged 9/11 terrorist were alledged to have come from Saudi Arabia. With friends like that who needs enemies. Besides Iraq proved to be too hard a nut to crack, maybe Somalia will be easier.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Because, I think the American people spoke pretty loudly last Novemeber. They gave Democrats the majority in both the Senate and the House, becuase want out of this disaster. Plain and simple.

At this point, anything they do to stop the war will be rewarded.
Anything they do to support the war will be punished.

According to the latest USA poll, Bush gets a whopping 23% approval rating for his handling of Iraq. Only 15% of Americans want a surge. (And I think THAT'S high, because they probably polled half the conservatives in this thread)

Now McCain is flip flopping on his escalation stance, leaving only poor Lindsey Graham holding the whole bag.

And probably the most revealing thing to me, is that Americans got the big one right. They learned the lesson from Vietnam. Treat your soldiers well when they come home, and don't escalate your ground forces during a guerilla war.

The bottom has completely dropped out of this war. It's out of the box, and no amount of rhetoric can put it back in. And, anyone who does, will sound increasingly out of touch and delusional.

It's over.

The president just won't accept that yet.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   


Treat your soldiers well when they come home, and don't escalate your ground forces during a guerilla war.

The bottom has completely dropped out of this war. It's out of the box, and no amount of rhetoric can put it back in. And, anyone who does, will sound increasingly out of touch and delusional.

I agree 100%. Well said.

I can only pray to God that President Bush will see this truth and act on it appropriately.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now the question is . . . have this companies deliver what they promised?

Good stuff marge, but it's even worse than that. Some of the work these companies are doing are taking duties away from our troops and they get paid many more times than the soldiers make. Furthermore some of the services have been substandard like you say, for example troops waiting for an hour to be fed and showering in contaminated water.

Check out this video I posted in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think that the new congress will do the right thing and deny any money for additional troops. But Bush can still order them in. We will have to wait and see what happens.

Edit: I truly don't see the point of sending more troops until the Iraqi government let's them go where they need to including Sader City to stop the violence. Until that changes more troops will not change anything.

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Thanks for the link Hal, I guess business as usual when it comes to what our administrations goals in Iraq are all about.

And then people still defend what Bush is doing in the white House.

Incredible!!!!!




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join