Reid Pushes Back On Iraq Optimism
Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a "failure," but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.
The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that "the surge is working," even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha's view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.
"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/03/...in3569400.shtml
Fact Check on War Spending
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush and congressional Democrats are locked in a fight on Iraq spending, each struggling for the upper hand in public perception.
For both sides, this rhetorical tug-of-war is a question of leadership on national security issues and who is more committed to the troops.
AT ISSUE:
This year, Bush requested about $196 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money is in addition to the Pentagon's $460 billion core budget for budget year 2008, which began Oct. 1.
Congress has approved a $471 billion bill that mostly supports the military's annual priorities, such as training programs and weapons development. But the money may also be used for the wars by transferring money from less urgent programs or borrowing against fourth-quarter spending to keep current combat operations afloat.
The Pentagon predicts that without more money for the wars, the Army will run out of money by mid-February and the Marines by March.
Democrats are pushing a $50 billion bill that would pay for combat but set the goal that most troops come home by Dec. 15, 2008. In November, the House passed the measure by a 218-203 vote but Republicans blocked it from passing in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles. The Senate rejected the measure from advancing on a 53-45 vote.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have said they have no intention of sending Bush this year a war spending bill supporting combat in Iraq unless it includes a timeline for troop withdrawals; the White House says Bush will reject any such measure.
THE SPIN:
Bush has sought to portray Democrats as reckless politicians who are more focused on poll numbers and obstructing his administration than giving troops what they need. He says that if Congress doesn't pass another spending bill now, the military will have to stop working to protect troops against roadside bombs, 100,000 civilians will soon receive layoff notices and that the Army and Marine Corps will run out of operations and maintenance money by mid-February.
"For Congress to insist on setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal would put the gains Gen. (David) Petraeus and our troops have made in danger, and that would threaten the security of our country," Bush said. Petraeus is the top military commander in Iraq.
Democrats, in turn, have gone to great lengths to label Bush as stubborn and unwilling to compromise with Congress, despite the sentiment by a majority of Americans that U.S. troops should start coming home.
"We've given our troops what they need in Iraq," Reid said. "We've funded our critical needs here at home. And if not for the stubborn refusal of the president and his Republican enablers to work with us, we'd have accomplished a lot more."
FACT CHECK:
Congress has until mid-February before the Army will cease base operations and until March before the Marines takes similar steps, according to the Pentagon.
Because of the uncertainty, the Pentagon this month will send layoff notices to an unspecified number of civilian employees whose union agreements require 60 days advance notice; the layoffs would be effective next February and could apply to as many as 100,000 civilian employees and 100,000 civilian contractors.
The military is unlikely to stop working to protect troops against roadside bombs until the military is out of money entirely. The Pentagon would freeze less urgent programs before stalling the research effort.
And none of the doomsday scenarios will happen if Congress returns in January to pass another spending bill, or if Bush backs down and accepts the Democratic proposal to set a 2008 goal for troop withdrawals.
While Democrats have not promised that they will pass another war spending bill next year, they have not ruled it out either.
Also important to note is that the Democratic proposal would likely have little to no practical effect if enacted into law.
The measure orders that troops start coming home in 30 days — a requirement that Bush is already on track to meet as he begins reversing this year's troop buildup in Iraq. And the 2008 goal to have most troops home is a nonbinding goal, which means Bush could ignore it, though he insists the congress should not and will not dictate the day to day operations of the military.
So it would not tie the hands of military commanders, as Bush suggests, nor would it force a change in strategy, as Democrats say. Yet Bush, that is not true, money will effect planning for military operations and supply procurements which are done in advance particularly equipment and supply procurements.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gad1wUf...AGRiWQD8TA82J03
Webb, back from Iraq, questions impact of 'surge
One day after returning from his first visit to Iraq, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb called again for ``robust regional diplomacy” and suggested the impact of President Bush’s troop surge has been overstated
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit..._questions.html
That is all!!