May 2, 9:13 PM EDT
Bush details $70 billion war funding request for 2009
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) --
President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.
Friday's request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
Congressional analysts say Bush's request would bring the total spending since Sept. 11, 2001, to fight terrorism and conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $875 billion.
The request comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill are struggling to move Bush's pending $108 billion request for the current year. Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections.
Anti-war Democrats are frustrated at their inability to force the president to scale back war operations and hate to vote to keep the Iraq war going. At the same time, Bush has promised to veto the war funding bill if Democrats add money for domestic programs and present him with a bill over his request.
The bulk of the new money, $45 billion, would fund U.S. combat operations, but there's also $3 billion to deal with roadside bombs and $2 billion to cope with rising fuel costs.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Congress has provided $526 billion for the Iraq war alone, with the two pending requests coming on top of that. Operations in Afghanistan have cost $140 billion.
Friday's request also contains $770 million in additional food aid and other assistance to try to ease the global food crisis. There's also $2.6 billion to airlift new mine-resistant vehicles into the war zone and maintain them there.
The Afghan military would receive $3.7 billion for counterinsurgency efforts; the Iraqi military would get $2 billion for the same purpose.
Bush also asked for $1.7 billion for infrastructure, social programs and economic development initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan under a programs designed to win the support of local populations.
Pakistan, a key ally in fighting terrorism, would receive $193 million in aid.
18 comments:
"The request comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill are struggling to move Bush's pending $108 billion request for the current year. Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections."
So if Bush gets his 178B this year for the war how will that affect LLNL budget. Come on ULM answer the question and tell us we're not going to have a RIF next year of the same magnitude or better. Come on, please tell me that. Or, you tell us the truth now so we can get a move on. It would help to tell us what unit we are in and what our pecking order is, don't you think.
LLNL budgets is crums compared to what we give private contractors to "rebuild" Iraq. BTW: Baghdad still has rolling blackouts, bad roads, bad health care. The only thing succeeding in Iraq are the private contractors, like KBR (former Halliburton subsidiary).
Our 2B budget at LLNL is change compared to what we "give" KBR.
That is highway robbery and ought to be illegal!
Next time you think voting republican, think about the last 8 years!
Looking at the funding for Bush's war in Iraq alone, the US could have funded each year since 2003 a 100 new national labs the size of LLNL, researching a host of national issues - medical, energy, basic science, homeland security, space exploration, you name it...
Thought of the day. If the lab got cut last year with a $108B dollars contribution for the war and that allowed NNSA to lower its population at LLNL by 2000 what's next on the agenda for it's employees. Well, if next year Bush gets what he wants which is $187B for the war I'd say LLNL's budget should get cut once again. With the lack of funding it's understandable why ULM will have to cut very deep once again. Probably a repeat of FY-08.
So lets assume the next president pulls us out of the war in the first 24 hours of taking office as if it were as easy as flipping a switch. At that time everyone is going to get excited and say whoa ,we're out of the war and we finally have money to create jobs. Not quit people.
What you'll have is a $4.2T dollar deficit to pay off that can only come about by raising taxes. The result of raising taxes should be a diminishing income lowering your life style once more until this $4.2T bill gets paid. How long will that take. For some it will be there long after you're dead and for the others it will prevent you from being able to save enough in your 401K to ever retire. yes, it's all good.
So the question is, are you ready to do with about 50% less than you have now? I hope so. Hang on, the roller coaster ride is about to begin.
Voting Republican had nothing to do with this war. It was the tactics used to take out the enemy that is so costly. Anyone ever heard of a covert action. It's how stupid our leaders are at all levels that cost us so much money. When and if Billary gets in she'll show you what pain is far worse than this ordeal. Stand by Demon--crat lovers
May 3, 2008 10:49 AM
What you're saying in essence is there should have never been a war. It should have been a OSOK operation with orders to terminate with extreme prejudice as the marks present themselves. Agreed with 100% and ammo is relatively cheap especially when one who knows what they're doing only needs to expend one round. The problem is just as you have said. The country have no leaders with balls and we're about to put one in office that was born that way. Now that's sad to the max. Wouldn't it be ironic if the first woman in the Whitehouse gave the order to pull out in 24 hours as you say and then did exactly what should have been done in the first place. Those men who make up the mass majority of our representatives are going to feel like fools. If that's happens I'll be the first to rub it their faces for eternity. In reality any good Marine or well trained serviceman from any branch could have resolved this issue immediately.
" $1.7 billion for infrastructure, social programs and economic development initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan under a programs designed to win the support of local populations.
"
Bush is hated by his own country..so he builds roads in another country instead? He needs to be impeached. This is much worse than what Nixon did.
CNN announced that the US has now spent close to $900 BILLION for the war efforts over the last 5 years. We are not talking about the usual DOD budget here, but costs directly associated with the war efforts.
Think what almost $1 TRILLION would have done for the US public in terms of education, health care, saving US jobs, supporting alternative energy and re-building our infrastructure. It could have helped save both Social Security and Medicare. It could have helped make this country strong again. Instead, $1 TRILLION dollars went into the pockets of sleazy contractors like KBR/Halliburton and Bechtel and Shaw Group.
And, to think, McCain now wants to see the US keep up this insanity for another 100 years! Is it any wonder that Bush's poll ratings have hit historic lows for a US President (lower even than Nixon!).
It's as if large segments of America's politicians have been been completely bought off by the highest bidders and only serve to give the sleeping US citizens lip service while screwing them around to benefit wealthy friends in high place. You know, benefits for guys like Riley Bechtel, who owns Bechtel, the corporation that now pulls the strings at both LLNS and LANS.
"Bush also asked for $2.2 billion for "projected increased fuel costs," as even the military feels the rise in gas prices."
All I ask is 1/2 cent for every gallon of fuel that is used by our troops in Iraq to be electrically deposited into my savings account as it is consumed for one year. I'll be very happy for life.
Voting Republican had nothing to do with this war.
It didn't? I am confused. Help me out on this one, will you? Republican Congress and Executive branch took us to war in Iraq. That's the way it was, is and always will be. The stated purpose "Take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction". There were...none! But we are still there. Bush changes his justification for the invasion of Iraq every time he changes his shorts so tell us, what is it this week?
In reality any good Marine or well trained serviceman from any branch could have resolved this issue immediately.
Bummer dude. I guess the republicans have let our military deteriorate to complete ineptitude (according to you anyway).
May 3, 2008 7:09 PM
I will never vote Democrat no matter what. They are socialist at heart. I think I saw a logo during the Klinton era that said,"Vote Democrat or Embrace Socialism". It was right on the money, but you do what you have to do. Personally I don't see anyone this time around that I like.
Bummer dude. Thickness between the ears is a wonderful disease. That isn't what was said at all. In plain English he or she said in _Mafia terms_, " when you have a problem child that seems to not understand the situation very clearly and is an obstacle in the way of progress, you put a _hit_ on him or her and remove the problem". Yes this could have been done by any well trained serviceman who has those skills or for that matter the CIA or FBI. This is how this situation should hae been handled, not war.
It seems we have no good leaders that are Democrat or Republican
May 3, 2008 7:53 PM
Pretty close minded. I would argue that it is this sort of mind set that lies at the heart of the mess we find ourselves in.
May 4, 2008 7:08 AM
Name who you are going to vote for and why?
Lets see, we have two democrats that will not do the country any good and will only lead to raising taxes and more social program. I personally don't vote for anything that raises taxes. As a matter of a fact I want a flat 10% tax that covers all of my state and Federal taxes owed. It should come about with no write offs for anything. This would lead to the abolishment of the IRS since there would be no need for them. My employer could then take the 10% taxes out of my paycheck up front and I would not have to file a return. My feelings are this. If the government can't operate on a 10% income from every working person in the USA and balance the books at the end of each year, then those in charge are to be removed from office immediately. Yes this would mean the government would have to operate within their means. Gee what a concept. About 99% of all the people in the USA should try the same concept. If they did we would have the indebtedness with credit cards and living beyond their means that we have today.
Then we have one republican that wants to keep the war going. Some choice.
"Bush also asked for $1.7 billion for infrastructure, social programs and economic development initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan under a programs designed to win the support of local populations."
Hey Bush. How about $1.7 billion for infrastructure, social programs and economic development for the good old USA? It might just help you win support of local populations "butthead"!
May 4, 2008 10:06 AM
Nothing is going to change with a new president regardless if it's an (R) or a (D) except for higher taxes and a reduced budget for LLNL. This is not going to stop. We have a debt to pay and everyone is going to contribute one way or the other. With money or their lives. Either way the government and corporate America makes out. If you live you pay taxes. If you die that one less person on the welfare system. It's set up so that BIG BROTHER NEVER loses. It's even that was in the housing market.
Knowing all of this And there will still be 45% of the people who vote republican shows how many lemmings we have in this country. good luck and good bye.
Post a Comment