Posted on 09/09/2003 5:05:41 AM PDT by TastyManatees
Democrats Demand Details on Iraq
16 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats' support for President Bush (news - web sites)'s $87 billion request comes with a price: They want him to spell out details of his overall Iraq (news - web sites) strategy.
For months, many Democrats and some Republicans have complained that the Bush administration has offered few details about how it will rebuild Iraq, how much international support can be expected, how much American taxpayers will have to pay over the years and how long U.S. troops will be based there.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said he will offer an amendment to the Iraq spending bill that would bar money for relief and reconstruction until Bush officially reports to Congress on his Iraq strategy.
"The president owes our troops and their families a plan before we give the administration a blank check," Kennedy said in a written statement.
A Republican senator, Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, said he was confident the administration would provide the details. "I don't think we have to ask for it. I think they understand they need to provide it," he said.
Senators are likely to seek answers about the administration's Iraq plans Tuesday as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appear before the Armed Services Committee.
In a televised address Sunday, Bush said he would ask Congress for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) in addition to the $79 billion that Congress approved in April. Bush said the money is needed to stop terrorists before they can strike again in the United States.
Republicans, who control the House and Senate, praised Bush's speech and offered support for the plan. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the proposal "warrants the support of Congress." And House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., whose panel will help write Congress' version, said he would "aggressively expedite the president's request."
Democrats will be hard-pressed to deny Bush the money he says is needed for U.S. soldiers. "We obviously want to support our troops. That, I think, is a given," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
They are already using the money request to argue that the administration didn't plan adequately for the war's aftermath, was overly optimistic about Iraqi and international cooperation and foolishly pushed through tax cuts even as the war aggravated a growing deficit.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, said there isn't enough money to meet Bush's own education goals, "and yet we're going to ask the American taxpayers to keep coughing up money for this quagmire that we're in now in Iraq."
"This may not be Vietnam, but boy, it sure smells like it," he said. "And every time I see these bills coming down for the money, it's costing like Vietnam, too."
Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, is demanding that tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers be postponed — a proposal likely to face strong Republican opposition.
"Is this still a sacrificeless undertaking except those we send to Iraq?" he said in an interview. "Or is there actually something that Americans are going to be asked to do?"
Some lawmakers also said the $20 billion for Iraqi reconstruction would receive particular scrutiny. Levin said that money would be wasted if the Bush administration doesn't make a serious effort to secure help from other nations. Administration officials say they want international participation, but it's not clear how much authority they are willing to cede in Iraq to secure it.
"If we don't get other countries involved, if we don't make a serious effort in the U.N., which other countries say is essential for their participation, then it increases the chances that the reconstruction money will be ineffective," he said.
Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, top Democrat on the Budget Committee, said the $20 billion is well short of the estimated $50 billion to $75 billion needed for reconstruction.
"It is unrealistic now to think that our motley coalition will come up with $50 billion, and even more dubious that our allies in Europe and Japan will do so," he said.
But then, it's only about seven years since the troops would be home by Christmas.
Since when did Democrats start showing concern for the tax payers? They're Republicans!
Anyway, I'd rather use the tax cash for the war against terror than few hundred new social programs for the Democrat base that will haunt us FOREVER!
Since it is tied to national security they want to play games.
I've dug out my old "I'd Rather Be Killing Communists" belt buckle. I've just got to do some grinding and file work to change "Communists" to "Demonratz".
Democraps, ya bunch of LOSERS !
Most voters today have no idea what Vietnam was, tom. Talk about regressive progressive propaganda. Sheesh!
What is really nice about this is that Teddy is limited to proposing ammendments to bills sponsored by Republicans.
As a minority weenie, Teddy doesn't have the power any more to start any committee investigations (inquiries). He has been neutered as a powerful senator and is now a weak one.
So they can bash it for the next 400 days in every way possible.
What is THEIR plan?
Yep. They've run out of ideas. No one is listening to them so far. They need something big to spin, or they're toast!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these bastards just vote themselves another "cost of living" increase in their salaries? So, it's okay for them to get $186,000 a year, be totally exempt from Social Security taxes, get full medical, and a million dollar pension plan- but they can't find the money to defend our nation? I'm speechless!
Shhhh. You're ruining the propaganda. Besides, Kennedy needs the money.
I think Americans want to feel secure above all else. Without security, all the liberal social programs wouldn't matter. Most people would be dead.
In my opinion, the Democrat attacks on this war are not going to help them. I think people are going to be scared of having Democrats in power. Their security would be stolen away from them if Democrats were to regain power in Washington.
When polls are taken, people bitch about this or that thing they don't like, but when it comes down to who will really watch out for them - especially in this new age of Clinton enabled terrorism - they'll vote Republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.