Bush Will Seek $87 Billion for Iraq

Reuters via Washington Post ^ | 9-7-03

[dogbyte12]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will announce on Sunday night that he plans to ask Congress for $87 billion to fund the U.S. military deployment in Iraq and pay for reconstruction, a Republican source said.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the money would fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and reconstruction over the coming budget year.

The figure includes assistance for Afghanistan. Bush was to make the request in an 8:30 p.m. EDT address to the nation, the source said.

The figure was at the high end of expectations. Some members of Congress said earlier they expected Bush to get what he asked for but wanted him to detail how long U.S. troops would remain in Iraq and outline a strategy for bringing them home. (snip)

[ScrtAccess]

I'm not referring to the poor mexican, I'm referring to the mexican border as an example.

As another example, if drugs can come into this country from foreign territory, so can nukes, and 87 billion to Iraq isn't going to stop, or help that.

Prevention needs to be here, at our borders, not there, because the terrorists can come from anywhere, but intead of increasing fundng for that, were laying off border patrol agents (canada and mexico). Seen that in the news last week.

[Sparta]

1) The pipeline is constantly sabotoged.

2) The revenue is only about $15 billion a year.

I think the best way to help finance the reconstruction is to privatize all Iraqi government owned industries and to develop a free market economy that will get away from sole reliance on oil exports.

[Conservababe]

Government's got to take that money from someone. So in a sense, the government is simply giving back the money from the people it stole the money from in the first place.

So true, and is it not delightful?

[Sparta]

So true, and is it not delightful?

I too love the irony in it.

[ohioWfan]

I agree, and I think it's a serious problem.

I just don't think, as I said before, that it's an either/or situation. Both issues need to be addressed. The money needs to be spent to finish the good work we have begun in Iraq AND our borders need to be secured.......ALL of them.

It is one issue in which I have serious differences with this administration.

[thtr]

No I won't ask for a tax hike. The President has one obligation to the country and that is to protect us from all threats whether foreign or domestic. This "War on Terror" fits the bill in my opinion. We need to cut programs not increase taxes.

But our President and our Republican Congress will not do that. They have not cut anything (except taxes).

Sometimes I think fiscal conservatism has died here on Free Republic. Conservatives used to believe in paying their own way – Not transferring the burden to their children and grandchildren. Now the prevailing thought is to spend as much as it takes and leave the dying and the paying to someone else. We deserve what befalls us.

[Hank Rearden]

Oh no, the money goes right back to USA business. And Bush is not going to let the French or Germans in at all.

That's not what I meant. What I meant is that there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands, of very wealthy Moo mullahs, kings, princes and similar thugs all over the world.

Simple payoffs to keep them from inciting their moronic followers. Sort of like the payoffs Bush is making right now to Yassir Arafat.

Extortion? Hell, yes!

[templar]

....who gets the money?

Well, in VietNam it was people like Vinnell Corp. an PA&E. So far in Iraq it seems to be people like Vinnell Corp and Haliburton. The real who is more easily reconed by checking out the various boards of directors and such.

[Conservababe]

They are going to sell their oil and we will benefit.

Also, we must remember that we needed a military base in that area and now we have one.

Too bad old Saddam could not control himself from getting in this mess by invading Kuwait.

But, alas, he did, and now he pays the price of our needed base.

I am awed by George Bush.

[thtr]

They are going to sell their oil and we will benefit.

They are going to join OPEC dreamer.

[templar]

. They have not cut anything (except taxes).

I would argue that they've only delayed some of the taxes, not cut them. Wait till the bills come due. It's like the credit card schemes that trap so many people ... skip a payment (interest still accrues and ads to the balance), no interest for 6 months (suckers you into running a larger balance than you can afford and adds interest to the balance), low 'introductory' rates (suckers you into running a higher balance than you can afford minimum payments on otherwise).

Eventually, no matter how good the offer seems at the time, you have to start coming up with the minimum payments or else.

[cookcounty]

Since its become fashionable to always put spending (or tax cuts) in terms of 10-year increments, this is probably $8.7b / year. Don't count on any "news professionals" to clarify this.

[thtr]

According to your logic, the Iraq war would be justified if the US had invaded another country in addition to Afghanistan after 9/11, in an operation which cost $150 billion and in which about 300 Americans lost their lives

I think if you read my posts carefully you would find that I said just the opposite.

[templar]

Bush is spending more money than Clinton ever dreamed of, our deficits are skyrocketing.......

Yeah, but it's O.K. because it Republicans doing it, not Democrats.

[Conservababe]

Yes, indeed, more business in government in a land without USA restrictions may just give that tax boost needed to reduce the deficit.

LOL

[VetsRule]

How much is too much to keep terrorists from suitcase nuking 4 or 5 US cities?

Hell, if that's what we're worried about, we should've taken out Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, not Iraq.

VR