Bush: No Iraq funding bill by mid-April will affect troops

[sabra]

Source: CNN

<snip>

"If Congress fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces," Bush said.

By mid-May, if a funding bill is not signed into law, Bush said the problems "grow even more acute," including "curtailing of training for active duty forces."

The president reminded lawmakers it has been 57 days since he first requested war funds.

"I've made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/senate.funds/index.html

[soothsayer]

1. tell him to look around the pentagon for the missing $2.3 TRILLION

that that guy lost (wasn't he an orthodox rabbi of all things?)

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Idiot boy doesn't understand that there is a passed Iraq funding bill.

Wouldn't it be a shame if the bloated Pentagon had to take some of its $700 billion budget and use it for Bush's war? Why don't they start holding bake sales and candy bar sales to raise the money?

[underpants]

4. About 20 minutes after the House passed the supp. spending bill

W was out trying to tell everyone that they hadn't

War is peace black is white

[INdemo]

9. Cheney could reach into his secret Haliburton account

Or just a few billion from the price gouging oil companies..

[underpants]

3. DU recaps here

Two threads
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x566049

[rodeodance]

5. my god!!! What a belligerent fool!

[global1]

6. The Troops Are Already Squeezed By *'s Surge....

they are currently staying longer in Iraq and others are going sooner to Iraq because of *'s f..kups. Now he is trying to turn the tables and blame this on the Dems and this funding bill.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Maybe he should read the damned bill before he vetoes it!

It gives him everything he asked for PLUS!!!

It's utterly mind-boggling. He COULD sign the bill and take credit for being successful; take credit for changing course; take credit for working with Congress--bi-partisan spirit and all that. Instead, he'd rather throw a partisan hissy-fit.

Too bad there ssn't there something in the military code that allows for removing incompetent commanders at the highest levels.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Since he thinks he is the supreme being

why doesn't he just run over to congress and write the bill so he can sign it. He thinks he is supposed to be the end all of everything.

[uppityperson]

10. Why is he bragging about not funding the military?

[liberal N proud]

11. Liar!

[endarkenment]

12. Well then dumbass ought to sign the damn bill. nt.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

13. He let slip his real agenda

during this little 'speech'. The words 'no-strings attached' reveal his goal. He wants the money and no accountability......

[Akoto]

14. He will only have himself to blame.

Congress gave him the budget he wanted. The only caveat was that there had to be some end in sight.

[kirby]

15. Dems will regrets this day...

There are two problems with their strategy...

1) Dems aren't as good at spin as the Republicans. Where is the Pelosi/Reid conference saying, 'Mr President, we funded the troops, if you veto it, you'll be the one jeopardizing them'. Or 'Mr. President, lack of funding maybe cause you to reorganize funding priorities, but continued 'no strings attached' funding jeopardizes the security of this nation which you have destroyed'.
2) Dems should not have gone on Easter break. This gives Bush two weeks to hurl 'you dont support our troops' messages from the bully pulpit.

[kirby]

16. Harry Reid must be reading this...

Press release just issued:

http://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=271763&

[Richard Steele]

17. So now he's using the troops as hostages? "Do what I say, or the troops will suffer!"

It wouldn't ever occur to him to BRING THEM HOME...
no, he'll leave them sitting right there, running
out of ammo and food, and then blame the Dems.

This is CLASSIC "abuser" logic, the old "look what you made me do!" ploy.

Dems will certainly "send him a bill he can sign", just not
a bill he WANTS to sign. And he'll threaten the welfare of
our troops in his tantrum over it.

Has there ever been a man more completely unfit to sit in
the oval office? Or ANY office, for that matter? Our country
is being ruled by a spoiled, slow-witted child. :cry:

[truthisfreedom]

19. BUSH HOLDS TROOPS HOSTAGE

There's your headline. 8^)

[Ganja Ninja]

20. That pretty much sums it up.

He's willing to let some of them get killed to see if he can score some political points at home. He's a fucking sick bastard.

[gratuitous]

18. Only 57 days? The last Congress took more than twice that long

And nary a peep from Commander Bunnypants last year. I wonder if anyone in the media will have the temerity to ask Little Boots why a 57 day delay is so much worse than last year's 119 day delay?

Nah, what am I thinking? Of course no one will think to ask about last year's delay, or the delay the year before that of nearly three months. See, 9/11 changed everything, and so when the Republicans do it, it's fine and dandy; when the Democrats do it, well, they're Osama bin Laden's handmaidens!

[bluedog]

21. Congressional Research Service says different.....

* is a liar!

Last week, however, the Congressional Research Service released a report concluding the military has funds sufficient to finance operations in Iraq far longer than previously thought.

In a thorough review of U.S. Army data, non-partisan budget experts at CRS informed Congress Friday that the Army could maintain its wartime operations well into July 2007 with funds already provided.


"This study confirms that the president is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety. He is using scare tactics to defeat bipartisan legislation that would change the course in Iraq. After waiting months for this administration to send us its funding requests, both houses of Congress worked quickly to pass the emergency supplemental bill for our troops," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

*********************************************************
.................. warned SecDef Gates to be cautious with "doomsday" predictions, since the military always seems able to find money for war operations. "My experience is there are always two more holes left in that belt," the official said. Further, the LA Times reports:


............ the Army, if pressed, could make do until the end of May with the $70 billion it has in hand. .........................The CRS report, taking into account additional funds the military could shift from elsewhere, estimated the Army could last through most of July.

But the Army official insisted that because of the recent troop increase in Baghdad — a plan that was not in place when the initial $70 billion was provided — the Army is burning through its war funds in Iraq at a much more rapid pace than last year: $8.6 billion per month, as opposed to $7 billion monthly in 2006.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2207/Bush_Warns_of_Funding_Shortage_for_Army