$120 Billion More for Iraq Approved 58-0

(Adapted from this post at Crystal Gazing)

Fred Kaplan in Slate:

The FY 2008 budget does not include the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Those costs are covered in the $95.5 billion emergency-spending bill, part of a supplement to the FY 2007 budget, over which the White House and Congress are currently quarreling.) (emphasis original)

That would be true if by 'not include(d)' he means $140+ billion in additional funding...

The FY08 National Defense Authorization Act just reported out of the House Armed Services Committee on a 58-0 vote (pdf) includes $ 140+ billion in "Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom" (pdf - see Sections 1501-1517, starting on page 655). Almost $120 billion of the $140+ billion is for Iraq.

No benchmarks. No timetables. No withdrawal dates. No accountability. Approved unanimously.

That's right. While all sides posture and preen for advantage over the supplemental, Congress is quietly on track, without so much as a peep from anti-war groups or the reality-based community, toward approval of a benchmark- and timetable-free additional $140+ billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the FY 2008 budget.

As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been discussed much here on the Internets and thought you all might want to know before this just sails through Congress.

•  this one is weird

  so basically, back to square one.

  by fugue on Sat May 12, 2007 at 04:42:29 PM PDT

•  First reaction - this is appalling

  When I looked at the link and read what was in it, I could see why some would support it--particularly those on the House Armed Service Committee.  There are good provisions included in it, including 3.5% pay raises and better survivor benefits.

  It is interesting that it requires reporting on both Iraq and Afghanistan, by Gen. Petraeus and others, and that reporting be done using to-be-defined measurable criteria.  Also it required that the mission be clearly defined. (!!!)

  Typical legislation--some good things, other bad things (or, in this case, missing ingredients).

  Thanks for the heads-up.  

  What can be done now, if anything?  What are the next stages?  Is this the last word?

  by BaldEagle3 on Sat May 12, 2007 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

  •  It has

    to go through the full Appropriations Committee then the full House.  So call your Congresscritter if s/he is on Appropriations, and call all of them a bit later.

    by seeker on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:21:49 PM PDT

•  I would like to know the backstory on this.

  That is Murtha's Subcommittee and Obie's Committee.  Certainly does not coincide with Murtha's public statements.  

  by seeker on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:16:35 PM PDT

  •  Except for the war in this phase,

    Murtha is going to vote for all bills funding the military.  It will take someone with a different background to cut the military spending by 50%.

    Remember the $326 Billion voted for the military in the Clinton years.   We're up to $700 billion now.

    Remember the guns and butter lectures in Econ 101.  Well, time to cut the guns now and permanently.

    by Literacy on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:26:03 PM PDT

  •  I just reread the original diary.

    This is an Authorization, not Appropriation.  It's a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee (Ike Skelton).  Murtha has nothing to do with it yet.  This sets parameters for appropriations, but the timetable action will come in the next step, which is Murtha's Defense Appropriations Committee.

    I'd guess that there is lots of struggle ahead.  Do call the members of Appropriations.  That is where the action will be.

    by seeker on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:29:33 PM PDT

•  At least it's on budget, I guess.

  Maybe Mike Gravel's right that the only way to stop the damn occupation is to make it illeagal.  Congress isn't going to do anything about it, there won't be impeachment, and we'll be wondering what the new President is going to do in 2009.  And the likelihood is that all that will change is that there will be a redeployment to Iraqi Kurdistan, or Kuwait, so we'll still be there.  Gravel or Kucinich on the Democratic side would stop it.  Paul on the Republican side would stop it.  All three would bring the troops home.  Kucinich would impeach both Dick and W.  Listen to Gravel's interview on Antiwar radio over at Antiwar.com
  Mike Gravel on Antiwar Radio

  It won't stop until there's real pressure to stop it.

  by rjones2818 on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:20:38 PM PDT

  •  The other way to stop the occupation or at least

    get the conversation further along is to hold impeachment hearings in Congress.

    Vermont pro-impeachment voters had a meeting today with our lone Representative to encourage him to back an impeachment movement in the House. As I diaried today, that will require much pressure from voters around the country to achieve, and Congressman Welch just doesn't see the strength in numbers for either an end to Iraq or impeachment. This was not the answer the audience wanted to hear, but that conclusion appears inevitable.

    If we don't engage enough voters to communicate directly with  their members of Congress, nothing is going to change until we get a change of leadership.

    by 4Freedom on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

•  I think we should drop packages

  of gold bars and guns in insurgent areas.

  Hopefully, the insurgents would fight over the gold bars.

  It would be far cheaper.

  One million gold bars at $1,000 each plus one million loaded pistols at $200 each would be $1.2 billion.

  by SingleVoter on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:23:50 PM PDT

  •  Wilco on air drop, bridges are fallin down

    Todays British Press has some sobering reports, like the details of the Oil Bill being shoved down Iraqi throats and this:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/...

    The three-month-old US plan to regain control of Baghdad is slow to show results, despite the arrival of four more US brigades. Security in the heart of the city may be a little better, but the US and the Iraqi government are nowhere near to dealing a knockout blow to the Sunni insurgency or Shia militias.

    The Sunni guerrillas trying to isolate Baghdad from the rest of the country exploded truck bombs on three important bridges last week, killing 26 people. One blew up in a queue of cars on the old Diyala bridge, just south of Baghdad. Two minutes later a truck exploded on a newer bridge over the same river. North of Baghdad, at Taji, long a centre for insurgents, a third vehicle bomb made impassable a bridge linking Baghdad with northern Iraq.

    An amatuer pilot told me today that an intricate/precise "potato bazooka" could knock down a helicopter in a pinch.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:56:57 PM PDT

•  added tags

  Afghanistan, funding

  by Joffan on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

•  Would you buy a used War...

  It doesn't even have that New War Smell tm

  by ben masel on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:55:25 PM PDT

•  It may be the "catch-up" funding

  For the last four years, the cost of Iraq + Afghanistan has been underreported.  Or, put another way, there has been a lot of "borrowing" going on.  Examples: pulling in National Guard equipment (tanks, trucks, guns, etc) to the point that stateside inventories are dangerously low; pulling in delivery schedules on existing contracts for materials, munitions, equipment (may have been originally spread out for 10 years based upon slow usage/wear in non-war scenario); other robbing Peter to pay Paul schemes.

  At some point, you need to restock all those National Guard units in the states, all those US-based Army training facilities that no longer have much equipment left to train upon.  At some point, an existing contract runs out, and you have to let out new purchase orders.  My understanding is that this backlog (restocking, getting caught up, whatever you want to call it), had grown to over $120B.  

  The difference is that, while some of the this money may go to restocking in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater, its primarily for equipment.  It doesn't include direct earmarks for Iraq (may sound like some accounting trickery here), and it defintely wouldn't include contractor payments.

  I haven't looked at the specifics since last December, so I could be wrong.

  by Habitat Vic on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

•  FY08

  This could also be because when Dems took over in January they said there would be no more emergency supplementals after completing the one currently being debated.

  Bush has been sectioning Iraq off in to emergency supplementals the whole time to keep it out of the budget. Dems said they were putting a stop to that -- going forward he'd have to submit it with the regular budget request.

  It sounds as if this might be the first step toward doing that.

  by donnas on Sat May 12, 2007 at 07:20:08 PM PDT