Bush’s budget cuts off funding for the troops.
Bush’s budget cuts off funding for the troops.
The Politico reports that the White House “confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009″:
The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.
“A budget is a reflection of military strategy, and we don’t want to prejudge the recommendations of commanders,” a White House budget official said about the decision.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
his makes perfect sense. He’s not responsible for the war after he leaves the office, so why should he do his successor’s work?
Comment by Frank M — January 24, 2008 @ 10:53 am
of course, Frank, he should continue to kill young Americans at the fastest rate he can, so you rightards will be happy. cheer on the deaths of the troops, we know you hate America.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:55 amWow. Frank M has obviously decided to ignore any internal self-censorship impulses he might encounter.
Frank, you’re not really supposed to admit that Bush doesn’t care about our troops or the war except as it affects him. You’re supposed to pretend that he actually believes that this is the defining conflict of our generation and that he is committed to spare no effort to make sure it’s brought to a successful conclusion.
You’ve basically admitted that Bush is content to sit on the ball, run out the clock and hand the mess over to whichever Democrat wins in November.
I don’t know, man, doesn’t sound very “patriotic” to me.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:00 amThis makes perfect sense. He’s not responsible for the war after he leaves the office, so why should he do his successor’s work?
Comment by Frank M — January 24, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Let me fix that for you…He’s never been responsible for anything in
his miserable failed life, why should he be responsible for his latest failure?
There, I think that’s what you meant to say.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am“This makes perfect sense. He’s not responsible for the war after he leaves the office, so why should he do his successor’s work?”
Comment by Frank M
He’s not even asking for funding through September ‘08. So the funds will be drying up before he heads back to Crawford.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:07 amOT – I have a favor to ask. The Ed Schultz show starts in about an hour. I ask you to send him an email imploring him to talk about the FISA legislation, Chris Dodd’s filibuster and Hillary and Barack’s absence from the proceedings.
I sent him an email in December, regarding this, during Dodd’s first filibuster and he read it on air. He continued the topic into the next day.
I need all the great TP folks here to bombard him with emails, once again, demanding he put pressure on Hillary and Barack to join the filibuster and save the 4th amendment. It may be the last hope we have for success.
His show reaches in excess of a million people, so this is very imporant.
Here’s Ed’s email page.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:07 amhttp://www.wegoted.com/emailEd/index.asp
From the article:
The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge†funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:08 amThis makes perfect sense. He’s not responsible for the war after he leaves the office, so why should he do his successor’s work?
Comment by Frank M — January 24, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Actually, he is responsible for the completely unnecessary war he started in Iraq. Bush and his neocon cronies will continue to be held responsible for this war for centuries to come, in the history textbooks of the future.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am“Here, I made this big freaking mess. You deal with it. I got brush to clear.”
He’s not even pretending to care anymore.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:11 amWell said, toasterhead. Well said.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:12 amFrank, stop it. You are only showing your ignorance. This is the war that Bush built and will forever be known as just that.
This is a perfect chance for any republicans in congress who intend to stay there after the next election to distance themselves from the failure that is Bush.
Frank, you crack me up.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:13 amSo, is Bush leaving the soldiers to die on Iraq unless someone else takes on the responsibility in ‘09?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:16 amWay to go, President Fukface, just run out the clock while hanging on by a thread. That’s what leaders do, right? Take strong ideological stands unless it happens to require some work on your part, eh?
Its almost funny, except that history will judge us all, not just Bush.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:27 amThe President doesn’t even have the courage to stand by the War that he claims is the defining act of his presidency… and that’s all right with the trolls???
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 amYou’ll never believe I put up this cartoon BEFORE I heard about this.
Impeach this bastard.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:33 amThe next battle will be the U.S.-Iraq treaty that will govern the long-term presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including possible permanent bases. The United States and Iraq are supposed to conclude that accord by July, 2008.
supported by Hillary warhawk Clinton too
January 24th, 2008 at 11:35 amAnd the “accomplished” mission continues…
January 24th, 2008 at 11:35 amUN Mandate runs out 31st Dec 2009 anyway
January 24th, 2008 at 11:39 amFrankie; by your twisted logic, Hitler isn’t responsible for WWII either, since he “left” office in his Berlin bunker.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:43 amI would think this would be good news in Progressive-land? I mean, wasn’t cutting off funding for the war the Holy Grail of the Left? If they need more money down the road they can ask for a supplemental and they probably will….aren’t you guys glad about this as a potential sign of a draw-down?
January 24th, 2008 at 11:48 amThis is all about the deficit .
January 24th, 2008 at 11:50 amBush thinks this will somehow lower the dept he’s leaving his grandchildren.
That made up number that doesnt include jack.
Dumb Question: wouldn’t including the natural cost of the Iraq War into the budget just make the numbers show up on calcluations of the National Debt ? By moving them off budget, he just is just showing that he is the fiscally responsible person.
Not to mention, even ending the war will have a rather large cost in shipping the troops back home. It is much easier just to leave them there and let the hitchhike home.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am“. . . why should he do his successor’s work?”
Because it is his horrendous war!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:56 amGW666 is doing exactly what he did to Texas after he left there, make a huge mess of every thing, put them in huge debt, then bail out and leave it to the next person to fix it. He sucks a$$ big time.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
January 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am” . . . why should he do his successor’s work?”
Then why is he fighting to extend his class-warfare tax cuts? It’s all politics, nothing about the good of the country. Eight years of criminal malfeasance with fifty or more years of fall out!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:59 amaren’t you guys glad about this as a potential sign of a draw-down?
Comment by Keltoi — January 24, 2008 @ 11:48 am
This may just be a silent acknowledgement of the fact that our military commanders will start drawing down troops because they don’t have replacements for those whose tours are over.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pmaren’t you guys glad about this as a potential sign of a draw-down?
Comment by Keltoi — January 24, 2008 @ 11:48 am
it’s merely the sneakiest, Bushiest way of doing the usual republican’t cut ‘n’ run.
Another 9/11? Vote Republican.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pmI need to remember this next time I’m at Pottery Barn… If I drop something, I guess all I have to do is leave the store, and then I’m no longer responsible.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm.
WHY DOES BUSH HATE THE TROOPS?
.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pmChimpy is doing us as a nation a great service.
Rather than continue to fund his debacle, the Dems can just bring the troops home immediately, instead of bothering with the funding.
Thanks Chimpy!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pmKicking the can down the road again… And using and abusing our troops in the process. G W Bush is the most revolting president this country has ever had to endure.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:05 pm