WaPo : Bush Requests $46B to Fund Wars

Monday, October 22, 2007

Bush Requests $46B to Fund Wars

By Peter Baker | Washington Post Staff Writer | October 22, 2007

President Bush requested $46 billion more today to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other security priorities, bringing the total request pending before Congress to $196.4 billion and setting the stage for another politically charged battle over the course of the war.

The funding request would pay for day-to-day costs of the wars, including everything from bullets to body armor, as well as for training of Iraqi troops, embassy programs and intelligence operations. It also would pay for treatment of injured soldiers, equipment repairs, relief for Iraqi refugees, U.N. peacekeeping in the Darfur region of Sudan and counter-narcotics aid to Mexico.

The president's war funding plan appears certain to revive the debate over Iraq that has grown somewhat dormant in Washington over the past month. Bush demanded that Congress approve his spending request by the end of the year and cast it as a test of whether lawmakers support U.S. troops, rather than his policy.

Democratic leaders in Congress have said they do not plan to act on Bush's request until next year as they seek a new strategy to counter the president's war leadership.

"I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking to demonstrate that opposition," Bush said in a midday announcement from the White House. "I recognize their position, and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C."

The president appeared in the Roosevelt Room, surrounded by leaders of veterans and military support organizations and a few family members. He made clear that he will argue, as he did last spring, that the issue is about them -- not about his decisions or policies.

"I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions but still support the troops," he said. "Well, I'll take them at their word -- and this is the chance to show it."

Democratic leaders and other antiwar activists reject that logic, saying Congress's power of the purse is the best means for lawmakers to influence war policy. So far, though, Democrats have been unwilling to refuse the president his requested war funding. When Democrats tried to attach a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable to the last war funding bill in the spring, Bush vetoed it and Congress ended up approving the money without major conditions.

Since that strategy failed, some antiwar lawmakers are urging Democratic leaders to refuse to give Bush the money he needs to wage war, or at least cut it.

"President Bush should not expect the Congress to rubber-stamp this latest supplemental request," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change in strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue."

Most Americans oppose funding Bush's full war request, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll last month. Just a quarter of those surveyed supported the president's full spending plan, as it was then projected, and seven in 10 wanted it reduced. About 46 percent wanted it cut sharply or altogether.

The $45.9 billion Bush asked for today comes on top of $150.5 billion already requested for the 2008 fiscal year that started Oct. 1. Altogether, that would make this year by far the most expensive since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and would bring the overall cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations to more than $800 billion. Even adjusted for inflation, that would exceed the cost of the Vietnam War.

A Congressional Research Service report in July estimated that the total additional cost for the next 10 years could reach $1.45 trillion by 2017, even assuming the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is cut in half within five years.

Today's spending plan includes $42.3 billion more for the Defense Department and $3.6 billion more for the State Department. One of the biggest expenditures is $14.1 billion for mine-resistant vehicles and other efforts to counter snipers and improvised explosive devices. Another big-ticket item is $8.8 billion to refurbish or replace worn-out or damaged equipment.

Smaller spending items include $1.76 billion to better support families of service members affected by long, repeat deployments and to improve health care and rehabilitation for returning injured soldiers. That includes money to accelerate the transition from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to military hospitals in Bethesda and Fort Belvoir.

The administration also tucked in money for several foreign policy initiatives not directly related to Iraq or Afghanistan, such as funds for the Palestinian Authority, United Nations peacekeeping in Darfur, emergency food aid for Africa and heavy fuel oil for North Korea that is part of the deal under which Pyongyang would dismantle its nuclear programs.

The plan also would direct $550 million to Mexico and Central American countries to help their efforts against the drug trade and human trafficking.