November 25, 2009 2:33 PM

Obama, Democrats Likely at Odds on Afghanistan

By
Jill Jackson
Topics
Democrats
(CBS)
Before President Barack Obama addresses the nation Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on his decision regarding the Afghanistan war, he will have to face a possibly tougher audience.

Top congressional leaders, Chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Appropriations committees have been invited to the White House late Tuesday afternoon to meet with the president for an advanced briefing on the new policy. And it could be tense.

It is expected that Mr. Obama will announce that he will deploy 30,000 to 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. That's in addition to 68,000 U.S. troops already in that country, bringing the total number of soldiers to around 100,000. Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen have estimated that it would cost $1 billion for each thousand additional troops to pay for logistical support, salaries, equipment, transportation and additional training.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

That cost issue has become a real target for at least two Democrats invited to Tuesday's meeting. The first is the powerful Chairman of the House Appropriations committee, David Obey (D-WI). It's often said that the Appropriations Committees hold the purse strings in Congress. Any additional war spending would have to go through Chairman Obey, and he's threatening to tie those strings tight.

(AP)
Obey (left) has been increasingly voicing opposition to the war in Afghanistan for months, and he stepped out front this week to promote his proposal to tax Americans 1 to 5 percent of their income to pay for the war.

The second member with issues on cost is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee Carl Levin (D-MI). Levin would also like a tax to pay for the war, but only on high income earners making over $200,000 and $250,000 per year.

Then there are political challenges. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is also invited to the White House Tuesday, and she has acknowledged that there is not a lot of support in the Democratic Caucus for any kind of surge in Afghanistan. The last war funding bill passed – but 32 Democrats in the House, mostly progressives, voted against the final measure. And that was at the very beginning of the Obama presidency, when his popularity was at an all-time high.

If the president reaches out for support for sending more troops to Afghanistan at Tuesday's meeting, he's most likely to find some from Republicans who've been stalwart critics of the Obama Administration's domestic agenda. Mr. Obama will need GOP votes to give members of his own party leeway to vote against additional war funding. House and Senate Republicans have amped up criticism of the president's handling of Afghanistan in recent weeks, pressuring Mr. Obama to quickly accept General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops. House Minority Leader John Boehner accused the Obama administration of "dragging its feet."

Republicans will likely be supportive of the troop increase, but Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel cautions that Republicans "will be closely examining how the policies, troop levels, and resources the president announces address the needs and issues raised in General McChrystal's assessment." Steel said Republicans will want explanations for any differences.

In many ways, President Obama's meeting Tuesday with divided Congressional leaders will be a good warm-up for his address to a divided nation over what the long-term strategy in Afghanistan should be.

Poll: Most Say War in Afghanistan Going Badly

(CBS)
Jill Jackson is a CBS News Capitol Hill Producer. You can read more of her posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow her on Twitter.

Add a Comment See all 25 Comments
by prajaowain November 29, 2009 7:25 PM EST
If anyone is still reading the responses to this article I just want to let you know that CBS censors the comments when asked to by the government. Censorship is alive and well in Pax Americana. Blue flame I am well aware your responses were cut because you recognize a little truth when you see it. I am also aware they will always try to discredit us when they are afraid that we will influence others to oppose the empire. They are afraid. Exploit the fear!
Reply to this comment
by prajaowain November 27, 2009 11:19 PM EST
Da link was cut off as it always will be when found.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 November 27, 2009 6:43 AM EST
"Obey (left) has been increasingly voicing opposition to the war in Afghanistan for months..."

His being on the left has nothing to do with it.

Many on the right have misgivings about this conflict too.

Obey is just obeying his conscience.
Reply to this comment
by jsilver2th November 27, 2009 4:20 AM EST
Honestly I think sending more troops to Afg is a big mistake and I think Biden was right to warn Obama but I will tell you one thing and that is Obama pretty much said in the campaign he was going to fight the war in Afg so there you go- he's just doing what he said he would do.
Reply to this comment
by WiseWidget November 26, 2009 10:41 AM EST
Tax the hell out of Americans for this Afghanistan war! With the stupid it is especially important to get their attention if they are to learn anything. The American attention span is only about 15 seconds. When they see that money gone from their paycheck again and again it will be a good reminder to the sheep that something is amiss. LOL. Perhaps when they are broke enough they will "get it." There is a problem with these endless Bush wars and it has to do with money.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 26, 2009 10:19 AM EST
No Sir, The ChickenHawk Republican Machine are in Support of the High A!! Cost Afghanistan Occupation.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Praeger, Majority of Republican Talk Radio Pundits and their Legion of Fans & Fox News are all for this War.

"Listen to the Generals on the Ground"

Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and All the other Fox News Numbskulls, Chant this Sad Refrain, Over & Over Again.

They won't be able to Get Away from their Statements. That is Exactly why, President Obama should Listen to his VOICE and CONSCIENCE and Withdraw. This War, is Too Costly in Lives, To Costly In Time and Too Costly to the USA,

Its "Generational Theft and Generational Debt"

If President Obama Pulled Troops out in 2011 along with the Iraq Withdrawal, People would See the Logic. Let them Defend their Own Land, so We can Defend Ours here in the [[USA]]
_______________

I Love President Obama, But He Caters to the Republican Right, Too Much on the War and on Health Care, Cowtowing to Olympia Snowe, One Republican Vote, when all he has to do, is have Cloture and Reconciliation and Do what's Best in Resolving the Health Care Problems of this Nation.

He Now CowTows to the Republicans who will Hate Him Anyway, as you can See on this Thread, whether he Sends 35,000 or 100,000 US Soldiers, they will Not Like Him, Vote for Him or Favor Him, No Matter what he does to Appease them and she Shouldn't Appease them at all.

Bush used Reconciliation in 2001, 2003 and 2005.

Regarding Reconciliation 51 Vote Majority Rules:

Republican Judd Gregg stated ..

"If You're the Majority, You Win]

___________________
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 26, 2009 10:10 AM EST
No Sir, The ChickenHawk Republican Machine are in Support of the High A!! Cost Afghanistan Occupation.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Praeger, Majority of Republican Talk Radio Pundits and their Legion of Fans & Fox News are all for this War.

"Listen to the Generals on the Ground"

Plain and All of these Fox News Numbskulls, Chant this Sad Refrain, Over & Over Again.

I Love President Obama, But He Caters to the Republican Right, Too Much on teh War and on health Care, Cowtowing to Olympia Snowe, One Republican Vote, when all he has to do, is have Cloture and Reconciliation and Do what's Best in Resolving the Health Care Problems of this Nation.

He Now CowTows to the Republicans who will Hate Him Anyway, as you can See on this Thread, whether he Sends 35,000 or 100,000 US Soldiers, they will Not Like Him, Vote for Him or Favor Him, No Matter what he does to Appease them and she Shouldn't Appease them at all.

Bush used Reconciliation in 2001, 2003 and 2005.

Regarding Reconciliation 51 Vote Majority Rules: Republican Judd Gregg stated ..

"If You're the Majority, You Win]


___________________
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 25, 2009 11:18 PM EST
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-david-obey-warns-president-obama-afghanistan-war/story?id=9126805

_____________

David Obey: "There Ain't Gonna be No Money for Nothing if we Pour it All into Afghanistan,"

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Watch ABC News' exclusive interview with Rep. Obey here.

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said.

"But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
Related

_______________
Obey's opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision the White House says the President could make as early as November 30).

As Appropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for the war when the last war funding bill narrowly passed the House in June.

His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy.

The White House won't be able to count on Obey's support the next time the president seeks funding for the war.

"I want the president and every American to think ahead of time about what it means if you do add to our involvement in Afghanistan," Obey told ABC News. "I am no military strategist, but I don't believe we have the tools to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan because you have to have functioning, effective government and there isn't one in Afghanistan.

There isn't one in Pakistan either."
__________
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 25, 2009 11:16 PM EST
David Gregory Gets "Joltin" Joe Lieberman

On the High Cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq War Cost 12 trillion and its Not Paid For, or Budget Neutral and Additional Cost of 9 Trillion more Dollars added to the already 12 Trillion Dollars, we Owe Communist-Socialist China, with Interest.
_____________

MR. GREGORY: I just want to...

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I don't want to do that.

MR. GREGORY: Are you consistent on this matter? If you say you don't like a public option because of how it might influence the debt, will you apply that same standard to escalating the war in Afghanistan?

Should that be deficit-neutral, what we spend on Afghanistan?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Incidentally, over the years, back in the Bush administration, I put forward tax programs to pay for the wars because I, I don't know of another time in our history when we went to war and didn't pay for it.

That's part of why we have the enormous debt that we have now, [$12 Trillion] today, predicted to add [[$9 Trillion]] in the next 10 years.

MR. GREGORY: All right, so that's the question.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: It, it's going to...

MR. GREGORY: You, you would pay for escalation in Afghanistan? It would have to be paid for?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Absolutely.

Note: Lieberman is Giving Gregory Borderline Bull Spit and Gregory Knows it too.
_____________________
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 25, 2009 11:15 PM EST
Reuters: http://lnk.ms/396sk

The U.S. To Leave Afghanistan By [[2017]] The Nation will be Bankrupt.

I Cannot Believe this..

I Cannot !!


Alright You Gung Ho Ho's...

I Can SEE the Damn Draft Coming...


Finally, All get to Participate in this High Cost Bankrupting War Campaign.
________


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will not be in Afghanistan eight years from now, the White House said on Wednesday, as President Barack Obama prepared to explain to Americans next week why he is expanding the war effort.

After months of deliberation and fending off Republican charges that he was dithering on Afghanistan while violence there surged, Obama will address the nation on Tuesday on the way forward in the costly and unpopular eight-year war.

He is expected to announce he is sending about 30,000 more troops as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy that will place greater emphasis on accelerating the training of Afghan security forces so that U.S. soldiers can eventually withdraw.

It appears highly unlikely Obama will offer a specific troop withdrawal timetable, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president would stress that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was not open-ended.

"We are in year nine of our efforts in Afghanistan. We are not going to be there another eight or nine years," Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited and that is important for people to understand," he said.

He said Obama would use his prime-time televised speech to stress the "sheer cost" of the war, explain to Americans why their military was still in Afghanistan, and press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to improve governance after being re-elected in a fraud-tainted vote in August.

"The American people are going to want to know why we are here, they are going to want to know what our interests are," Gibbs said.

The White House has estimated it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier sent to Afghanistan. With the U.S. deficit hitting $1.4 trillion and fueling Americans' concerns about high government spending, sending more troops to Afghanistan could be a politically risky move for Obama.

Obama's fellow Democrats, who control the U.S. Congress, face potentially difficult midterm elections in November 2010, with Republicans eager to exploit Americans' unease about the country's ballooning deficit and high unemployment.

Two veteran Democratic lawmakers have already called for imposing a "war tax" to pay for the troop increase.

"VERY, VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE"
Reply to this comment
See all 25 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...