Kennedy: No Funds For More Troops

Democrat Proposes Bill To Deny Bush Money For Sending Additional Troops To Iraq

(CBS/AP)  As President Bush prepares to unveil a new strategy for the war in Iraq, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Tuesday that he was introducing a bill to block Mr. Bush from sending additional troops to Iraq without the consent of Congress.

Kennedy's legislation comes just one day before the president reveals what he's calling a new way forward in Iraq — a plan that is expected to include the deployment of 20,000 additional troops.

Kennedy, a long-time critic of the president and the war, said sending more troops will not solve the mounting sectarian violence in Iraq.

"The legislation that we will introduce today is brief but essential," Kennedy said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. "It requires the president to obtain approval from Congress before he sends even more American soldiers to Iraq. And it prohibits the president from spending taxpayer dollars on such an escalation unless Congress approves it."

---

Read Sen. Kennedy's bill to prohibit an escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

---

The Constitution gives broad war-making powers to the president, with Congress controlling the spending budget. Kennedy said if the president wants to send additional U.S. troops, then he's going to have to discuss it with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

"The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress," Kennedy said. "President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further and send an even larger number of our troops into harm's way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress."

Kennedy called any "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq an "immense new mistake."

"An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake. It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq," he said.

Like the war in Vietnam, Kennedy said the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily.

"Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military. Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer," Kennedy said.

As the president's speech drew near, White House press secretary Tony Snow insisted that the president was still listening to ideas from lawmakers.

"I'm not saying that the president's going to go back in and shred it and start over," Snow said. "What I'm saying is the president still continues to have an open mind, because this is a way forward. This is not, 'Wave a wand and it's going to happen.'"

Snow conceded that Mr. Bush has a challenge in persuading a war-weary public to send additional troops to Iraq.

"The president will not shape policy according to public opinion, but he does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war, and restore public confidence and support for the mission," Snow said.

Democrats seem divided on whether to block funds for troop increases, but many were not ruling it out. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats would "look at everything" in their power to curb the war, short of cutting money for troops already in the field.

He said he would only consider an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq if Mr. Bush agreed to start withdrawing troops within six months.

If brought to the floor by Democratic leaders, Kennedy's proposal would force Republicans to put themselves on record regarding the war for the first time since the Nov. 7 elections, when the GOP lost control of Congress to the Democrats in large part because of the war. Most Republicans say they back the president, or are at least willing to hear him out, but a few GOP moderates say there is no indication U.S. troops would make a difference.

According to senators who attended a meeting Monday with the president, a promise to send more troops to Iraq would be conditioned on criteria met by the Iraqi government, such as reaching political deals on sharing the nation's oil resources and dispatching more of its own troops to Baghdad.

Mr. Bush told the senators that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggested the plan when the two met in late November in Amman, Jordan. The senators said the president expressed confidence that the Iraqi government could meet certain milestones in exchange for additional U.S. support.

But several of the senators remained skeptical.

"We've had these benchmarks before and to no avail," Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said after meeting with Bush. "Why should we increase our exposure to risk?"

But whether Snowe and other GOP Senate skeptics of Mr. Bush's plan, including Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins of Maine, will agree to Kennedy's plan is doubtful.

"It would be a dishonorable thing for the Congress to budget away the bullets at a time when their commander in chief had ordered them to hold their place in the battlefront," said Smith.

[arthurcl1]

This is George Bushes Empiracle Dynastic Vision?
That question must keep McCain's advisers up at night. In Vietnam, the right's advice was never followed and, thus, never came up for a vote. When Reagan called Vietnam a "noble cause" in 1980, he was stoking a myth of national innocence and invincibility for which beleaguered Americans yearned. But he could do so precisely because his preferred policies on Vietnam had never been tried. In 2008, by contrast, Iraq won't be a symbolic issue. Americans will still be dying, and the catastrophe will still be deepening, largely because of policies clearly identified with the likely Republican presidential nominee. McCain can claim that, by sending only 20,000 troops, Bush didn't surge enough %u2014 and, thus, his preferred policy didn't fail. But that will look like quibbling. Already, presidential hopeful John Edwards has dubbed Bush's surge "the McCain Doctrine," and, with public support for a surge near single digits, Democrats will likely make that a central thrust of their campaign to retake the White House.

[jimibear]

Also, Gunnerv1, I find your ready familiarity with the weapons used by assassins more than slightly disturbing.

[jimibear]

"I admit that Saddam had nothing do with 9/11, BUT he did harbor and help train either directly or indirectly the the jerkwads that did it"

What backup do you have for that, Gunnerv1?

"and therefore deserves more that what he and his country got and are getting."

So ... 3000 dead in the Twin Towers mean that the devasation of an entire country and a conservative estimate of 150,000 dead Iraqis are not yet enough?

Ok, then. Bush's war has no killed more than 3,000 - all Americans (unlike all those in the Towers). What do he and his administration deserve?

[jimibear]

I don't like Kennedy. Never have.

But in this case, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And as a side note: anyone posting as "NeoCon04" with no trace of irony has already shown that their posts can be safely disregarded and/or printed out and used for toilet paper.

Another Bushy with a non-existant point. "Oh, so Bush can't talk? Well, what about your guy, who ... "

There is no getting through to the cataclysmically stupid. They support Bush simply because they finally have a president who does not intimidate them intellectually.

Special Olympians intimidate them intellectually, but not Bush.

[gunnerv1]

I admit that Saddam had nothing do with 9/11, BUT he did harbor and help train either directly or indirectly the the jerkwads that did it and therefore deserves more that what he and his country got and are getting. PS. 6.5mm Carcano is the type of rifle that Lee Harvy Oswald used to asasinate John F. Kennedy, maybe someone needs to step up to the plate for someone else.

[agnim]

"America should require a minimum IQ of say... 80 to vote. That would eliminate any chance of another idiot like Bush getting elected to any office.

Posted by dallison7 at 02:00 PM : Jan 11, 2007"
LOL
Are you freaking crazy?
At that IQ level, how many Americans you think would be able to vote? LOL

Plus that countless number that is excluded might lose the illusion that they really have a meaningful influence in the American election process. That would be counter productive to the goal of mass hypnosis of American to government propaganda.

[dallison7]

I remember seeing, on TV, a British newspaper headline after the last presidential election, "How can 59 million people be so dumb?" As I read some of these blogs posted by republicans I think I am beginning to understand the answer to that question. It is staggering how many people really think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. With their heads deeply buried in the sand, they seem to know nothing about current events. They can't grasp the truth... Bush, Cheney, oil, Haliburton, $400 billion, 3000+ dead American kids and, oh yes, "He's the guy who tried to kill my dad". America should require a minimum IQ of say... 80 to vote. That would eliminate any chance of another idiot like Bush getting elected to any office.

[randalds]

He killed one young girl, how many of our troops does he intend to kill by cutting off funds.

That ***#in Jerk.
Posted by thgdriver at 05:14 PM : Jan 10, 2007

Not nearly as many as he'll save by getting the troops out of the stupid godda*nm war of choice that Bush lied them into. How many has Bush killed? Well over 3000 so far and another 10,000 wounded so badly they'll need lifetime care. How many innocent Iraqi people has he killed? Some say as high as several thousand, but he himself says 30,000 to 50,000. I'd say that makes Bush one of the worst mass-murderers of our time and he deserves to hang in Geneva for it. After a fair trial of course.

[randalds]

Now you can ask who was Oswald.
Posted by thgdriver at 05:06 PM : Jan 10, 2007

Easy, the one the Chicago mob used to take out JFK at the request of Hoover and for the benefit of Johnson.

[lieberman18]

No more money for the troops, Drunk Intern Killer?

Hmmmm, I say jail time for the Intern killer. Maybe Joan Kennedy, could become his guard and in one of her more sober moments - might do the right thing.

Hint - it has something to do with Bobbitt.

[thgdriver]

Kennedy SEZ-- No Funds For More Troops.

I say no more Scotch and Soda for Kennedy.

He killed one young girl, how many of our troops does he intend to kill by cutting off funds.

That ***#in Jerk.

[thgdriver]

a 6.5mm Carcano--- that was the type of rifle used by Oswald.

Now you can ask who was Oswald.

[randalds]

Is a 6.5mm Carcano a gun?
Are we supposed to know that or something?
Posted by jh6379 at 02:21 PM : Jan 10, 2007

It's a naval gun and gunnerv1 used to fire one during Vietnam. Beyond that his comments mean little or nothing.

[processor2]

After Ted Kennedy killed a woman at Chappaquiddic, and then didn't tell any authorities until the next day, he should be in prison, not Congress.

.........

[gunnerv1]

Gotta go earn some tax money for the welfare rolls. See ya in about 3 hours!

[gunnerv1]

I swear, you people have no B*lls

[gunnerv1]

Come on Dems, Libs, You've had 15 minutes to counter me for my 6.5mm Carcano comment! your 15 minutes are up.

[gunnerv1]

Who's going to be standing in line with a 6.5mm Carcano?

[gunnerv1]

Ted Kennedy and the entire Rum Running Kennedy clan can drop dead after they kiss my rosy rear!

[letirod]

Is your kid in the military? Is he/she in Iraq? Is he/she dead or alive? Do you want him/her alive or dead? Support the return of our troops. Support your child have them bring them back home alive, otherwise the more that go the more will come back in a box or "half" alive. Why are we allowing such death among people .....ok I forgot its for money and greed. I don't have any of that but I do have a son who for right now is alive but for how long.