Bush Seeks Money For 8,200 More Troops
President Bush said Sunday that the 4,600 additional troops he is sending to Iraq above an increase announced in January are slated for support roles only, and urged Congress to approve funding for the war "without any strings attached."
Mr. Bush said in January after an extensive review that 21,500 additional American soldiers would be sent to Iraq to help calm Baghdad and the troubled Anbar Province.
"Those combat troops are going to need, you know, some support, and that's what the American people are seeing in terms of Iraq — the support troops necessary to help the reinforcements do their job," President Bush said at a news conference here with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
The latest announcement, made over the weekend, includes 2,400 combat support troops and 2,200 military police. Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, told Congress last week that the number of support troops needed to support the influx of 21,500 combat troops into Iraq could reach 7,000.
Of the roughly 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 60,000 are combat forces and the rest are support troops.
President Bush asked Congress on Friday for $3.2 billion to pay for the new Iraq troops, as well as for 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan.
This revision came as lawmakers opposed to the war have been debating the $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Face The Nation, Sen. Charles Schumer, the Vice Chair of the Democratic Conference, said his party would try to split the two parts of the president's request.
"I think most Democrats will support more troops in Afghanistan – after all, that's where the nexus of terrorism is," the New York Democrat told Bob Schieffer. "But as for Iraq, whether it's 4,000 more troops or 40,000 more troops, we Democrats believe almost unanimously that we need a dramatic change in course, strange in strategy away from policing a civil war and much more in the direction of a much more limed and narrow mission."
Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, also appearing on Face The Nation, said the request for additional troops wasn't a big surpise.
"I think it's been clear that we need them in Afghanistan, and there's general agreement – no one is objecting to our action there," Specter said. "And I think that there had been an expectation that there would need to be troops to back up his original announcement of a 21,500 – so this is in the ordinary course of business."
"My hope, of course, is that Congress provides the funding necessary for the combat troops to be able to do their job — without any strings attached," Bush said.
In an earlier letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.
Cutting the programs, Mr. Bush said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Mr. Bush wrote in his letter to lawmakers.
The president signed the letter on his flight Friday from Brazil to Uruguay, part of his five-nation tour of Latin America that continues on Sunday in Colombia. The White House released the letter Saturday in Montevideo, Uruguay.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Mr. Bush said in January after an extensive review that 21,500 additional American soldiers would be sent to Iraq to help calm Baghdad and the troubled Anbar Province.
"Those combat troops are going to need, you know, some support, and that's what the American people are seeing in terms of Iraq — the support troops necessary to help the reinforcements do their job," President Bush said at a news conference here with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
The latest announcement, made over the weekend, includes 2,400 combat support troops and 2,200 military police. Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, told Congress last week that the number of support troops needed to support the influx of 21,500 combat troops into Iraq could reach 7,000.
Of the roughly 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 60,000 are combat forces and the rest are support troops.
President Bush asked Congress on Friday for $3.2 billion to pay for the new Iraq troops, as well as for 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan.
This revision came as lawmakers opposed to the war have been debating the $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Face The Nation, Sen. Charles Schumer, the Vice Chair of the Democratic Conference, said his party would try to split the two parts of the president's request.
"I think most Democrats will support more troops in Afghanistan – after all, that's where the nexus of terrorism is," the New York Democrat told Bob Schieffer. "But as for Iraq, whether it's 4,000 more troops or 40,000 more troops, we Democrats believe almost unanimously that we need a dramatic change in course, strange in strategy away from policing a civil war and much more in the direction of a much more limed and narrow mission."
Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, also appearing on Face The Nation, said the request for additional troops wasn't a big surpise.
"I think it's been clear that we need them in Afghanistan, and there's general agreement – no one is objecting to our action there," Specter said. "And I think that there had been an expectation that there would need to be troops to back up his original announcement of a 21,500 – so this is in the ordinary course of business."
"My hope, of course, is that Congress provides the funding necessary for the combat troops to be able to do their job — without any strings attached," Bush said.
In an earlier letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.
Cutting the programs, Mr. Bush said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Mr. Bush wrote in his letter to lawmakers.
The president signed the letter on his flight Friday from Brazil to Uruguay, part of his five-nation tour of Latin America that continues on Sunday in Colombia. The White House released the letter Saturday in Montevideo, Uruguay.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 496 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 118 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
Also, Henry's famous speech was probably written in 1817, 18 years after his death.
well ... that response is no surprise. a complete focus on an inconsequential element of the post ... all while completely ignoring the real point.
you're all the same ... never address the real issue ... never face the reality of your distored perspective. always defaulting to an attempt to undermine the integrity of the messenger ... exactly what the current admin does. each time a new unknown (and likely unconstitutional) policy is uncovered ... they don't want to talk about the issue ... they immediately move to undermine those who brought it to light (ex. lying to get into iraq war, wiretaps, phone records, joe wilson, criticism of war effort, congressional oversight of executive branch, dismissal of us attorneys for politcal reasons)
do they teach you that in the process of getting your brown shirt status ... or did you just pick that one up on your own from watching your 'leader' ?
[would have thought most readers would guess that an expletive was being substituted for when I used the term "globbers". ]
most readers would NOT have to 'guess' that an expetive was being substituted when the writer used something like $#!%. but that's obviously too difficult for you to understand ... much like all else that's obvious to the majority of the rest of us.
why don't you challenge a single actual point i've made ... the absence of such i will take as implicit acceptance.
are you kidding? 'we the people' don't have any means to 'do globbers' about it (whatever that means).
why don't they put it on the ballot? hold a special election just for this. make it simple ... provide only two options:
1. stay the course w/ no timetable
2. set timetable w/ milestones (troop drawdown on milstones)
with the village idiot's current approval rating ... this will be a no brainer ... i think it's called a landslide.
that would be a true 'representative government' ... something we haven't seen in a while.
how do you do it? a tireless support of a complete idiot ... who has pretty much failed at everything's he's done.
the election of george bush in 2000 was basically a modern day coup d'etat. a relatively small group of hard right wing conservative idealogues joined forces (and monetary resources) ... found a folksy front man that would appeal the large part of the american electorate that basically have little to no clue about american politics ... and all but stole the election w/ a combination of sophisticated linguistics and idealogical misreprenstations (ie. taking moderate positions on core issues).
they then topped it all off w/ some crafty legal wrangling w/ the help of an absolutely ridiculous (and completely politicized) US supreme court decision to take over the white house and ultimately the whole us government (since the republican congress pretty much did whatever he wanted).
for the most part ... elections ... and the perception that the electorate has a real say in the outcome is a facade that keeps everyone in line ... going to work every day ... accpeting the scam that it all is ... keeping it all short of a revolution. the powers that be want to keep it that way.
How sad.
Not to mention being a troll.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:13 AM : Mar 12, 2007
Tucker you are absolutely correct. Just ignore this idiot and all like him.....