You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Kennedy plan would block funds for new troops
2007-01-10
A day before President Bush is to address the nation on Iraq, congressional Democrats moved Tuesday to pre-empt his plan to send thousands more troops to Baghdad by denying him the money to pay for it.
Sen. Edward Kennedy proposed legislation that would bar funding for new troops.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., took the opening shot in the first head-to-head confrontation between the president and the newly Democratic Congress, proposing legislation that would bar funding for new troops.

NBC News has reported that Bush will announce the deployment of 20,000 more troops and push a new program to speed reconstruction and provide jobs for Iraqis in his nationally televised address Wednesday night. A senior defense official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that the first of those troops would be in the country before the end of the month.
Posted by:Fred

#28  terh? Jeebus! the... typing too fast and agitated...my bad. PIMF
Posted by: Frank G   2007-01-10 19:08  

#27  tough to separate out the specifics of terh Iraq ops for funds cuts. My guess is Bush will stare down the Donks, who have hate, but no real agenda, unity, or political backbone. War Powers Act IMHO is unconstitutional, and any effort by the Donks to usurp CinC powers or cut funding will reinforce their image (rightly earned) of animosity to those in uniform who defend OUR freedom. Bush is playing chicken with chickens, for a good reason. YMMV
Posted by: Frank G   2007-01-10 19:07  

#26  I don't understand how the funding for troops is calcualted. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me. Reports are saying an increase in 21,500 troops will cost 5.6 Billion. I'm assuming this is the additional funding Kennedy wants to block. Well, where does that number come from. It's not like these are "new" US Army troops. They would be somewhere doing something and we would be paying for it. Does the 5.6 Billion figure calculate only additional "combat pay" and the additional bullets/bombs/supplies etc. I have a feeling it costs several billion just having these guys at home. Whats the real skinny on this?
Posted by: Intrinsicpilot   2007-01-10 17:22  

#25  Which invalidates the WPA, regardless of its undecided constitutionality, since there already has been a court decision stating that the authorization for the Iraq War is effectively a declaration of war by Congress.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-01-10 15:50  

#24  exJAG, It's my understanding that Congress corrected that. I thought they rewrote another bill that fixes the legislative veto problem by requireing it to go to the President for Veto then come back for the override, just like any other bill. Also, I think it only applied to military engagements without a Declaration of War.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-10 14:39  

#23  JSU and Mike, INS v. Chadha renders the WPA's legislative veto unconstitutional.
Posted by: exJAG   2007-01-10 14:16  

#22  Bwaahahahaa! For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding your speech, the best the liberal components of the press can say is “He has opposed the war from the beginning” and “At least heÂ’s been consistent”. Damn TeddyÂ…45 years in public office and your still considered irrelevant. Go get ‘em Tiger!
Posted by: DepotGuy   2007-01-10 13:40  

#21  JSU,
You speak wisdom - the WPA has never been challenged, much less had its legality decided. I'd love to see Bush be the one to stare down Congress on that one...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-01-10 13:16  

#20  This could get interesting and I can't see a winning scenario for the Donks.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-01-10 11:23  

#19  
I think Ted misses the (or his commie friend's) good ole days of Vietnam's 'Re-Education Centers' and Cambodian Killing Fields.....

I hope one of the thing Bush announces is the relaxation of the Rules of Engagement (i.e. stop the PC bullshit and kill the badguys). I hear Sadr is already arming everyone he can draft in anticipation of being stomped.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-01-10 11:22  

#18  The Dems are playing with political fire here if they try to shut off funding.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-01-10 11:09  

#17  The Supremes have never ruled on the constitutionality of the (blatantly unconstitutional) WPR; nor would they, as it's the most obvious political question one could think of.

Please provide a cite to the contrary.
Posted by: JSU   2007-01-10 09:51  

#16  Kennedy and the Dems are playing right into Bush's hands. He, bush, WILL deploy more troops. If the Dems vote to cut funding Bush will stand their names as congressional leaders who do not support our troops, read not getting reelected. Bush will cut procurement and other programs to support the war and blame every death on the Dems for lack of funds to buy proper life saving equipment. The Dems are comming out of the closet and showing that their retoric is just that and they hold the military in contempt and could care less about us.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2007-01-10 09:48  

#15  Care to explain, JSU?
Posted by: exJAG   2007-01-10 09:42  

#14  "Bar funding" for new troops?
Well, of course he'd be all for that. He's done some of his most historic work in bars.
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-10 09:21  

#13  
But it's been litigated up the yin-yang and found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Wrong.
Posted by: JSU   2007-01-10 08:59  

#12  What we've been hearing is the generals don't want more troops. [Please weigh in on this, those of you over there now or recently. Thanks!!] In that case, President Bush is playing a pretty poker bluff on the Democrats by allowing them to publicly refuse to support the war effort, even as the general public are spooked by airplane incidents and reports of major attacks here at home being prevented by amazing intelligence/police work. Even my retired Aunt Ada in Florida has taken to emailing all her friends little articles she finds on Ahmadenijad's nukes and Saudi links to Al Qaeda, so I pointed her to the Apostate site we had some articles from the other day (I don't think her nerves are quite ready for Rantburg's civil, well-reasoned discourse).
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-01-10 07:09  

#11  Well, he's finally back in the news. And he beat Kerry to the punch. Maybe he even feelshis life has meaning again.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-01-10 06:06  

#10  No chance you fat idiot. Good time to retire.

Long ago would have been even better.
Posted by: gorb   2007-01-10 05:43  

#9  badanov, SpecOp is right. Of the legislature's 17 enumerated powers, 7 of them give Congress the power to regulate and fund the military. The President has plenary power to conduct foreign affairs, but the major Constitutional role is only as CINC.

The War Powers Act is an additional legislative constraint placed on the executive by Congress dating from the Vietnam era. Only Congress has the power to declare war; the WPA shifts even more power from the President to Congress in any situation where there has been no such formal declaration. Meaning, all of them, since Dec. 8, 1941 was the most recent formal declaration of war.

Personally, I think the WPA violates the separation of powers doctrine and gives the legislature an incentive to abuse its power at the expense of national security. But it's been litigated up the yin-yang and found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I'm actually surprised it's taken the moonbats so long to invoke it.
Posted by: exJAG   2007-01-10 05:29  

#8  Kennedy plan would block funds for new troops Oldsmobiles and bridges.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-01-10 05:17  

#7  I guess he could not get a hint. Oh well.
Have fun Senator :)
Posted by: newc   2007-01-10 04:04  

#6  Iff IRAN is truly the WORLD-ACKNOWLEDGED [many nations], and not merely US-acknowledged, Leader/Sponsor of International Islamist Terror, then Congress should be voting to raise $$$ to support "regime change" in Iran. NOT "DEM HOUSE WON'T CUT FUNDING ERGO DEM SENATE WILL" post-elex, New Yarn 2007 politix.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-10 01:16  

#5  Presidential power to wage war is black letter constitutional law and the last time I looked it took a constitutional admendment not a puny statute to rescind that power..

The only option Congress has is to cut funds to the war, not an option should the left want to be competitive in 2008.
Posted by: badanov   2007-01-10 00:55  

#4  Super Ted was screaming so loud his voice failed. Bet his blood pressure was in high 200's.
Teddy is threatening to use War Powers Act to sideline this. A careful read would give him some credibility here. Certainly enough to cause some trouble.
Posted by: SpecOp35   2007-01-10 00:33  

#3  Why God? Why couldn't he gave been the one to die in that car?
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-10 00:22  

#2  No chance you fat idiot. Good time to retire.
Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550   2007-01-10 00:16  

#1  Looks like even Dick "Gulag" Durbin is backtracking from this one.

Moral of the story: Bush isn't Ford.
Posted by: JSU   2007-01-10 00:14  

00:00