$108 billion more for Iraq

Had enough yet?  President Bush is instructing Congress to pass a $108 Iraq war spending bill.  Democrats have already caved on that, but are fighting Bush over whether to add funding for veterans:

"I made my position very clear to Congress and I will not accept asupplemental over $108 billion or a supplemental that micromanages thewar, ties the hands of our commanders," Bush said. "We will work withCongress on these veterans' benefits .... But the $108 billion is $108billion."

The hard line came as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,D-Calif., and other top congressional leaders held a rally for the Iraqwar veterans measure on the West Front of the Capitol.

Severalconservative Republicans joined the rally on behalf of the legislation,which would greatly increase college education benefits for veterans tocover tuition and fees at most public universities. That would, onaverage, double college aid for veterans to about $12,000 per year.

"Weare very close to pulling it off," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., the chiefsponsor on the legislation, alluding to a plan by Democratic leaders toadd the veterans measure to the war funding bill.

$1 trillion later, and we are still funding this war.  Since the war started in 2003, it looks like we have 95 years left there.  Better hold on tight and get used to it.

Comments

[RJ]

Todd, why do you think the elected officials support this funding? Shouldn't they represent the people who elected them? Do they know something we don't?

Also, why aren't Pelosi and Obey being open about their agenda as stated below in your linked article:
"Despite the huge cost to taxpayers and prior promises to make the House more open and fair in its operations, Obey and Pelosi have said virtually nothing about their plans for the bill. Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., says it appears that under current plans, Republicans and rank and file lawmakers would be shut out of any opportunity to offer changes to the bill, which Democratic leaders hope to pass next week."

Lastly, why would they split it into three separate voting areas:

"Democrats have devised a complicated procedure for considering the measure in which lawmakers would be forced to vote on three components: the war funding, Democratic policy language restricting war operations, and a package of domestic add-ons like unemployment insurance and the increase in education benefits for veterans."

Could it be they want to:
1. Pass the funding, since they somehow believe that Iraq is turning a corner, could be winnable and nonsuppor would kill them in the November general election.

2. Then look like they want to restrict the war with their "language" vote that they know will never pass, but they can say they tried.

3. Try to send an increase through for unemployment/vet benfits through -- which will cause them to win either way -- pass or fail. If it passes, then they claim they've helped the Vet's (which I think is good). If it fails or Bush veto's it, they can clain the Republicans caused it and are evil?