Gold9472
05-10-2007, 07:42 AM
Bush vows to veto bill for short-term funding of war
Gates says US won't make rapid pullout
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/10/bush_vows_to_veto_bill_for_short_term_funding_of_w ar/
By Anne Flaherty and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press | May 10, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The White House threatened yesterday to veto a proposed House bill that would pay for the Iraq war only through July -- a limit that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said would be disastrous.
The warnings came as Gates also told reporters that his evaluation of force levels in Iraq in September will not lead to a rapid troop withdrawal, and that at least some US forces are likely to be in Iraq for a protracted period of time.
He said he didn't know whether it will take 25,000 troops or another number, but it would probably include intelligence officers, logistical support, and air power, and they would be needed to maintain stability in the war-wracked country.
"The evaluation in September will not lead to a precipitous decision or actions, but would point us in a new direction . . . either because the surge is working, or because the evaluation is that it's not," said Gates. Earlier yesterday he told senators he would consider reducing US troop levels in Iraq in the fall if the Iraqi government begins to make progress.
The developments occurred as officials disclosed that 11 moderate House Republicans had met unannounced with the president and top aides at the White House on Tuesday. Several participants described a remarkably blunt discussion in which lawmakers told the president the war was unsustainable without public support and was having a corrosive effect on GOP political fortunes.
Representative Charles Dent of Pennsylvania said he told the president that many of his constituents are "impatient, and in some cases have a sense of futility" about the war.
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia said he presented recent polling data from his suburban Washington district showing Bush's unfavorability ratings exceeded his approval ratings.
"We asked them what's Plan B. We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable," he said. Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, the current one would never have a chance to succeed.
Defiant Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, wrestled with how to support the troops but still challenge President Bush on the war. Bush has requested more than $90 billion to sustain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.
"With this latest veto threat, the president has once again chosen confrontation over cooperation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House Democratic leaders are pushing legislation that would provide the military $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy new equipment, and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to fund the war through September.
"In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff, and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," Gates told senators yesterday. "And we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well."
The veto threat came from White House spokesman Tony Snow, traveling aboard Air Force One with Bush to tour tornado damage in Kansas.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow said.
House members planned a vote today, just two days after David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, briefed White House chief of staff Josh Bolten on the plan.
The stern White House response reflected the high stakes involved for Bush, who is struggling to beat back congressional skepticism about his Iraq strategy. In recent days, Bush has tried to shore up support by personally reaching out to moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats face their own uphill battle. Pelosi, Democrat of California, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, say they want to provide troops the resources they need. But other Democrats are pushing to cut off funds for the unpopular and costly war.
Democratic leaders acknowledge the new Iraq bill might pass in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and are more reluctant than their House counterparts to restrict war funds.
In testimony before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Gates left open the possibility of bringing troops home soon, even as the Pentagon orders deployments that could maintain a buildup of US forces in Iraq through the end of the year.
"If [we] see some very positive progress and it looks like things are heading in the right direction, then that's the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of those forces," Gates said.
Senators pressed Gates on when a decision will be made.
"What are the prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel, to see some encouragement which would enable the Congress to have the fortitude to support the president and go beyond September and the full funding of the $500 billion?" asked Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.
Gates replied: "I think that the honest answer is, senator, that I don't know."
Gates told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. And if Congress votes in July to pull the plug on war funding, "I would have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn't have the money to pay salaries."
As the House moved out alone on its Iraq proposal, Reid met for about an hour yesterday with Bolten and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky.
According to a senior administration official who attended the session, the meeting was mostly about the process of getting a bill through both chambers and to the president. There also were some substantive discussions about content that the official would not discuss.
Gates says US won't make rapid pullout
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/10/bush_vows_to_veto_bill_for_short_term_funding_of_w ar/
By Anne Flaherty and Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press | May 10, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The White House threatened yesterday to veto a proposed House bill that would pay for the Iraq war only through July -- a limit that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said would be disastrous.
The warnings came as Gates also told reporters that his evaluation of force levels in Iraq in September will not lead to a rapid troop withdrawal, and that at least some US forces are likely to be in Iraq for a protracted period of time.
He said he didn't know whether it will take 25,000 troops or another number, but it would probably include intelligence officers, logistical support, and air power, and they would be needed to maintain stability in the war-wracked country.
"The evaluation in September will not lead to a precipitous decision or actions, but would point us in a new direction . . . either because the surge is working, or because the evaluation is that it's not," said Gates. Earlier yesterday he told senators he would consider reducing US troop levels in Iraq in the fall if the Iraqi government begins to make progress.
The developments occurred as officials disclosed that 11 moderate House Republicans had met unannounced with the president and top aides at the White House on Tuesday. Several participants described a remarkably blunt discussion in which lawmakers told the president the war was unsustainable without public support and was having a corrosive effect on GOP political fortunes.
Representative Charles Dent of Pennsylvania said he told the president that many of his constituents are "impatient, and in some cases have a sense of futility" about the war.
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia said he presented recent polling data from his suburban Washington district showing Bush's unfavorability ratings exceeded his approval ratings.
"We asked them what's Plan B. We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable," he said. Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, the current one would never have a chance to succeed.
Defiant Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, wrestled with how to support the troops but still challenge President Bush on the war. Bush has requested more than $90 billion to sustain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September.
"With this latest veto threat, the president has once again chosen confrontation over cooperation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House Democratic leaders are pushing legislation that would provide the military $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy new equipment, and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to fund the war through September.
"In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff, and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," Gates told senators yesterday. "And we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well."
The veto threat came from White House spokesman Tony Snow, traveling aboard Air Force One with Bush to tour tornado damage in Kansas.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow said.
House members planned a vote today, just two days after David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, briefed White House chief of staff Josh Bolten on the plan.
The stern White House response reflected the high stakes involved for Bush, who is struggling to beat back congressional skepticism about his Iraq strategy. In recent days, Bush has tried to shore up support by personally reaching out to moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats face their own uphill battle. Pelosi, Democrat of California, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, say they want to provide troops the resources they need. But other Democrats are pushing to cut off funds for the unpopular and costly war.
Democratic leaders acknowledge the new Iraq bill might pass in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and are more reluctant than their House counterparts to restrict war funds.
In testimony before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Gates left open the possibility of bringing troops home soon, even as the Pentagon orders deployments that could maintain a buildup of US forces in Iraq through the end of the year.
"If [we] see some very positive progress and it looks like things are heading in the right direction, then that's the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of those forces," Gates said.
Senators pressed Gates on when a decision will be made.
"What are the prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel, to see some encouragement which would enable the Congress to have the fortitude to support the president and go beyond September and the full funding of the $500 billion?" asked Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.
Gates replied: "I think that the honest answer is, senator, that I don't know."
Gates told the panel that proposals for a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. And if Congress votes in July to pull the plug on war funding, "I would have to shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn't have the money to pay salaries."
As the House moved out alone on its Iraq proposal, Reid met for about an hour yesterday with Bolten and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky.
According to a senior administration official who attended the session, the meeting was mostly about the process of getting a bill through both chambers and to the president. There also were some substantive discussions about content that the official would not discuss.