New Bush Iraq budget "leaves next president & Congress to confront costs soon after taking office"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

In confirming the decision, the White House refused to say precisely how much bridge funding will be requested for Iraq and Afghanistan in the new budget. But Republican and Democratic staffers in Congress predicted it would be between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years.

In preparing lawmakers for the new budget, administration officials have argued that the next president should rightfully make these funding decisions, and much still depends on the recommendations of the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, whose March report to Congress will influence the pace of future U.S. troop withdrawals.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8080.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Smirk." - Commander AWOL

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Sneer." - Dickie "5 Military Deferments" Cheney

[Solly Mack]

3. snort

[TooBigaTent]

4. If the Dems, whatever the numbers in Congress and whoever sits in the WH,

accept this situation and do not immediately pull everyone out on 1/21/09, they will truly inherit the war and all its consequences.

If this does not push them to be more aggressive in fighting the war, they deserve it.