Despite Supplemental Postponement, More Funds Poured Into War Coffers

Despite Supplemental Postponement, More Funds Poured Into War Coffers
By Maya Schenwar
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 October 2007

In the months leading up to the anticipated winter vote on the 2008 war supplemental spending bill, activists and progressive Congress members are pushing hard to cut off funding and begin an immediate troop withdrawal. However, despite the much-celebrated postponement of the supplemental vote and legislators' promises to stop unconditionally financing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, new funds continue to flow into the war budget every day.

Congress approved a continuing resolution (CR) at the end of September, which continues funding the war at status quo rates until mid-November, expending nearly $12 billion. Additionally, a share of the general 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, which passed both houses last week, may well be carved out for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a spokesman for John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. That sum, called a "bridge fund," has been included in Defense Appropriations bills for the past three years, and each year it has increased. The 2007 bridge fund supplied $70 billion to continue waging war in Iraq.

Democratic House leadership has kept quiet on the possibility of additional funding, instead emphasizing its conditions for Bush's 2008 supplemental spending request, which would put almost $200 billion toward the war. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey said in an October 2 statement that he would only bring the supplemental to the floor if it included provisions to end "U.S. involvement in combat operations" by January 2009. "I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo," Obey said.

However, the CR passed in September allows Congress to keep spending money on Iraq at the rate of fiscal year 2007, the most costly year of the war. Moreover, the language of Obey's statement - ending "combat operations" instead of withdrawing troops, refusing to consider a supplemental that perpetuates the status quo "in this session," as opposed to never considering one - leaves some policy analysts doubting his commitment.

"In January, when Congress's second session begins, Obey's commitment will be completely off the table," said Jeff Leys, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. "The Democrats can bluster all they want about not reporting out of committee a bill that doesn't have withdrawal provisions in it, but the reality is the Democrats aren't going to hold up war funding in an election year."

Obey's spokeswoman did not return calls for comment.

more...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101207K.shtml