Obama may need GOP help in funding troop increases

[WilliamPitt]

Democrats wary of the commitment
By Susan Milligan and Lisa Wangsness
Globe Staff / December 2, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama last night made the argument for 30,000 more US troops in Afghanistan with a heavy burden: He cannot count on his fellow Democrats for support. Key Democrats yesterday offered tepid endorsements or were openly skeptical of the president’s deployment decision. After Obama’s speech, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada praised Obama’s “sound strategy,’’ but pointedly noted that “our resources are not unlimited and our commitment is not open-ended.’’

The Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, offered no promise of support, and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase. In the House, many Democrats are skittish about escalating the war - and how to pay for it. Obama briefed leaders of both parties at the White House yesterday to discuss his plan, but that issue was left unresolved after the meeting, described by House Democratic whip James Clyburn as “civil and somber.’’

(snip)

The new commander in chief, seeking to finish an increasingly unpopular war he inherited, may end up requiring help from Republicans if a strong effort emerges among liberals to try to deny funding for the troop increase. But while GOP lawmakers generally support sending more troops to Afghanistan, they oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal, as Obama did last night with a target of July 2011 for the start of troop reductions.

Republicans yesterday said setting such a goal tips the US hand and lets the Taliban know that America wants to get out as soon as possible. “We didn’t need a date certain. We should have a goal of being out day after tomorrow - a goal. But it’s dictated by conditions on the ground,’’ said Senator John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, who has been pushing for an escalation of troops. “You don’t tell the enemy when you’re leaving.’’

More: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/12/02/with_democrats_wary_obama_may_need_assist_from_gop/

[TwilightGardener]

1. I'm still wondering why the Democratic Congress didn't mutiny on Bush

to stop funding for Afghanistan since, oh, 2006. Actually, they didn't even do it with Iraq, either--they chickenshitted out of it. But now, boy, NOW they got BALLZ!

[TornadoTN]

3. That I can completely agree with

I'm just glad that they are finally standing up, but it does seem very peculiar. I know the sentiment has changed against the wars, but the sudden growth of a spine really is interesting.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Afghanistan was part of the Dem party platform in 2008 (someone posted it here)--

what changed in a year, besides the "election" of Karzai (which I don't think is that significant)? I guess they were either pro-war posturing for 2008, or they're posturing now, or it's somehow easier to buck your own President. Disgusted with the whole lot of them, frankly.

[xiamiam]

2. no problem..bill kristol, rove, steele , lieberman already support the escalation

they approve..they've got the connections and the motivation...this is a done deal...its the democrats who might be rethinking funding..or at least some of them

[JVS]

4. If they leave him out to dry on this I am going to laugh my ass off.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I wouldn't. That's not a good way to stop a war, and the blame for

troops that get killed would be assigned to Democrats, who denied them reinforcements and equipment. Ugly, and goodbye 2010 and 2012. But go ahead and laugh your ass off.

[bigtree]

7. that's result of advocacy and activism

. . . ahead of the upcoming midterms. I like the strength of the opposition to the escalation. This is a perfect time to expect our legislators to be responsive to appeals from their constituents - especially if there's a challenger from the left.

One thing though, we're still wrapped up in the dynamic where the republicans' outrageous opposition tends to rally Democrats together in support. Strange bedfellows in opposition . . . purposes get blurred in the public's mind.

[madrchsod]

8. 1,000,000 per soldier + a lifetime of benefits

an estimated 35 billion on the books and an unknown billions off the books.

the states are bankrupt,we are unemployed,homeless,bankrupt,and dieing.

we have nothing left to give but our blood

[lumpy]

9. Rather makes one think that Obama's escalation of troops is

purely political.

[SoCalDem]

10. Gotta hand it to 'em.. No one does Briar Patch politics better than the republicans

when they all said how much they supported his Afghanistan policy, I shuddered, because I could see it coming..a mile away.. How sad that the WH saw it as a positive..a possible way to get some "bipartisanship"..I saw it for what it was.. a very sharp knife to cleave a bisect democratic support for a popular democratic president..a clever stumbling block.

[JVS]

11. They are terrible bastards, but they really know how to do things.

If we had 39 democrats in the senate we'd be shitting bricks. They have 39 repukes and act like they own the country.