Obey, Murtha Say Bush Can Get Iraq Money

I am so tired of hearing Republican shrieks that Democrats are somehow tying the Pentagon's hands by not passing a war spending bill. The troops will do without, they cry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee on Appropriations, said President Bush can receive all $200 billion in new funding he wants to pay for the Iraq war next year, as long as he agrees to their demands to set a non-binding "goal" for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops by Dec. 2008.

The two senior Democrats also repeatedly slammed Pentagon officials for claiming that the Defense Department may have to shut down some military depots, and lay off civilian employees, if the Iraq funding bill is not enacted soon. Murtha called the charge "despicable," and he angrily yelled at a reporter at one point during today's press conference, asking "Do you believe the Pentagon?"

Obey said the "bridge fund" passed by the House before it left for a two-week recess includes "three simple requests" that must be met before he agrees to any release any of Iraq funding - more training and better equipment for troops before they are deployed to Iraq; adoption of the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture by all U.S. government agencies; and "the president produce a plan to end our military involvement in Iraq by the end, not this year, but next year. That is another 14 months. That is more than 400 days. That is hardly a precipitous withdrawal."

There you go. The money is there but it doesn't pass the Republican 100% approval test. Last week, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would keep operations afloat for several more months, but sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. After Bush threatened to veto the measure, Senate Republicans blocked it.

Just who is obstructing here? The Democrats who passed a funding bill with non-binding measures attached, or the Republicans, who perceive any challenge to Bush as somehow akin to treason?