Bush to pawn Iraq occupation off on the next president

Bush redefining Iraq role, next president must pay for it

While planning a redefinition of the US role in Iraq, the White House isn't seeking the funds to pay for it, leaving an unknown and potentially onerous situation for President Bush's successor to navigate.

The White House has confirmed that its new budget, to be submitted in February, will reverse last year’s policy of providing a full year of funding for the war in Iraq, “leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009,” the Politico reported on Wednesday.

Last year’s budget, unveiled soon after Democrats took control of Congress, was explicit in requesting a full year’s worth of funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new budget, the Politico notes, returns to the adminstration’s prior practice of "request[ing] only incremental ‘bridge’ funding,” and “won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009."

President Bush’s term in office ends on Jan. 20, 2009.

This reversal in requesting war funding is concurrent with an effort by the White House to remake the terms of the US military commitment in Iraq. The Washington Post reported on Thursday on a Democratic pushback against the "White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government," with key Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." The proposed security agreement would replace the current United Nations mandate authorizing the US presence in Iraq, which is set to expire on December 31, 2008.

According to conservative scholar Michael Rubin, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, the details of the proposed security agreement "remain unclear." Rubin said, "The proposed agreement could take many forms and, indeed, could be a package of multiple agreements, ranging from a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to economic development packages to basing agreements, to a formal defense treaty." Less unclear are estimates by Congressional staffers of both parties that the ‘bridge-funding’ request will total "between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years," according to the Politico.

"[B]y failing to spell out a full-year funding request, the administration will be effectively leaving office without ensuring the money is in place to sustain that U.S. commitment," the Politico reported.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) convened a hearing on Wednesday on the proposed force agreement. "He dismissed the contention that the proposal is routine," The Post reported, "Saying that administration officials declined to explain themselves before his Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

"'We don't trust this administration,' he said, suggesting that at first glance, the scope of the proposed agreement goes well beyond