Iraq Foes Would Head Democrat War-Spending Panels

By Reuters

Washington - A Democratic takeover of the US Congress would put two of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war in charge of dispensing the money President George W. Bush will seek for combat, adding pressure for a new approach to the increasingly unpopular war.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin would rise to Appropriations Committee chairman if Democrats win this week. At every opportunity, the scrappy Obey reminds fellow lawmakers of his opposition to the Iraq war, calling it the "dumbest war since the War of 1812."

"David Obey can be a cantankerous fellow. I don't think he'd be in the business of giving the president an easy time," said Brookings Institution senior fellow Stephen Hess.

Across Capitol Hill, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, now 88, would head the Senate Appropriations panel. Just before the start of the war in March 2003, Byrd accused Bush of flaunting "our superpower status with arrogance." Of the coming US invasion, he said, "Today I weep for my country."

With either Obey or Byrd in charge of the committees that pay the $8-billion-a-month Iraq war tab, experts said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would have to do far more explaining of how the money was being spent.

That could open the door for Congress to pressure the administration to work with it and with outside experts on a fresh, rigorous assessment of Iraq's political problems and how to deal with them so American troops can leave the country.

Such an opening could dovetail with work by former Secretary of State James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group will soon issue alternative ideas for Iraq and as Republican lawmakers increasingly are questioning the war.

Flex Their Muscles

In the run-up to this year's election, Democratic Party leaders have tried to assure the country they would not turn their backs on American troops fighting in Iraq.

But without withholding a penny for the Iraq war, the appropriations committees could flex their muscles, said Scott Lilly, who spent about three decades as a high-level aide to Democrats in Congress, much of that time with the House Appropriations Committee.

"There are a whole variety of things the secretary of defense wants and needs from the Appropriations Committee that has nothing to do with the support of troops in field," said Lilly, who now works the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Congressional appropriators control funds for everything from Rumsfeld's government limousine to Pentagon office computers and pet Defense Department projects.

"You put your foot down and make clear there is a very unpleasant price if (information) is not provided," Lilly said, referring to both Republican and Democrat administrations' preference for operating without strict oversight by Congress.

From their appropriations committee seats, Byrd and Obey have backed combat troop funding, if not the war itself, by supporting the more than $500 billion allocated so far for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bulk of that money has been spent in Iraq and it contrasts with the $50 billion or so some administration officials predicted before the war.

Congress' appropriations committees historically have not been "at the cutting edge of policy," Lilly said, noting that the panels stuck with President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.

But Bush might not enjoy such support in the final two years of his presidency if Democrats control the House or Senate in 2007.

Sitting behind Obey and Byrd as chairmen of key defense spending subcommittees could be Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ex-Marine who a year ago called for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who lost an arm fighting in World War Two and has voted for withdrawing troops by next July.