Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise, The President Wants More Money For War

Here is something to think about while you are mulling the possible cost of a successful SCHIP reauthorization package. Peter Baker of The Washington Post is reporting that yesterday the Spend Thrift in Chief asked Congress for another 46 Billion to fund the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations.

According to Baker

The latest spending proposal brings the total current fiscal year request for Iraq, Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations to $196.4 billion, by far the largest annual tally since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If approved by Congress in its entirety, it would bring the total appropriated since then to more than $800 billion. At their current rate, war appropriations could reach $1 trillion by the time Bush leaves office, a total that by some measures would exceed the cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
Question, what does the President mean when he says "counterterrorism operations." Is he trying to put back a little to pay for the coming Iranian war?

Isn't it time we just said NO to more Government spending on Iraq? Where are all those oil revenues Paul Wolfowitz said would pay for this mess? Democratic reaction on the flip.

Democratic reaction to the President's request, again from the Post.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) derided the war funding bill as an example of "misplaced priorities," pointing to Bush's veto of a five-year, $35 billion expansion of a children's health program. "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health-care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year," she said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) echoed that line of attack on Bush. "He repeatedly says no to health care, no to law enforcement, no to homeland security, no to stronger infrastructure," Reid said at a news conference. "But he says yes to this intractable civil war in Iraq, which is being paid for by borrowed money."