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."

There's more: "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise, The President Wants More Money For War" >>

Sunday Morning--July 15, 2007

Good morning. It's a beautiful Sunday.

This morning's edition of The New York Times has a powerful story entitled Even as Loved Ones Fight On, War Doubts Arise. You should give it a look. It examines the rapid decline in the morale of our service members and their families.

Among military members and their immediate families who responded to a national New York Times/CBS News poll in May, two-thirds said things were going badly, compared with just over half, about 53 percent, a year ago. Fewer than half of the families and military members said the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq. A year ago more than half held that view, according to the a similar poll taken last July. The May poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 7 percentage points.

The story puts a human face on the statistics. Beth Pyritz, a 27 year old mother of five, told Times reporter Ian Urbina

I voted for Bush twice. I backed this war from the beginning, but I don’t think I can look my kids in the eyes anymore, if my husband comes home in a wooden box, and tell them he died for a good reason.

If you want more to think about this morning, you might also want to read The Observer's sober assessment of the potential for failure in Afghanistan.

Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.

Amid fears that London and Washington are taking their eye off Afghanistan as they grapple with Iraq, the generals have told Number 10 that the collapse of the government in Afghanistan, headed by Hamid Karzai, would present a grave threat to the security of Britain.

The nature of that threat? Well, contemplate jihadists with real nukes.

In a related story The New York Times has a report on the surge of violence in the tribal regions of Pakistan where Osami Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri walk free.

If you don't like all the doom and gloom you might want to join Kevin Drum and go straight to the crossword. Enjoy your Sunday morning coffee.

There's more: "Sunday Morning--July 15, 2007" >>

Four Thousand American Deaths In "War On Terror"

I find this extraordinarily sad, but Bloomberg is reporting that America's losses in Iraq and Afghanistan have just reached 4,000.

According to Bloomberg

Four thousand U.S. service members have died in U.S. President George W. Bush's ``war on terror'' in Iraq and Afghanistan 5 1/2 years after American forces ousted the Taliban in December 2001.

A total of 3,596 have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Some 2,957 of that number were killed in action, according to the latest Department of Defense figures. More than 26,500 personnel have been wounded in that conflict, 11,959 of them so seriously they couldn't return to duty.

In Afghanistan, 404 American personnel have died, of which 224 were killed in action. Those deaths include 61 personnel who died in Pakistan and Uzbekistan in support of the operation. Some 1,361 have been injured; 813 of them couldn't return to duty.

Even if you don't believe in God, you might want to say a prayer for all of them tonight. You might want to say a special prayer for the nearly 12,000 who were so injured they couldn't return to duty. It is so easy for us to forget them. They must never become faceless.

There's more: "Four Thousand American Deaths In "War On Terror"" >>

Harry Headed For Afganistan

Raymond Whitaker of The Independent is reporting this morning that Prince Harry may yet get his wish to serve in a war zone. While his regiment the Blues and Royals is deploying to Iraq without Harry, army commanders are considering sending Harry to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan army.

"But is Afghanistan any less dangerous?" Whitaker asks. Three British troops have recently died there. He speculates breathlessly about where Harry might "safely" be deployed, examining all of the "safe" provinces and jobs to which the young prince might be assigned.

The angst found in the Independent article is understandable. Nobody wants to see the young prince injured. I suspect, however, that Prince Harry would tell you that he is a professional soldier. Like Prince Andrew, who served in the Falklands War, he has to take a soldier's chance.

The reason for not deploying the Prince to any particular war zone is to protect the people around him from unnecessary risk. If there are places, even dangerous places, where Harry can serve in Afghanistan without unduly attracting kidnappers and suicide bombers then I say he should be deployed. His life is no more precious than the life of any other soldier serving his country. Nor is it any less. I have a hunch Harry would agree.

There's more: "Harry Headed For Afganistan" >>