Bush wants another $75 billion to fund wars

[Grojlach]

Bush wants another $75 billion to fund wars
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 Posted: 4:22 AM EDT (0822 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush plans to send Congress a request of up to $75 billion early next year to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and operations against terrorism, congressional aides said Tuesday.

A proposal of that magnitude would indicate the wars' costs, particularly to battle the intensified Iraqi insurgency, are far exceeding what the Bush administration said it was expecting early this year.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told reporters Tuesday that to make it through next September, his branch alone will need an additional $35 billion to $40 billion beyond what Congress already has provided.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said administration officials were only starting to assess what is needed to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

"There is literally no way to ascribe a final figure to what we will request," he said.

The Iraq war's price tag has become an issue in the presidential race, with the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, saying Bush has mismanaged the fight and diverted billions of dollars that could have been spent for schools and other priorities. Bush has defended the war as a needed part of the campaign against terror.

"Incompetence has a cost," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a written statement. "This war has been a hideous mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer."

Kolton said the Pentagon has enough money to support U.S. troops well into the spring, adding, "We'll make sure they have what they need to get the job done."

The fresh request would be on top of $215 billion that lawmakers have provided since 2001 to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and begin rebuilding those countries, according to White House figures.

Taken together, a $290 billion total would be nearly half the $623 billion cost of the Vietnam War and the $613 billion in U.S. costs for World War I, using dollars adjusted for inflation.

Several congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the coming request would exceed $50 billion and could reach $70 billion or $75 billion. Others said they think the White House will compress the figure before it is completed.

One aide said the Army, the main fighting force in Iraq, believes it will need $6 billion annually for the next three years for deferred maintenance and to replace and repair destroyed and damaged equipment. It also wants $5 billion to $10 billion for extra troops and equipment needed to fight the war and to reshape its force structure.

According to its latest figures, the Pentagon is spending an average of $4.4 billion monthly in Iraq and $769 million in Afghanistan. Assuming no reduction in U.S. forces or operations in either country, that would equate to more than $62 billion in the 12 months.

The Bush administration began this year by insisting that it would not request additional war money until early 2005. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten said $50 billion might be the "upper limit" on next year's war spending.

Under pressure from lawmakers who believed the funds would be depleted sooner, Bush requested $25 billion in May. Administration officials said the money would not be needed until after October 1, when the government's new budget year began.

Congress provided the $25 billion in August. Of that, the Pentagon said $2.2 billion was made available before October 1 for body armor, higher fuel costs and other expenses, and another $5.2 billion has been made available for use over the next three to four months.

Meanwhile, Rowsch Shaways, a deputy president of Iraq, called at a Washington news conference for accelerating reconstruction while improving security. He said the slow pace of rebuilding the country was contributing to dissatisfaction and thereby to the insurgency.

Shaways said he found agreement in talks at the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council and Congress that "reconstruction and fighting the insurgency go hand in hand."

At the same time, the deputy president, who is president of the Kurdistan National Assembly, said, "We must investigate why protection was not provided" for some 50 Iraqi recruits who were killed in an ambush last weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

[Davros]

Well I have to say that I support Bush on this one for a change. If any country has decided to go to war (and lets try and move beyond what we all feel about that) then they can't be squemish about the funding to support the troops.

Fair enough for people to question whether the cost is worth it and whether they should stay there or get out, but no fair no way to have troops committed then to start pinching pennies.

[Felix The Assassin]

There are two things I would like to see the Bush administration accomplish.

1. Explain to the people how costly this is, and get the proper funding all laid out, and in whatever legal rider it needs to be in. Then go before the people and congress and freaking do it.

2. We are still waiting for an exit strategy! OK, so the latest gossip for the elections sounds like a repeat of crap that has been coming out lately. We will extend the current units that are slated to re-deploy, this includes my last unit, that fully expected an extension when they deployed! And will accelerate the deployment of inbound units. This last statement cost dearly, I know many a men in the next slated unit. They are currently preparing to deploy with a roation in early January, they JUST LOST THEIR CHRISTMAS LEAVE and will deploy December! This will be the second rotation for this division, in as many years.

I don't think this is The President, but it IS HIS CABINET, mainly I have a hunch it's the dark one, Rumpy! I've heard many a name for him, but they can't be repeated here.
I still support The President![/rant]

[Timber Loftis]

Spending for the military is sacrosanct. We cannot question it. Any dollar going toward guns, tanks, planes, or soldiers is a good dollar. You can never have too much of any of those. We should not question this in the least. We should be mindful of all the contractors and defense production facilities this will support. And, if there is any industry we can trust to be careful and mindful of our dollars, it's the defense industry. This is just a bunch of namby pamby hooey from the liberal left, which would rather take this money away from our benevolent leader and his holy army of contractors and instead waste it spending on more basketball courts in the hood.

[Sir Kenyth]

War is costly, yes. What we need now is an exit strategy. Put the Iraquis in charge and hop on a plane. Unfortunately, I don't think the our govt. wants this at all. They want a "South Korea" in the middle east. They want a place to stage military action from. This will cost us dearly in money, troops, and enlistment. The question is, will it be worth it?

Felix, as soon as you figure out how to assess all the variables and unknowns and all the possible variations on what MIGHT happen in the next ten years or so in the fight against terrorism (of whihc Iraq and Afghanistan are only small parts.) and can budget all that out as you request of thePresident, Please PM me and I will put you in touch with some people in the Pentagon (I still know a few people) and we can discuss your salary because you will then be able to do something no other human in the world is capable of doing.

What you ask for is impossible to predict.

The exit strategy for Iraq is to get them up and running as a nation and to a point where they are able to defend themselves......there is no way to set a time table for something like that.

As for an end to the war on terrorism...there never will be one...as long as there is one nut job out there willing to die for and kill innocents for some cause...there will be terrorism.

I always like it when Davros and I agree on something...and I agree with what he posted. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

If Iraq (which is BECOME the war on Terrorism) and Afghanistan are, in your words, "only small parts" in the fight against Terrorism.. what MagiK.. do you see as the "GREATER PARTS" in the War on Terrorism?

[Sir Kenyth]

Magik, do you think the US wants to maintain a military presence in Iraq? A presence similar to the one in South Korea and Germany?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Bush wants another $75 billion to fund wars Wednesday, October 27, 2004 Posted: 4:22 AM EDT (0822 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush plans to send Congress a request of up to $75 billion early next year...

It always bothered me when people talk about what they plan to do as if their reelection was certain. It's a lovely mind trick.
Yes, that means if Kerry does it I'll be irritated with him as well.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: If Iraq (which is BECOME the war on Terrorism) and Afghanistan are, in your words, "only small parts" in the fight against Terrorism.. what MagiK.. do you see as the "GREATER PARTS" in the War on Terrorism?

You may not have heard of it...but it is receiving Billions of dollars in funding right now and is termed "GWOT" or Global War on Terrorism...and yes Afghanistan and Iraq are a small part of the over all mission. Yes they are the FOCAL points right now...but that is only a temporal thing, going forward they will become less and less relevent.