Bush, in Shift, Taps Into Emergency Iraq Funds By Adam Entous WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has begun tapping its $25 billion emergency fund for the Iraq war to prepare for a major troop rotation and intense fighting this fall, administration officials said on Tuesday, despite the White House's initial insistence that it had enough money. The Pentagon has already used more than $2 billion from what was dubbed its "contingency reserve" fund. The money is being used to ramp up production of armored Humvees to support the troop rotation, as well as to buy body armor and bolster fuel supplies, the officials told Reuters. The decision to use the $25 billion in Iraq reserves underscores growing concern within the administration about the rise in anti-American violence in Iraq. White House officials had initially insisted the Pentagon had "very ample resources" and would not need additional funding until well after the November presidential election. The decision also follows last week's announcement that President Bush (news - web sites) planned to divert nearly $3.5 billion from Iraqi water, power and other reconstruction projects in a bid to improve security. "As we've always said, our troops in the field will have what they need, when they need it," said Chad Kolton, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. "In this case, making some of those resources available now ensures that our troops will have the equipment they need going into the fall (rotation)," Kolton added. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) accused Bush this week of hiding plans to call up more members of the part-time National Guard and Reserve after the election. The Bush campaign called Kerry's assertion "false and ridiculous," and administration officials said the Pentagon decided to tap into the reserve fund because resources were running low with the fiscal year near its Sept. 30 end. ENOUGH FUNDING? Congressional aides and defense analysts said the use of the reserve funds could be an early sign that the Pentagon will run out of money sooner than the White House had expected. Even before the recent flare-up in the insurgency, U.S. military operations in Iraq cost about $4.4 billion per month, the Pentagon said. The United States has spent $120 billion so far in Iraq, not including the $25 billion contingency fund. Officials said the White House could seek another $50 billion early in 2005. But congressional aides and analysts say the size of that package would grow substantially if fighting intensifies, as expected, before Iraqi elections scheduled for January. "I think it's apparent we're going to need the upper end of the estimates rather than the lower end," said John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. Critics accused Bush of hiding the war's true cost. Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said tapping into emergency reserves was "another example of this administration saying one thing and doing another." Before the war, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor," and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz even assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Until early May, Bush had refused to acknowledge that any additional money would be needed for Iraq until after the November presidential election. But as costs rose and pressure mounted from military leaders for additional resources, Bush asked for the $25 billion. Still, the White House described the money as a "contingency reserve" and an "insurance policy," and said it might never be tapped. "This administration is riddled with flip-flops," Conrad said, echoing a charge Bush uses against Kerry. (Additional reporting by Anna Willard) link
Do you think the troops should NOT be funded? Kerry thinks so. He voted against the $87 billion (of course after he voted for it).
Let me answer your "question" with some of my own... Why doesn't the Bush administration support our troops? If they supported our troops they would have been honest about how much this little war was going to cost, right? What? They weren't lying about the cost? Then they are incompetent, right? They painted such a rosy picture about the cause being self funded in a matter of no time, but that didn't happen. Did they know that up front before the war started or not? So you have two options: 1. This administration's handling of the war has been completely incompetent from day one. OR 2. They knew this would happen and they have been lying the entire time to get the original funding. I await your explanation.
So in other words, you can't answer one simple question? If you can't support funding the troops, then you are in the *extreme* minority of opinions. Kerry is with you, though. That's why Zell Miller's speech hit home with so many people. He shot straight with people. He condemned Kerry for not doing the same when it comes to voting for funding for troops. Why can't the liberals shoot straight on this issue? DO THE TROOPS DESERVE TO BE FUNDED? That's the question that the liberals can't even answer. It's disgusting. next....
Allow me to yell right back... YES, THEY DESERVE TO BE FUNDED. Nobody said they weren't going to be funded. Now that the strawman has been knocked over... if you would be so kind as to answer my questions before you go poof I would appreciate it.
Then tell me why you posted this article. Was it not posted to ridicule the expenditure? Surely it was. CASE CLOSED
The issue is not with funding the troops. We were misled into believing that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction. We were told that the oil money could finance a substantial portion of the expenses. Most of that $87 billion dollars is not going to the troops, but instead to rebuild the mess we made over there. Did you know that reservists returning from duty are not receiving full health benefits? That is obscene.
Kerry did not cast the deciding vote that left our troups in Iraq unfunded. His vote was political posturing. He did not want to give the Bush Admin a blank check for the war. And as we have seen some of the reconstruction money has been diverted, since GWB has the discretion to do so. One of Congress 's duties is oversight; Kerry's vote was just demanding that the Congress did not skirt their responsibilites.
Oh no! You are NOT getting rid of me that easy. Case CLOSED? Your honor, I move for Judgment Notwithstanding the oh so premature Verdict... Granted? Oh thank you, sir and may I say you look lovely in your robe today... but I digress. Surely it was not posted for that reason... and don't call me Shirley. I posted the article because the Bush administration undersold the cost and oversold the ease of the conflict and how quickly it would be self funded. I answered your questions, you have NOT answered MINE. I'll post them again in case your scroll wheel is broken: Why doesn't the Bush administration support our troops? If they supported our troops they would have been honest about how much this little war was going to cost, right? What? They weren't lying about the cost? Then they are incompetent, right? So you have two options: 1. This administration's handling of the war has been completely incompetent from day one. OR 2. They knew this would happen and they have been lying the entire time to get the original funding. Put up or shut up time pal.
It's pretty easy for people to just hear "Kerry votes against $87 billion fund for Iraq troops" and be misled. I believe the funding was grossly misproportioned and wasteful the first time around, which is why he voted against it.
He changed his vote once he noticed that the $87 billion included benefits and insurance cuts for veterans. Any other fallacies you'd like to further, Teej?
TJ, let me some up some of the arguments for that 87 billion. He voted to fund troops in a responsible way. He wanted the wealthy to sacrifice some of their huge tax return to pay for it. The President talked about sacrifice, and Kerry was willing to donate his tax refund in sacrifice. IT wouldn't increase the debt and would fund our troops. He was outvoted. So Bush got to increase the debt and fund the troops. Then the second one didn't have responsible spending in that the money wasn't itemized, the bill included cuts to benefits that vets received etc. Do you support cuts to veterans benefits TJ? Is that how you support our troops? Kerry's voting record on the money has been absolutely responsible, and a far better way to support our troops than what actually passed
