Shameful. Because President Bush's 2005 budget didn't include any spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military will run out of funding at the end of September unless Bush requests a supplemental appropriation.
Now, this is an important story, and shows the depths of dishonesty to which this administration will sink when it comes to cooking the books. Or maybe it's just incompetence. Congress approved two administration requests last year totalling nearly $166 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, which were _not_ popular -- especially that $87 billion Bush asked for. The president is going to have to come back and ask for more money, and if he waits until the end of September that won't go down well with the voters. Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director, said a supplemental bill could be as much as $50 billion.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the Army is spending $3.7 billion a month in Iraq and $900 million a month in Afghanistan.
But the most interesting part of the story came when committee chairman Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked the joint chiefs if they had any doubts about the intelligence they had before the war. The story says, "Three said they still support the decision to go to war, in spite of questions being raised about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the time U.S. troops invaded."
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael W. Hagee, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper and Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, all said they supported going to war despite doubts about the intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Schoomaker didn't "address the issue," the story says.
That's interesting. The general in charge of the branch that's taking it on the chin in Iraq declines to state he supports his commander-in-chief's decision to go to war? He wasn't on active duty at the time, yes, but if he supports the decision, he wouldn't be criticized for saying, "I wasn't on active duty when we went to war, but I support the decision now that I'm in charge of the Army." No one in the White House would fault him for that. But he can't criticize his commander-in-chief, even implicitly; it's not allowed under Title 10, Section 888, Article 88 of the U.S. Code.
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.So rather than risk court-martial or a demand for his resignation, he shuts up, begs off. I think with the lack of financial support from the White House, and the less than full-throated defense of the president's policies from one of his joint chiefs, Bush has made some enemies in the services. Hardly surprising. To date, one U.S. soldier is missing and 535 are dead in Iraq. Exactly 100 have died in Afghanistan. More than 2,600 soldiers have been wounded, and that number is likely much higher. Most of those casualties have been U.S. Army, and now the Bush White House forces the Armed services to dip into their maintenance and modernizing funds to fight two hot wars? That maintenance and modernizing money is used to replace old weapons with new ones. It's to replace tires, boots, damaged bullet-proof vests and pay for ammunition. It's not money for sexy, new, expensive weapons system -- it's money that keeps American soldiers alive. Schoomaker knows this, and his silence speaks volumes.
Re: “Title 10, section 888…” It’s one thing for military personnel to state their support for following the direction of the President, but I hope your not lammenting a lack of interference by the military in the activities and decisions of the executive branch which is what open criticism by actively serving military personnel would be.
Boy there really have been a lot of deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom. After looking at the numbers you provide, I found a collage with the photos of all those killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom so far. When you look at the collage, it hits you that 500 or more soldiers is a LOT of soldiers.
During WWII the U.S. lost an average of 336 servicemen per day, but during those times, Americans were not apprised on a daily basis of such things….if they had been, we might be speaking German.
As for the White House, and financing, have you folks ever looked at the Bureaucracy that is the real power in DC? These are people who really have their hands on the purse-strings, and thanks to the powerful government employees union, they cannot be easily fired - even for stalling the implementing of funding to the troops. These are people who know that the only party to “adequately” fund their departments, whether in the State Dept., or any other government office, is the Damocrats! Anything these folks can do to make the current administration look bad, they will do. “What if’s” are running rampant in DC, like “what if we get a Republican White House, Senate and House? Will they get rid of the union that protects our sorry butts from being fired?” See my point?
Christopher,
Why don’t you just get a job for a few months and save money instead of asking people to donate? Work too good for you? Exactly what kind of jack*ss are you?
Work too good for me? Hardly. I’m a freelance writer and have been a journalist for almost 14 years now (March 1). I work 6-7 days a week, pitching, researching and marketing. I am saving money, but donations help out. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to cover a war zone? By May the majority of the money I have will be my own savings, but donations help pay for it and invest the readers. Plus, people who donate get to “assign” stories while I’m over there. It’s called independent, reader-funded journalism.
Geez! What happened here on Valentine’s Day? Did all of the thinking, common-sensical folks back off into the sunset, leaving only trolls and curmudgeons to roam the ‘blogs?
Jeffy, if you really want to know exactly what kind of jackss Christopher is, use your rarified eyeballs to read the site and you’ll know exactly what kind - an extraordinarily gutsy, honest, intelligent kind of jackss.
What kind exactly are you?
Here here, Jan!
I’m PROUD that I plan on DONATING to Chris, whether I “assign” stories or not - I’ll just be glad to be getting some HONEST, INDEPENDENT journalism from someone not scared of what’ll happen, if he’ll be “removed” from whatever battlion of soldiers he’s traveling with, for being HONEST.
I only wish I had half the writing talent - AND the balls - to go over to Iraq and do what he’s doing. Since I’m not a writer (at least, not in the journalistic sense, better hope my Editor doesn’t see me saying I’m not a writer! :)), I’ll provide whatever support I can to Chris and his endeavors.
Jeffrey: I’m self-employed as well; does that mean work is too good for ME as well? No. It means I’m sick & tired of the money going to some unskilled schmuck rather than myself for the work I do, same as Chris is, as well. Go crawl back into your little Republican hole and leave us thinkers alone so we may continue the planning of ousting our UNELECTED UNPRESIDENT, the (as NoFX put it so well) “Idiot Son of an Asshole” who illegally grabbed power from the true winner thanks to his Daddy’s golfing (and business) buddies on the X-Supreme Court.