Murtha mentioned the $100 billion figure last week to reporters, saying "Twenty years it's going to take to settle this thing. The American people are not going to put up with it, can't afford it."
...
The administration long has contended that it can't put a price tag on future costs because of the unpredictable nature of war. Critics, mostly Democrats, have accused Bush of delaying his war spending requests for as long as possible to keep budget deficit projections looking smaller.
Such a large funding request — coming during a congressional election year — would present Republicans in the House and Senate with a high-stakes political predicament.
On one hand, GOP leaders could choose to sign off on the enormous amount of money — and anger fiscally conservative base voters who elected them to rein in government spending. Or, they could slice the Pentagon's request and leave themselves vulnerable to criticism that they are failing to support troops during wartime.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead (Mostly what other say will be in italics, what I say will not. There will be occasions when this is messed up or forgotten, but generally it will true- for those keeping track of the opining vs the reporting!)
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Half a Trillion Dollars
CBS reports that the cost of the war is about to hit the half trillion dollar mark. Couldn't we have done the same thing with one cruise missile for less than a hundred million? Is Bush waiting till we get a zillion gajillion dollars to start worrying about the cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment