Bush's Iraq War Requires Deep Cuts On Defense Spending

WASHINGTON , Dec. 28 - The Pentagon has told the White House and Congress that it plans sharp cuts in the Air Force's program for the F/A-22, the most expensive fighter jet in history, in an effort that budget analysts said was intended to offset mounting deficits and the growing costs of the war in Iraq.

The Pentagon's decision, which four administration and Congressional officials described on Tuesday and which Congress must still approve, comes as the Bush administration is pressing all agencies to scale back spending requests for the fiscal year 2006 budget, which will be submitted to lawmakers early next year.

The White House is under pressure after the November elections to show progress in trimming federal deficits while ensuring that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have adequate armored protective equipment. The cost of operations in Iraq alone are hovering around $4.4 billion a month.

Christ, can you imagine what Republicans would have said about Kerry if he had proposed cutting $15 billion from the F-22 program?

Well, I'm sure you can. It probably would have been something like this bullshitfest.

Course, the difference between Kerry's proposed cuts and these cuts is that Kerry was joined by a broad bi-partisan group of politicians and intelligence officials. These cuts? They have to be made.

And why? Bush's out of control spending, his irresponsible tax cuts, and his costly, ill-conceived war. With this kind of fiscal irresponsibility, it's no wonder Bush has resisted properly equipping or paying our soldiers.

And it's just absolutely hilarious to read Bush's statements over the past year about Kerry trying to cut military spending, about Kerry's "irresponsible" proposals to cut intelligence spending.

Well, you heard the fiction. Now we all get to live through the facts.

Comments

[Janis]

Jeez, after a certain amount, I started averting my eyes when it came to that money-pit known as Iraq. But $4.4 billion a month?! A month? And lookit how much (make that how little) Bush is willing to earmark for tsunami victim relief - then he has the nerve to chide a UN official for rightly referring to the stinginess of (unnamed) wealthy nations.

I don't suppose any of the tsunami-hit nations are rich in vast, untapped amounts of oil?

[Janis]

PS - I feel the need to clarify that the shock over the financial cost of operations in Iraq is one thing, but I've never looked away from the cost in human lives. That is an even more reprehensible record than any monetary loss.

[Barak]

As Janis suggests, the $35 million pledged by Bush to tsunami victims is a JOKE. Off by two orders of magnitude.

[Michelle]

It is a further joke by marking 20 mil as a loan, for crying out loud.

[ricky]

I'm sorry. I haven't really been following it too closely so maybe I don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying that Bush has designated 20 million dollars worth of aid for the tsunami victims as "loans"???

After he fought like a bastard to make sure 20 billion dollars of Iraqi aid was a grant???

Is that right? Shit, I guess Haliburton hasn't figured out a way to make a dime off of clearing dead bodies off the beach.

Though, I bet they're working on it!

[Ellen]

I can't get over that he's spending 40+ million on another inauguration. With the state of things he should just keep going and ignore all of the hoopla. Geez, wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? Oh shit, I'm sorry, I'm not part of and certainly don't understand the by-laws of his christian world.

$40,000,000 would by a lot of state-of-the-art bullet-proof vests, and clean up a lot of tsunami-hit areas though.

[Donna]

Don't forget, he only offerred $15M in aid until reporters started asking the "stingy" question. I'm writing my reps and telling them to suggest Bush forgo the inauguration this year.

[Janis]

Well, Bush just announced an increase in the level of US government aid for tsunami relief to $350 million. No idea what sort of strings are attached to it, or whether it's a gift or a loan. It is still only 8% of our monthly expenditures in Iraq.

Here is the current breakdown of worldwide aid, according to the USAID. (I haven't had the time to really sort through it yet.)

As for the inaugeration, it sure would be a nice gesture, or at least a nod of respect, for the GOP to tone it down this time. Costs are expected to run between $40 and 50 million dollars, which, incidentally, is paid for by private donations including $250,000 in donations (each) from former Enron president Richard D. Kinder, Dell Computer founder Michael S. Dell and Texas oilman and corporate takeover specialist T. Boone Pickens (according to The Washington Post).

Also on the $250,000 list are ExxonMobil Corp.; Sallie Mae Inc., a Reston-based company that annually provides billions of dollars in student loans; United Technologies Corp., a unit of which manufactures Army Black Hawk helicopters; the utility Southern Co.; and Stephens Group Inc., a Little Rock venture capital company. Yet another opportunity for Corporate America to grease the political machine.

[Donna]

Well, Happy New Year Ricky! And Happy New Year to all you Liberal Scum!

[Jo]

Happy new year to you, spin monkeys!

[Ellen]

Ricky's been gone a long time... do you think... they've... taken... him... to... (sniff, sniff) camp... without us??

[Jerry]

My bet is that the increase of US aid from 35 to 350 million actually includes the full cost of steaming the carrier group to the area to "assist."

But my favorite note so far is that Bush, pushing hard for private contributions to the relief effort, hasn't made a personal donation. But Scott says as soon as he does, the White House would announce it...but not the amount, which is "a matter of the Prsident's personal conscience."

His conscience!! Hope that fifty cents buys more clean water in Sri Lanka than it does here.