Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Threshold who wrote (45427)	5/7/2004 1:51:56 AM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 89467

WHITE HOUSE MISLED AMERICA ABOUT COST OF WAR In a transparent effort to mask the true costs of war and reduce the size of the mounting budget deficit the White House left funding for Iraq and Afghanistan out of the 2005 budget it submitted on February 2. [1] Since that time, the "administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year." [2] White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton insisted "no request [for more money for Iraq] would come until January at the earliest." From the beginning, military officials predicted that the Administration's game playing would create problems. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 11, "I am concerned...on how we bridge between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we could get a supplemental in the next year...I do not have an answer for exactly how we would do that." [3] Marine Commandant General Michael Hagee agreed. As predicted, it was revealed last month that, without additional funding, US troops would face a $4 billion shortfall as early as this summer. [4] Yesterday, the President was forced to come clean and request "an additional $25 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." [5] CC