Bush doesn’t include the war in the usual spending bill because he wants to be able to claim to have a “balanced budget” by keeping the huge war expense off the books.

There is no doubt that Bush is using voodoo economics & playing politics by putting expenses for the war into a supplemental bill.

Actually, you guys are wrong about the facts on this.

The way the war is being paid for, through supplementals, has been the way wars and emergencies are paid for, for some time. Doesn't make it the best way to do it, but it's not like this is some new phenomenon or scheme...

See this as an example:

None of the $25 billion from the President is aimed at covering DoD's unbudgeted spending for ongoing contingency operations, primarily in Haiti, Bosnia, and Southwest Asia. To cover those incremental costs, an FY 1995 emergency supplemental appropriations request is being forwarded to Congress at about the same time as the President's budget.

If you want this to change, we should push Congress into changing the laws and rules for appropriations.

(POS poll via Outside the Beltway)......

That's what this poll is about. The Republican party is not going to repeat the past. They're going to make perfectly clear who is going to take the hit when funding for our military stops, and thankfully, this time it's Congress and the DHIMMIcRATs.

Actually, she does pretty much everything but polling for POS. She runs HR, IT, and ops. She does occasionally run some "dial groups" (focus groups for commercials and the like) but isn't involved in selling polls or creating the questions.

On to #3. There is already a time limit on combat troops in Iraq - January 2009 or before Afghanistan implodes. The Iraqis are aware of that & making a start on getting their shit together.

There is no doubt that Bush is using voodoo economics & playing politics by putting expenses for the war into a supplemental bill. The Dems are also playing politics. If Congress goes home without without a bill that Bush will sign, then I blame both sides. It is past time for both Congress & Bush to get bi-pattisan. & pass the supplemental spending bill on its own. The money issue will come up within a year anyway. Lets give the people on the ground what they need now & argue the rest later.

A final thought. General Washington & President Lincoln were both losing their wars when Congress played politics, yet eventually won when given the chance. Bush is neither, & winning outright is not possible. But giving international diplomacy time to work might create an outcome where nobody has to lose it all.

Duncan Hunter is a jerk.

But Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said a memo circulated among members of another committee showed Democrats were considering relocating Guantanamo suspects to military jails in more than a dozen different American communities, from Kansas' Fort Leavenworth to Kentucky's Fort Knox.

"The idea that we would import dangerous terrorists, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, into American communities is dangerous," Hunter said, referring to the al Qaeda suspect who claims to have organized the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Because locking someone up in Leavenworth is placing him in an "American community."

I freely admit that the RNC is going to spin this. But are you seriously suggesting that the democrats aren't trying just as hard to spin this?

Let's put this a different way. What is to keep congress (other than the fact they are congress) to pass a 'clean' funding bill with no pork or withdrawal date. Then to either say that they will do the monitoring they describe and if the conditions aren't met, they will a) cut off funding, b) vote to revoke the AUMF or whatever.

The answer is that they are trying to spin this by combining the funding with the withdrawal. While I agree that it would be nice if PR spinning wasn't being applied to the serious subject of the war, I think you can take your pick as to the dems or GOP being the kettle or the pot on spin.

If Bush had included the war in the main budget, this would not have happened because the majority would not risk a total government shutdown. But then the White House would have lost the illusion that their budget is balanced. When Bush vetoes the supplemental it's going to read very badly in the papers: Bush Vetoes War Spending or something along those lines. It will appear that Bush's second veto ever was used to derail the war, put the troops in danger, etc etc etc.

Bush went up against a hostile legislature for the first time in his sad little executive career, and he appears to be losing.

I guess it is the only hope for Republicans.

While we are on the topic, perhaps you could (or some of your readers) look back and see if there was any pork in bills funding the war in the years when the GOP controlled congress. If it turns out there was none (somehow I doubt this) I will happily admit the Democrats are out of line and call Speaker Pelosi's office to express this view.

If it turns out that the GOP has a history of including pork in its war funding bills, will you admit the GOP is now playing politics with the lives of the troops?

Regards,

Anjin-San