Isn't it true that Bush could easily have budgeted Iraq occupation $ with the regular budget, back

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

when he had a REPUBLICAN Congress? And that the only reason he hasn't been doing this is to keep the 80-90 BILLION of red ink "off the books" for that year's budget deficit? A dishonest accounting exercise which requires him to keep using "emergency/supplementals" each year to fund the operation?

If so, why don't Democratic officeholders point this out every day, that it wouldn't have had to even come to this if Bush were willing to be honest about the $ accounting for the war?

[napi21]

1. Of course he could have, and you're right on the reason he didn't!

Suplementals are supposed to be ONLY for emergencies and things that can't be foreseen at the time of the budgeting process. If I remember right, THIS year's budget wasn't passed until January 'cause the Pubs didn't want to deal with it. I'd love to know why they didn't ask the DOD specifically if they needed a budget for the war. If the answer at that time would have been NO, the Dems would have the perfect excuse for shooting down this supplemental request! "Hey, we asked and you folks said you didn't need any more money. Too late now!"

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Absolutely true. He has kept it out of the budget since the beginning.

[subterranean]

3. He didn't expect the Republicans to lose their majority.

He thought they would always be there to rubber-stamp his blank-check funding requests. I wonder if he'll include it in the regular budget next year.