Bush may not be able to Pretend through Election Day It's been an all but unmentioned certainty in the mainstream press that the Bush Administration's last request for funding was intended to last through Election Day 2004 before the White House went back and asked for more money for Iraq (to the tune of $75 Billion plus). However, its failed post-invasion policy is coming home to roost again. The uprisings and cost of security personnel have ran through that money very quickly. As these excerpts from a story in the Seattle Times points out: Republicans in Congress complained yesterday that the Bush administration's plans to delay a request for more money until early next year is unrealistic. And the nation's top military official, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, said the growing violence is pushing the cost of the war far over budget, threatening a $4 billion shortfall by late summer. The war is costing about $4.7 billion a month, officials said. Defense officials are studying their budget, which runs through Sept. 30, to determine whether some money can be moved from purchase programs or other Pentagon accounts, Myers told the House Armed Services Committee. ... Complaints among Republicans that the administration has failed to own up to the soaring costs of the war reflect growing political strains over the war and the looming elections. If the administration indeed is forced to ask for more money, Republicans would prefer to see that happen while the election is months away. In surprisingly sharp terms, members of the House Armed Services Committee criticized the Bush administration's plan to wait to seek additional money until after the election. Visibly angry, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said the Army had told his subcommittee that it had nearly $6 billion in unappropriated budget requests. "I think the budget request that is provided to us is short-sighted and, in the case of the Army, I think it is outrageous," Weldon said. "How can we justify that?" Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said after the hearing that he believed the administration should seek additional money for Iraq before the current fiscal year ends in September. He said he was inclined to include an authorization for $20 billion in his panel's Pentagon authorization bill whether the administration requested it or not. Hunter said it was clear that the $87 billion appropriated last year was being spent faster than expected. Without more money, the Pentagon will risk being forced to gut other programs to cover Iraq costs. "It is clear that money is going to be very tight in the last month or two of the fiscal year. We don't want to have a period of shortage," Hunter said. "The prudent thing to do is to move early with that money rather than later." Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he sensed election-year politics was a factor in the administration's delay. "The administration would be well-served here to come forward now, be honest about this, because the continuity and the confidence in this policy is going to be required to sustain it," Hagel said. "And that means be honest with the Congress, be honest with the American people." Hagel said it would cost an additional $50 billion to $75 billion "to sustain us in Iraq for this year." Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "They haven't asked for one single penny for next year for Afghanistan and Iraq. Give me a break. Give me a break!" Biden and Hagel made their comments on NBC's "Today." Some Republicans said Congress would be unlikely to provide additional money unless the administration requested it. As a political matter, the administration set the last supplemental spending bill at a higher level than some wanted — the $87 billion passed last year — with the idea it would last until after the election. "I'd be surprised" if the leadership would push for a vote on more money before the election, said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a member of the GOP leadership. But the administration's decision was taken before the recent surge of attacks by Iraqi insurgents forced military commanders to increase counterattacks. This is a looming disaster with cross-purposes. First, to not allocate more money soon endangers the situation in Iraq and also for the Defense Department proper. However, it runs against another more central fear of the Bush Administration, to ask for more money underlines their Iraqi blunder, this could seriously harm Bush's reelection chances. Sadly, the death of 100 service men in two weeks is in a way, less harmful to Bush politically, than the American people finding out it will costs tens of billions more to finance than projected. One of Bush's biggest political hits was last year when he asked for $87 Billion additionally for Iraq. Will the necessity be exposed to such a degree that our slumbering media is forced to pay attention to the problem? Which interest will win out in the end, the nation's or Bush's?