Sacramento Bee, May 15, 2004

WASHINGTON - President Bush's request for another $25 billion to fund the Iraq war through Election Day, while likely to be approved by Congress, has triggered a torrent of criticism about the war's conduct, much of it from Republicans.

Some GOP senators have made clear they will not agree to Bush's request - which does not detail how the money would be spent - in its present form.

"I have no intention of giving the administration a blank check for $25 billion," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who threatened to lead a fight against further spending until the White House makes clear how it plans to spend it.

"This is not a question of money," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It's the role of Congress to appropriate money and to oversee how the money is spent."

The president is expected to ask Congress for at least $50 billion more after the election, moving spending on the war toward $300 billion by the end of next year. Bush already has asked Congress for a regular military appropriation of $401.7 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

"While we do not yet know the exact costs for operations in 2005, we need to plan for contingencies so there is no disruption in resources for our troops," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday. "This $25 billion reserve fund (some of which will also go toward the conflict in Afghanistan) will not be all that is needed," Rumsfeld said.

"It is very important for the public to know the true cost of this war," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. "We are now getting into a fifth or a quarter of a trillion dollars as the cost of this war. We want some accountability."

McCain and other Republicans said that Congress would spend whatever is needed to conclude military operations and to do everything possible to keep U.S. troops safe.

While deploring the rising costs, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said there's no risk of the Pentagon running out of money to fight the war "because in the end we'll give them what they say they need."

But GOP senators, taking the lead, said they are required as watchdogs of public spending to keep tabs on where tax revenue goes.

And with war costs escalating and accounting weak, that's gotten more difficult, they said.

In July, Bush's budget director, Josh Bolten, said, "We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for (Iraq) for the balance of this year." But six weeks later, the president asked for an additional $87 billion to bring the then-total of supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan to $162.5 billion.

Congress approved the additional spending.

This week, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other federal officials were forced to acknowledge under congressional questioning that the war is costing a lot more than they said it would.

Just before the war started, Wolfowitz brushed off estimates that the war and reconstruction would cost up to $95 billion. But six months later, he said, "No one said we would know anything other than (that) this would be very bloody, could be very long, and by implication, it could be very expensive."

Democrats said the next president, whether it be Bush or Democrat John Kerry, will have to ask Congress for at least an additional $50 billion in emergency spending soon after the inauguration.

The debate over costs erupted as congressional Republicans showed increasing nervousness over Bush's strategy, as the nation viewed the war through the prism of abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the killing of U.S. military personnel and civilians.

With 5 1/2 months until the election, the president has launched an effort to rally support from GOP lawmakers, especially his conservative base, as Democrats look for new ways to challenge the president without appearing to put at risk the 135,000 troops in the war zone.

Bush has held a series of White House meetings on the war with congressional Republicans, and sent his top national security and political advisers to Capitol Hill.

They faced questions from lawmakers who have seen Bush's approval rating in the Gallup poll fall to 46 percent this week, with 51 percent disapproving. A Pew Research Center poll put Bush's approval at 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving. A majority of Americans now disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq and the economy, according to the polls.

The president's advocates say it is too early in the campaign to take polls seriously, especially at a volatile time when the news from Iraq has been so negative.

They point to Rumsfeld's two-part message, the first of which warns that reports from Iraq are likely to turn bleaker in the next six weeks as dissidents seek to disrupt the process of turning over sovereignty to Iraqis as scheduled June 30.

Republicans have questioned whether the passage of sovereignty can be accomplished as smoothly as the president has suggested.

"You have to be better prepared in this transition than I have heard," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., lectured Rumsfeld. "I don't know if we'll get a democracy we can define as a success."

But on a bright note, Rumsfeld contends that even if the transition is bumpy, the image from Iraq should turn positive in late summer.

Americans will see Iraqis taking control of essential public services and providing security through a 265,000-member Iraqi force working alongside troops of the U.S.-led coalition, Rumsfeld said.

"We hope you're right," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told Rumsfeld. "We certainly pray you're right."

While no Republican in Congress has broken with the president over the war, several GOP senators have asked pointed questions about its goal and its management.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the conservative chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, startled the White House when he challenged the president's contention that the United States can bring democracy to Iraq as the first step toward spreading it across the Middle East.

"In fighting the war on terrorism, we need to restrain what are growing messianic instincts - a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy - by force if necessary," Roberts told a Kansas State University audience.