Advertisement

Senators Want Answers After $87-Billion Request

Share
Times Staff Writers

Democrats led a bipartisan attack Tuesday on the Bush administration’s request for $87 billion in additional funds mostly for postwar Iraq, calling it a virtual “blank check” to pay for an ill-planned and undermanned reconstruction effort.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lawmakers from both parties promised all the money it takes to finish the military task in Iraq. But critics used the occasion to take out weeks of frustration over what they called the administration’s inept handling of the reconstruction since President Bush declared major combat over May 1.

Their main target was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq policy and one of those faulted for overly optimistic predictions that Iraq would embrace American soldiers and that its oil revenue would pay for much of the rebuilding.

Advertisement

“You told Congress in March that ‘we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon,’ ” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Wolfowitz at the hearing. “Talk about rosy scenarios.”

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) vowed not to “rubber-stamp” what he called “a war we should not have fought,” adding, “Congress is not an ATM.”

Although committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) defended the administration, Democratic critics were joined by some high-profile Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who said the administration “clearly underestimated the size of the challenge we would face” in Iraq.

Since Bush disclosed the $87-billion figure Sunday, Democrats have begun criticizing his budget request on two fronts: They say it should be approved only after Congress gets more details about what the funds will be used for. And they are using it as a lever to criticize his domestic policy, juxtaposing Bush’s willingness to seek budget-busting spending for Iraq while resisting increases for programs to help U.S. citizens, such as money for schools and port security.

“After months of dodging questions, giving half-answers and ignoring congressional requests, the time has come for this administration to level with the Congress and the American people about Iraq,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif).

“The president has asked us for the $87 billion next year for our occupation of Iraq, which is essentially a blank check,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Advertisement

Pointing to new reports that intelligence analysts had warned of coordinated postwar attacks on U.S. troops, Kennedy passionately told Wolfowitz and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “You and other officials in the administration responsible for this war were warned, yet you put tens of thousands of American troops in harm’s way without adequate planning.... How do you possibly explain the inadequacy of that planning? And who’s going to pay the price for the inadequacy of that plan?”

Wolfowitz and Myers adamantly defended their preparation for postwar stability and reconstruction, saying that Iraq’s infrastructure was in far worse shape than expected and that the administration had not oversold the ease of the task.

“I think we have done the planning, Sen. Kennedy, for our troops,” Myers said. “I couldn’t sit here if I didn’t believe we have done everything we can do ... because we are dealing with our most precious treasure, and that’s the blood of our sons and daughters.”

Added Wolfowitz: “No one said ... anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication it could be very expensive.”

Before the war, Wolfowitz said the cost of rebuilding Iraq could “range from $10 billion to $100 billion.” Total proposed spending on the Iraq campaign and aftermath is so far $166 billion. Although administration officials have blamed Iraq’s poor infrastructure for some of the unanticipated costs, $65.5 billion of the $87-billion request is earmarked for military operations -- including in Afghanistan -- not rebuilding.

Administration officials and their allies have suggested that an appearance of division among Americans could aid the enemy. When Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) asked if such debate encouraged Saddam Hussein loyalists and their allies who “are watching closely what we do and say here today in Washington,” Wolfowitz picked up the theme.

Advertisement

“Well, the stakes are enormous, and they do have a lot of access to what goes on here,” he said. While the debate is healthy, he added, “I do think it is important ... that we be able to project confidence.”

Even among Republicans, however, there seems to be no hurry to close ranks behind the key architects of the administration’s Iraq policy.

Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.), who has criticized the administration’s postwar planning, on Tuesday raised the prospect that the Bush administration might have to consider sacking high-profile war planners. Among those mentioned on Capitol Hill, though not by Hagel, were Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

“This business is all about accountability,” Hagel said. “Cabinet members are accountable.”

One senior U.S. official dismissed the prospect of the president firing Wolfowitz, who had warned about Iraq since the 1970s and is perhaps the person most closely identified with the plan to oust Hussein. “This administration doesn’t do that,” the official said. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, asked Tuesday about Rumsfeld’s standing with the White House, said he “is doing a terrific job.”

Hagel, speaking earlier on CBS’ “Early Show,” also complained that the administration had failed to take Congress seriously as a partner in planning foreign policy. “I think they did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq,” he said. “They treated many in Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance.”

Advertisement

Even non-mavericks in the GOP, who have little interest in tying Bush’s hands, are clamoring for more details about what Bush wants the $87 billion for.

Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he would scrutinize the request for $5.6 billion for intelligence programs, especially in light of concerns about intelligence lapses before the war. “I want to know where the $5.6 billion is going,” Roberts said.

Hoping to satisfy such demands, Pentagon officials said Tuesday that of the $87 billion the administration is seeking, $65.5 billion would go to support military operations in Iraq. That is $14.5 billion more than the White House estimate released Monday.

Specific line items were not detailed, but the general breakdown listed $32.3 billion for “day-to-day” operations, $18.5 billion to cover military personnel costs, $2.2 billion for coalition partners, $3.3 billion for depot maintenance, $1.9 million to buy armor and other equipment, $600,000 for health care, $400,000 for military construction and $6.3 billion in classified and other expenses.

The rising criticism makes it likely that the administration will have to be more solicitous than usual in fielding congressional queries on Bush’s big spending request, said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

“They are going to have to be more forthcoming and more specific,” Lott said.

He said the situation in Iraq had better be substantially improved a year from now, or “my patience will be running very thin.”

Advertisement

*

Times staff writers Robin Wright and Esther Schrader contributed to this report.

Advertisement