That's the headline you may be reading in the coming weeks and months.
From Yahoo:
President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.
Just as we would love Congress to spine-up and reject funding the war, the Administration throws in a marginally good thing.
From WaPo:
President Bush asked Congress yesterday to approve $770 million in new global food aid for the coming fiscal year, the centerpiece of an evolving administration response to a crisis that has sparked increased violence and hunger around the world.
The problem is not that Bush, in the final throes of his reign, has finally decided to help those in need by way of $770 in food aid, but rather how it is being presented. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and with this administration, there is no such thing as goodwill.
The president said he is asking Congress to include the money in a broader Iraq war funding bill for fiscal 2009 that the administration sent to Capitol Hill yesterday.
Want to help the poor and hungry with this $770 million? Sure thing, just go ahead and push that $70B Iraq budget along. The US is spending an estimated $12B per month in Iraq, meaning that if Iraq had never been invaded, or if "Mission" had actually been "Accomplished," we would have saved enough money in two days to exceed the $770 million in aid now being offered.
For now, as the media announces that Bush is "sending a clear message to the world that America will lead the fight against hunger for years to come," I encourage you to wait. It may only take a few days, or it could take weeks, but if Congress even considers following public opinion and tries to end this war, it won't take long for the headlines to turn.
I wonder if Dana Perino will word it as predicted: Congressional Democrats Would Rather Let the Poor Starve.