As has become customary, the Bu$h malAdministration submitted a budgetary estimate for fighting the necessary war in Afghanistan and his ego-war in Iraq. Then, as has apparently become automatic, it submitted an “emergency” increase for more: $42.3 Billion more.

Today’s NY Times discusses Mr Bu$h’s latest budget request demand in surprising terms while noting the bottomless pit that Bu$h politics has become:

If, as he says, President Bush is going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, why on earth does he need vastly more money from Congress to wage war? The staggering, ever escalating numbers tell the real story: As long as it’s up to Mr. Bush, the American presence in Iraq will be endless and ever more costly, diverting resources from other national priorities that are being ignored or shortchanged.

The administration showed its cards on Wednesday when it asked Congress for an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of the original 2008 spending request, which was made before Mr. Bush announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal. It would bring the 2008 war bill to nearly $190 billion, the largest single-year total for the wars and an increase of 15 percent from 2007.

And here are a few more facts to put the voracious war machine in context: By year’s end, the cost for both conflicts since Sept. 11, 2001, is projected to reach more than $800 billion. Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will probably surpass the Vietnam War by the end of next year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

There are three different threads working here. First, there is a genuine need for funding to fight these wars, one good and necessary, the other evil and pointless. We’re losing both. Anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the last four years understands that, on appearances and results, Iraq has been grossly mismanaged. Afghanistan, which was initially a success, has turned to bitter ashes as more and more resources are diverted to the desperate enterprise in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban once more operates outside the gates of Kabul.

Secondly, as the editorial states, spending more and more on America’s intended overseas empire removes funding from programs the Republican Party considers wasted money: the social safety net designed to protect the poor and helpless in America. The Party of Millionaires can’t stand the thought that funds are spent to feed children or supply them with medical care. Diverting that money to defense industry corporations fattens their profit margins even as it takes food out of the mouths of America’s hungry children.

Thirdly, deepening the future economic crisis in America, and investing more blood and treasure in Iraq creates a conundrum for the “real enemy”, the Democratic Party, which might make some significant gains in the November 2008 elections. Somehow they must find a way to undo the damage that 14 years of Republican Congressional majority and 8 years of George Bu$h have done to America’s economy and world reputation.

And then there is the Bu$hCo (and in truth, Washington) signature: waste and corruption.

Americans also should ask why the Pentagon should be entrusted with more tax dollars when it can’t seem to spend what it has wisely. Military officials recently revealed that contracts worth more than $90 billion are being investigated — $6 billion for possible criminal charges, the rest for financial irregularities. According to the vague details made public, the new money would pay for the continued American troop presence in Iraq, the purchase of armored vehicles and training Iraq’s new army. But it also contains funds for longer-term goals, such as replacing outdated equipment.

Democrats currently in Congress are a sorry spectacle as they cringe and cower before the cowardly Mr Bu$h and his criminal gang. Either they’re frightened of his calling them unpatriotic and “not supporting the troops” or they’re frightened of him for some other reason. My money’s on the other reason, because he’s still maligning him with the other tropes anyway, even after they give him anything he demands.

Congress must dissect this request carefully, find out why Mr. Bush suddenly needed to ask for the extra money and use the chance to reshape the failed strategy in Iraq. In other words, lawmakers should join Democrat Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in pledging there will be “no more blank checks for Iraq.”

At some point someone is going to have to start paying for all this and it would behoove patriotic Americans to support and elect new Democrats to ensure the ultimate cost is borne by those who have profited most from the Iraq boondoggle.