When you say it really fast, $700 Million doesn't sound like much more than military pocket-change, right? Certainly not enough to bother Congress over. Of course, not. Almost three-quarters of a billion dollars? Said that way, it sounds like even less--I mean, fractions are small, aren't they?
Desperate to tamp down outrage from Congress, the White House and its allies yesterday spun out various responses to Bob Woodward's allegation that the administration secretly took $700 million from the hunt for al Qaeda in Afghanistan and diverted it into Iraq war planning in 2002. Yet no one provided any proof that Woodward's charges were inaccurate. As a new American Progress backgroundershows, if Woodward's charges are true, the administration's actions not only raise constitutional questions, they also raise statutory questions; federal law required the president to notify Congress before moving any money. While the administration sent two documents to Congress outlining some spending, both the 8/9/02 and 10/17/02 White House notifications in question said nothing about Iraq, instead only mentioning deliberately vague things like "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture."
NO PROOF FROM MCCLELLAN: White House press secretary Scott McClellan did not deny the president secretly diverted money, but claimed, "Congress was kept fully informed of all expenditures." He provided no proof. He also had no answer as to why top congressional appropriators such as Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) said they had never been informed.
WOLFOWITZ DENIAL PROMPTS CALL FOR HEARINGS: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also did not deny Woodward's fundamental assertion, instead trying to absolve the White House by claiming, "No funds were made available that had Iraq as the only objective." Wolfowitz also implied there was no need to notify Congress because Congress supposedly authorized the spending in its October 2002 war resolution. But that resolution included no authorization to spend money without notifying Congress. White House ally Sen. John Warner (R-VA) tried to shut further questioning down, saying, "At this point I think the matter has been fully responded to." But at least one conservative lawmaker indicated that Wolfowitz's answers were unsatisfactory: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "said there would be hearings into possible fund diversions and 'the mechanics of moving money around.'"
HOUSE CHAIRMAN CHANGES THE SUBJECT: House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young (R-FL), the man charged with overseeing federal spending, also refused to deny Woodward's charges. He instead tried to deflect the issue with a non-sequitur, "saying the $700 million was small compared with $159 billion in additional money Congress has provided to fight terrorism since the 2001 attacks." He implied that because over a half billion dollars was not a lot of money, and because of a supposed "lack of specificity" by Woodward, "it is impossible to determine what specific funds" were spent without congressional approval.
WHITE HOUSE CHANGES THE STORY: The LA Times reports White House Deputy Press Secretary Trent Duffy also did not deny Woodward's charges, instead acknowledging that money was used for a "significant buildup" of troops in the Persian Gulf – but only "to aid weapons inspectors." Of course, the United Nations' weapons inspectors never requested hundreds of thousands of troops to mass on the Iraqi border.
RICE NEEDS A GEOGRAPHY LESSON: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CBS's Face the Nation that, while she had no details about the $700 million, circumventing Congress was acceptable because Afghanistan and Iraq are "within the entire region." Her answer ignored the fact that Asia and the Mideast are separate geographic regions - more than 1400 miles separate Kabul and Baghdad. By Rice's logic, this would mean Austin, Texas is in the same region as Nicaragua. In fact, the U.S. State Department has two separate bureaus and two separate Assistant Secretaries of State to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. Her answer also ignores the fact that fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (as approved by Congress) had nothing to do with invading Iraq.
