Editorial: War costs should get full airing

Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2001 | 8:20 a.m.

President Bush has nearly unconditional support from the American people and Congress to carry out a full-fledged war against terrorism. But some members of Congress from both parties believe that the president actually has shortchanged the anti-terrorism campaign, both at home and abroad. Not only would they like to see more money devoted to the military, but they also believe more funding should be provided for intelligence agencies, the FBI and homeland security efforts. Last week the president tried to cut off the growing sentiment in Congress for more money, telling congressional leaders that he would veto any anti-terrorism spending that goes beyond the $40 billion in emergency spending that had been approved shortly after the terrorist attacks.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif, wanted to add $12 billion in emergency spending for the war effort in Afghanistan, but backed off after the president's veto threat. Lewis and a growing number of other Republicans who originally supported more spending now say that this is not the time to disagree with the commander in chief, that it is important to display a united front. But they miss the point. This is precisely the right time to have this debate -- not months from now or a year later when it's too late. The nation is squarely committed to waging a concerted war against terrorism. Publicly disagreeing over the level of funding in no way will harm unity. On the contrary, it could be tragic and cause more discord if we fail to determine exactly how much is needed to wage this war, and it is later discovered that the military has come up short in weapons or the FBI is overwhelmed in dealing with terrorism on our soil.

The president, in a meeting with congressional leaders last week, didn't even want to have a candid discussion about spending, a refusal that is a big disappointment. So why would Bush shoot down more spending? The Associated Press reported last week that the White House is worried that additional spending would be built upon in coming years, creating the prospect of budget deficits just as Bush readies himself for re-election in 2004. Rejecting needless spending is to be admired, but the president and Congress should do what it takes to win this war. This isn't a battle where the United States will win if it has one hand tied behind its back.