Iraq war costs: sharpen the pencil

As the cost of the Iraq war marches toward $1 trillion, Congress can belatedly do its job by holding President Bush accountable for runaway expenses.

For most of the war, Republicans never asked any tough questions. Democrats now in control have not done much better. Public opinion and the Constitution are on the side of Democrats willing to demand answers to how the money will be spent and the results to be expected. For this budget, President Bush originally requested $150 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was on top of the $460 billion to fund the rest of the Department of Defense. Now the president is back, three weeks after the start of the new fiscal year, demanding another $42 billion, mostly for the Iraq war.

Actually, the figures vary: By one account it is $42.3 billion and others have it at $46 billion. The difference may involve parsing out the funds funneled for North Korea, the Palestinians and similar efforts. On one level, the numbers are like the estimates of the weekly cost of the Iraq war. Is it $2 billion or $3 billion? The common thread is, every penny is borrowed.

Democrats outrage over the Iraq war turns timid in the face of White House rhetoric that their opponents are weak on national defense. Squandering money that does not make the country any safer is hardly resolute leadership.

Congress and the Democrats are on safe ground expressing incredulity. They are supposed to defend the treasury from intemperate, profligate executives. They have the weight and authority that go with the power of the purse. Asking tough questions is their duty.

The challenge feels awkward because Congress is out of practice. Saying "no" and meaning it is part of the job description.