Day: March 19, 2026

They Always Want More Money

Have you ever noticed that every war in recent memory has always needed more money for it to continue?

Donny’s little war is no different…..

The Pentagon has drafted a funding request exceeding $200 billion for operations against Iran, setting up a clash with Congress over the scale and direction of the war, according to administration officials. The proposal, sent to the White House, would go well beyond paying for the air campaign to date and is aimed largely at ramping up production of precision weapons used by US and Israeli forces over the past three weeks, the Washington Post reports. The supplemental budget would be on top of President Trump’s push for the next defense budget to total $1.5 trillion.

White House officials have not decided how much to formally seek from Congress, and some doubt lawmakers would approve such a package, one senior administration official said. The Pentagon has circulated multiple versions of a supplemental request as the costs of the Iran attacks have mounted, surpassing $11 billion in the first week alone, according to officials. There could be other complications, per the Post. Former Pentagon budget official Elaine McCusker, now at the American Enterprise Institute, cautioned that industry limits on labor, facilities, and materials will constrain how fast production can rise. “Just throwing lots of money into the industrial base doesn’t necessarily get you things sooner,” she said.

There will be lots of banter from the Congress and in the end the cash will be forthcoming.

But when was the last time pressing needs of the people of this country demanded such loyalty?

Of course the Congress has to have it say….

“This should be an absolute nonstarter,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in response to the Post’s reporting. “The best way to end this war, protect our troops, save civilian lives, and rein in a lawless administration is to cut off funding. I’m a hell no.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that “at the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 billion per year.”

“If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war,” Gallego added. “The answer is a simple no.”

Any funding package would need 60 votes to get through the US Senate, requiring some Democratic support. As of this writing, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has responded to reports of the Pentagon’s request.

The Post reported Wednesday that “it remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve,” and that “some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/hell-no-pentagon-wants-over-200-billion-to-fund-trump-s-illegal-iran-war

The rhetoric is wonderful but it is also a limp organ as it has been in the past.

Here is something to think about (if that capability is possible) the budget for the War Department is about $1.5 trillion and Pistol Pete recently spent $93 million on food baskets, seafood and furniture but yet they do not have enough money to carry out this dumbass war of Donny’s…..

Does anyone else see the stupidity and the waste yet?

We will see who caves and who stands by their guns (no pun intended).

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Very Disturbing Testimony

First I would like to point out that interest in the war that is claiming American lives seems to be boring to some here on IST….that is disturbing since it is effecting everyone and few seem to have an opinion on why.

There have been many questions for Donny and his merry band of imbeciles about just why he started this war….The DNI just gave her testimony and it is still unclear.

Tulsi Gabbard told senators Wednesday that Iran’s rulers are battered but still standing, and her own words quickly put her in the crosshairs. The director of national intelligence testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Tehran’s regime “appears to be intact but largely degraded” after nearly three weeks of war, and said Iran is “trying to recover” from heavy US strikes on its nuclear facilities. That description clashed with her pre-released written remarks, which had asserted Iran made “no efforts” to rebuild its enrichment capacity—a point that would have undercut one of President Trump’s stated reasons for launching the conflict, the Washington Post reports.

  • When pressed by Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, on the discrepancy, Gabbard said she skipped parts of the statement because “time was running long,” prompting Warner to accuse her of choosing to “omit the parts that contradict the president.”
  • In response to questions from Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, Gabbard acknowledged that “the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer’s air strikes” and there had been “no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” CBS News reports. Asked whether the intelligence community thought Iran was an imminent nuclear threat, Gabbard said only the president “can determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
  • Gabbard sidestepped the question when Warner asked if she had advised Trump that Iran would strike Gulf nations and shut down the Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked, the AP reports. “I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations,” she said. “I will say that those of us within the intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions.
  • The high-profile hearing, which also featured CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel, came a day after National Counterterrorism Center chief Joe Kent, one of Gabbard’s top aides, resigned in protest, arguing Iran posed “no imminent threat” and that Israel pushed Trump toward war.
  • Republicans, including Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Tom Cotton, rejected Kent’s view as “misguided.”
  • Warner used the session to question Gabbard’s past role in election-related investigations and warn of an alleged effort to politicize national security powers at home.
  • Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly asked Gabbard and Ratcliffe about a fundraising email from a pro-Trump political action committee that promised “private national security briefings,” for donors, CBS reports. “I assume these are briefings, Director Ratcliffe, that you provide to the president that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a donation?” Kelly asked. Ratcliffe said no such briefings had happened and they would not be allowed under the Hatch Act. Gabbard said she wasn’t familiar with the email.

And still the question remains.

This is a paper written that could offer some clarification….

The second US war on Iran in less than a year has raised a burning question in popular media: What is the rationale for the war and why is it changing? Is it because negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program were not progressing? Is it because Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons? Is it because Iranian ballistic missiles were going to reach the US soon? Is it because Israel was going to attack Iran and the US took pre-emptive measures to ensure the safety of Americans? Is it because the Iranian government was violating human rights? Or is it something else? The press in the US has not been able to make sense of this changing justification. But this is curious. Was the media asleep over the past few decades?

A quarter of a century ago, I delivered a presentation on US foreign policy towards Iran at an economics conference. My presentation concluded by stating that US policy in the Persian Gulf region had been a series of “regrettably shortsighted policies,” borrowing a phrase from former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. I argued that these policies had served to prolong the life of the theocratic government in Iran. I believed that without the constant threat of foreign enemies, this government would have had no one to blame for its social and economic problems but itself.

In my paper, I outlined how Israel and its lobbying groups in the US were the primary architects of US policy. I explained how they had developed three justifications, or “sins” as I referred to them, to justify punishing Iran:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/03/13/its-israel-stupid/

There is the most logical reason to explain why Donny felt the need to attack Iran….It’s Israel, Stupid!

And the beat goes on where it stops no one knows.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”