Which is a better, fuller, explanation of the state of play?
Is it the account offerd by Notes on the Atrocities:
Nickel and Diming
February. Bush's budget comes out with no additional request for funds for Iraq.
Monday. A senior administration official says there's no “resource problem in Iraq.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration asked Congress Wednesday for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional Republicans said, a retreat from the White House's earlier plans not to seek such money until after the November elections….
It seemed likely that the $25 billion proposal would be only the first portion of funds that will be needed for next year.
Or is it the account (on page A15!!!) of the New York Times, White House Asks G.O.P. in Congress to Add $25 Billion which begins with the line,
“The Bush administration, which once said it had enough money for the military's role in Iraq through 2004, asked Republican leaders of Congress on Wednesday to add $25 billion for the military beginning Oct. 1.”
… but nowhere notes that the administration was saying last week that no more money would be needed. Rather the article says over and over and over that this request was “not a surprise” and quotes (Republican) politicians as saying “we knew it was comming.”
Talk about soft coverage.