Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks have a front page article in tomorrow morning's issue of The Washington Post that provides voters yet another reminder that the War in Iraq is not only going poorly, but it will continue to cost Americans lives and money for possibly years to come. On the heels of The New York Times' report that 380 tons of highly lethal explosives have been lost in Iraq, Weisman and Ricks write in "Increase In War Funding Sought" the cost to Americans will continue to grow following the election, despite any statements by the Administration to the contrary. They lead with this:

The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton emphasized that final decisions on the supplemental spending request will not be made until shortly before the request is sent to Congress. That may not happen until early February, when President Bush submits his budget for fiscal 2006, assuming he wins reelection.

But Pentagon and House Appropriations Committee aides said the Defense Department and military services are scrambling to get their final requests to the White House Office of Management and Budget by mid-November, shortly after the election. The new numbers underscore that the war is going to be far more costly and intense, and last longer, than the administration first suggested [emphasis added].

Weisman and Ricks report that these numbers were much higher than otherwise expected.

Bush has said for months that he would make an additional request for the war next year, but the new estimates are the first glimpse of its magnitude. A $70 billion request would be considerably larger than lawmakers had anticipated earlier this year. After the president unexpectedly submitted an $87 billion request for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts last year, many Republicans angrily expressed sticker shock and implored the administration not to surprise them again.

This request would come on top of $25 billion in war spending allocated by Congress for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The two bills combined suggest the cost of combat is escalating from the $65 billion spent by the military in 2004 and the $62.4 billion allocated in 2003, as U.S. troops face insurgencies that have proven far more lethal than expected at this point.

As I wrote last month, rumor around Washington has it that many in the Pentagon are very apprehensive about the prospect of a second Bush term because they do not want to be blamed for Iraq; as a result, they have been behind a number of the strategic and particularly damning leaks in the past few weeks.

Regardless of the source of this story, however, there is no doubt that this article will not help the President. As Jeff Greenfield reported tonight on Newsnight on CNN, the "October Surprise" might not be an individual story but rather the constant stream of bad news out of Iraq that will inhibit Bush's chances at reelection. With the tracking polls showing movement towards Kerry--Rasmussen has him ahead for the first time since August 23, ABC News the first time since August 1--I think it's safe to say that the momentum (even if briefly) is on Senator Kerry's side at this juncture. The race is far from over, but things are definitely looking up.