He notes that $71 billion will be used for reconstruction and military protection in Iraq. The rest of the money will be used for the same ideas in Afghanistan (Hedges-3). Now we begin to see where this proposed $87 billion is going to go. Hedge continues to give us more facts rather than opinions. As the article continues we see two quotes from leading democrats Sen. Ed Kennedy and Sen. Carl Levin. Both obviously second guessing the President's plan to exert such a large sum of money from our increasing budget deficit. Kennedy is quoted as saying "Before the Congress writes a blank check to the administration, we need to know what the broader plan is (Hedges 3)." Now if this was the only quoted material in the article one might be swayed to take the Democrat position on Bush's ideas, but just before Sen. Kennedy's quote we see another quote. This one being from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a person who would be in favor of military spending of the tax dollars. "The costs are large but it is a battle we must win because victory in this battle will be a major victory in the war on terrorism and a major defeat for the global terrorist networks (Hedges 3)" said Wolfowitz. This adds to the legitimacy of the spending and opposes skepticism quoted from Sen. Kennedy. By the author adding both of these quotes to the article he gives the reader balanced opinions about President Bush's proposal.
In Jensen and Mahajan's article the basis for every argument made is that of their personal opinion on the issues. Nowhere in the entire article can we see an outside source being used. In fact the arguments made by them are very weak with little support. In the second paragraph of their argument they make a remark saying "And, as it becomes clear how little time the Bush administration spent planning for the postwar occupation, people are increasingly concerned about the ongoing suffering of Iraqi people and the risks faced by the U.