February 23, 2005

The Financial Cost of the Iraq War Curious George - what does 200 BILLION dollars buy in a war?

Alls I know is, public education in the US needs money pretty badly. Environmental concerns need a couple of billion. You got yer Police & Firefighters etc. who need some more money. So spending 200 Billion plus on a war for questionable benefit seems a little odd for lack of a more biting, cynical phrase. I'm not looking to debate the reasons behind the rush to war, or anything about it other than "what did the US spend 200 Billion on?" Do the troops have solid gold weapons? Is gas $400 per gallon there? Just curious if anyone knows of site that shows what was purchased and for how much. As the US faces an uncertain economic future, I expect this issue to get a little attention.

posted by petebest 19 years ago
  • I would guess that there are approximately 200 million taxpayers in the US (give or take), so that amounts to about $1,000 each.
  • If you're looking at just the logistics, you're bound to wonder what $200 billion buys. This is a nearsighted pov, however. Longterm implications of a $200 billion war go beyond just men and materials.
  • Well, and just manpower and materials are damned expensive. The fuel bill for tanks and transports alone is insane.
  • well exactly - like how much? Is there a .gov site or some such that gives me the bill as it were? And f8x, the pov is admittedly narrow, but by the same token consider what 200B for schools/environment/homeland security would do for the US long-term.
  • Paying civilian contractors, reconstruction, setting up a bureaucracy, security. The list goes on. There must surely be a breakdown of costs somewhere. Does the government simply hand over a cheque to the military and forget about it, or does the military need to provide evidence of cost needs to receive the money? Maybe a .mil site will have something.
  • How much would the interest on loaning out that money pay? And what would have been the benefit of spending that money on renewable energy. I think that because we are at a point in technology of creating and distributing easier and cheaper access to energy, and since we are basically controlled by that, by the enery companies, then to maintain their control they are going to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to gain access to that new technology. That`s why they would rather have these wars and bankrupt the world economy than spend those resources in a positive way. But actually, unlimited free energy for every human would be the ultimate anarchist planet, and surely the end of the human race. But then, of course, I`ve got the Dreamers Disease
  • i saw a thing on cnn the other day about how halliburton is unable to account for 1/3(!!!) of the 'material' (i.e. tanks, hummers, guns, rations, etc) they were supposed to have deployed over there....not, i imagine, that they're ever going to have to, of course... (and free energy for everyone, retank, (by which you meen fusion, i guess) would be the beginning, not the end, of the human race...and would finally let me off this shithole rock (by which i mean earth))
  • hmmm. I wonder, if we took 200 billion and sank it into alternative energy research, do you think just maybe we could find a better, cleaner way to fuel our economy and in the process a) have new technology to sell to the world and b) create an excellent opportunity to tell all the assorted asshat oil sheiks that we didn't need them anymore? Of course, that might undermine the power's that be's financial interests so we're much better off killing a bunch of people.
  • Hey, that $200,000,000,000 is going towards enough saffron-coloured drapes for Christo to cover approximately 7.5% of Iraq with "The Gates". Don't knock The Art! I can't believe I actually just did that calculation.
  • Currently it buys 1485 American lives. $134,680,134 per military fatality. Plus an additional 5757 service people wounded badly enough to warrant evacuation from the war zone. It also buys you somewhere between 16069 and 100,000+ dead Iraqi citizens.
  • Yes kthx, but really - how much does a tank cost? How many tanks have been blown up? When I get time I think I'll have to dive into the CentComm-like sites for this, but I just wondered if anyone had numbers other than the minimalistically-brilliant cost of war site linked above.
  • My inner masochist wants to know the *real* total body count resulting from the war so that I can trend and average it and figure out how many deaths my taxes are responsible for. Boy, that would be one hell of a sobering statistic, not that any major news outlet would carry it... but still.
  • pete_best, I agree. 200B would fund an awful lot. Not to deflect, but how much does the film industry spend on films each year? Or the music industry? I'm sure, if we were to break down the covers of all these machines, we'd find an awful lot of money being pushed through to finance things that might not seem so benign or beneficial. Nal, is that before or after Saddam stopped killing hundreds of thousands plus of his own people?
  • Just a little perspective, a year or two ago there was a documentary on saving Venice, Italy from sinking into the sea. There were plans to build some kind of submergable sea wall that would only raise when unusual tides occured in order to prevent excessive silt build up. Or something like that. The cost to keep Venice from sinking into the sea? 3 billion dollars. Saving Venice or buying a new nuclear submarine to hunt Bin Laden out on the high seas . . . Which is more important? Which will be most remembered 300 years from now? I shudder to think how this time will be remembered in world history. . . Although I think there will be many comparison's made to Nero's Rome . . .
  • This is a nearsighted pov, however. Longterm implications of a $200 billion war go beyond just men and materials. This is the same kind of hemhawing seen when the credit card bill comes in and a person finds out their spouse has spent $900 on some unknown purchase. The confrontation goes a little like: "So what did you spend the money on?" "Honey, you being so short-sighted. It's going to keep me fit, and it's ergonomical design gives it extra value." "Yeah, but what did you buy?" "Your not listening Babe. This thing will help get the kids to school on time, help wash the dog and car, and aid in the workplace." "BUT WHAT DID YOU BUY!?!" "a belt."
  • Not to deflect, but how much does the film industry spend on films each year? Or the music industry? I'm sure, if we were to break down the covers of all these machines, we'd find an awful lot of money being pushed through to finance things that might not seem so benign or beneficial. If every dollar spent by these industries came from taxes paid by the citizen, and if these industries necessitated the taking of human lives, then I would join you in your condemnation of them. Until then, it's not really relevant.
  • is that before or after Saddam stopped killing hundreds of thousands plus of his own people I don't recall Saddam's crimes being anything of such note after the Gulf War aftermath died down, so an argument involving horses and barndoors does not make a very persuasive case for spending large numbers of additional human lives. Particularly when death by a million feet of UN bureaucratic red tape was being effectively dished to Saddam.
  • 'is that before or after Saddam stopped killing hundreds of thousands plus of his own people' So now we kill hundreds of thousands of the same people in hunting down Saddam, imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands, *but not Saddam*, blanket the country with depleted uranium ammunition in Gulf War I (and now II) that causes who knows how many thousands of deaths from radiation sickness and birth defects, destroying entire cities with air strikes killing untold thousands of civilians in the process to get a few dozen insurgents (maybe). Oh yeah, we're going to look reeaaallll good in the history books . . . Right next to the blitzkrieg of Poland and Pol Pot's killing fields . . . Yeah, we're a good and moral country . . . A good and vainglorious country . . .
  • then I would join you in your condemnation of them You missed my point. I was not condemning them, merely pointing out there's a lot of money flowing in a lot of streams. It's all flowing to one big freaking ocean. I don't recall Saddam's crimes being anything of such note after the Gulf War aftermath died down. Hiding under a rock is no excuse. was being effectively dished to Saddam Is that what it's called? mk1gti, war sucks. Congratulations, you feel the same indignation as most of us about it. Like a medal? Your sarcasm is duly noted. Now please to present the other side, for fairness...or is it just not worth it if you can't bash the US?
  • During GW-I they were bandying about figures like $1mill per MISSILE. Raytheon the company that makes all these products has a pretty eye-popping income statment. Add in Haliburton, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, etc, etc and it wouldn't take too long to rack up $200 billion. It's still outrageous, just not surprising. War makes lots of people lots of money. If I was more cynical... Didn't someone post a big 'ole giant map of the various branches of the military and their budgets a while back? Seem to recall it...
  • blanket the country with depleted uranium ammunition in Gulf War I (and now II) that causes who knows how many thousands of deaths from radiation sickness and birth defects If this is true, then it's not depleted uranium. Depleted means non-radioactive. Oh yeah, we're going to look reeaaallll good in the history books . . . Right next to the blitzkrieg of Poland and Pol Pot's killing fields . . . That you would put this war on par with those two events shows an unbelievably poor knowledge of history.
  • Klepton, are you thinking of that ginormous .jpg file of the income tax breakdown by government branch? I have that somewhere . . . I think the comparison to the movie industry is interesting, but to Mr. Knickerbocker's point, i don't have a stake in the movie industry via taxes. So let's pick a category. Tanks. How many tanks have been sent there? What did each one cost? How many have been blown up? First one to reply with sourcing wins.
  • How much of this $200B budget is for the military costs of war, and how much is for "nation building" expenses? There are a lot of civilian contractors in Iraq right now, and a whack of private security to protect them. Who's paying for all that?
  • Well it appears to be $4,300,000 for a replacement of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank(if that`s what`s over there http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm I don`t know where you would find out how mant have been lost.
  • Let's pick another category: fraud and corruption. "A leading anti-corruption group claims that at least 20% of U.S. money spent in Iraq is being lost to corruption. From Halliburton subsidiaries charging double for gas, Iraqi officials and Arabic translators unrestrained from pocketing millions of dollars, or even members of the interim governing Council accusing each other of taking tens of millions in bribes."
  • A desert camo banana for retank, thanks for the link. JoeChip thats a good category too, but unfortunately it's even slipperier to document than just the basics of tanks, gas, bombs, food, etc. which we still haven't gotten to. Howabout this - do the appropriations bills that request these billions (as they are not part of the budget) list how the money is to be spent? Or is it just a big ass novelty check handed over to the DoD?
  • Hiding under a rock is no excuse Care to back that up?
  • As far as bashing the U.S., I bash any country that wanders around the world introducing pain and suffering with the lie of doing this to offer democracy. Any other countries out there adventuring around? Anyone? Anyone? Didn't think so, at least not at the level this one is engaged in. . . Unless you count Russia in Chechyna (400 years now), Columbia against the FARC (aided by the U.S.), India against Pakistan (both sides aided by the U.S. and *Israel*), etc. etc. The U.S. (with it's needlessly large weapons industry) just seems to be causing the most worldwide damage, and pushing paranoia to whomever will listen for several years now. As far as the depleted uranium argument, take a look at this: http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html Yeah, depleted uranium is perfectly safe, I eat it for breakfast every day. As far as a poor command of history, blow me, I know more about history than you could ever imagine. I read it, breathe it, and in some cases, have been there when it's happened. How many of you have even lived outside this country? Vacations and short visits don't count. Me? Germany, Morrocco and Japan, 1960's and 70's at the height of the cold war and Vietnam. So again, blow me rocket88. As far as all the monkey-flinging poo stuff going on with me, sorry about that but I've lived life in a unique position: I've seen things as military and I've seen things as a civilian. Both sides suck. Military because of all the propaganda they digest as fact and spew and civilians because of their lives as bleating sheep. I've seen things from overseas and I've seen things from behind our rose-colored cage we live in here. More Americans really, really need to live overseas before they so freely involve this country in wars based on lies that end up murdering hundreds of thousands of people all over the world in the name of a bald-faced lie called freedom and democracy. To conclude: I believe in truth, justice and the American way. This country and most of it's people haven't practiced that for a very, very long time now. I will now hop off my soapbox . . .
  • Oh yeah, we're going to look reeaaallll good in the history books . . . Right next to the blitzkrieg of Poland and Pol Pot's killing fields . . . That you would put this war on par with those two events shows an unbelievably poor knowledge of history. ---------------------------------------- I was refering to all the killing in Vietnam, all the proxy wars this country has supported with tin-pot dictatorships in Central and South America and the Middle East(Saddam, anyone) as well as S.E. Asia and other little things this country has skulked it's way into the history books over. Whoever accuses me of having a poor command of history needs to read about more than just World War II.
  • Depleted uranium means it is no longer usable as a fuel source. Of it still is radioactive— if we knew a way to completely remove radioactivety from uranium, then we wouldn't need nuclear waste storage facilities with such helpful warning signs.
  • then it's not depleted uranium. Depleted means non-radioactive. As already stated, that's inaccurate - it's "minimally radioactive" having only about two-thirds the radioactivity of natural uranium so yeah, it's fairly safe if it's just external exposure I guess. Inhalation is an entirely different matter though - DU particle dust can accumulate in the lungs and causes localized radiation damage and lung cancer. In addition to radiation poisoning, it can also chemically poison the body as well (more here). (There was a good doco about this recently "The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children" that showed birth defects attributed to DU that mk1gti was referring to - it was very difficult to watch).
  • Yeah, I've got a friend who's an egyptian doctor (pediatric urology) and he's got friends who have had to operate on those kids. Not good. . . In addition to that, several gulf war vets have had children born with the same birth defects, for which this country's government turns it's back on. Send this nation's poor to kill another nation's poor and when both sides have third-party casualties, this country's government turns it's backs on them again. . . Shameful.
  • it's not depleted uranium. Depleted means non-radioactive Wow. Missed that the first time around.
  • I wonder what the cost of a hundred thousand or so Iraqi lives is. I wonder if the people of the U.S. appreciate so much blood being on their hands.
  • This op-ed I found linked at G2Mil, a blog about military matters run by a former soldier, is relevant in general terms as is his article. I thought the IIS would be a fair bet for more info too though I haven't checked it out properly.
  • it's not depleted uranium. Depleted means non-radioactive Wow. Missed that the first time around. Nal: since you brought it to another thread, I'll respond to your "wow". I'll admit to a poor choice of words when I said "non". The radioactivity of DU is *very* low. Despite mklgti's link of deformed babies above, (which is as dramatic as it is short on facts and credible sources) many objective studies have shown insignificant health effects of DU. Here's what the World Health Organization has to say about it (we all trust them, don't we?) But there *are* birth defects and Gulf War Syndrome, which must be caused by DU, right? Wrong. Much of what's being called DU (which is depleted natural uranium) is probably depleted nuclear waste materials (and maybe not as "depleted" as it should be). Yes, something is poisoning soldiers and civilians in former battlegrounds, but it's unlikely that it's 'real' depleted uranium.
  • U.S. Misses Soldier Reimbursement Deadline " Soldiers serving in Iraq and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices. In response to the complaints, Congress last year passed Dodd's amendment requiring the Pentagon to reimburse members of the Armed Services for the cost of any safety or health equipment that they bought or someone else bought on their behalf. Under the law, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations on the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Dodd asked that Rumsfeld provide details on the department's progress. But he also said it was unclear what recourse he has, other than public embarrassment, to force the Defense Department to act..." AND: Hopes for Inaugural Reimbursement Dim "Seven weeks after President Bush's second inauguration, District of Columbia officials are still hoping for reimbursement of the $12 million they spent on security. A Homeland Security official told them Wednesday it may be too late. District officials were told to spend money from regional homeland security grants, which were supposed to be used for other projects, to pay for security for the president and other dignitaries during the swearing-in ceremony and the inaugural parade. Members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments sent a letter to the president last month, asking him to pay for his own inauguration..." It seemed to me that these belong in this thread....
  • On the money: Iraq -Where has all the money gone? On governance: Rebuilding Wasit - it's also about what's not happening.
  • Paul Bremer, the American pro-consul in Baghdad until June last year, kept a slush fund of nearly $600 million cash for which there is no paperwork: $200 million of this was kept in a room in one of Saddam’s former palaces, and the US soldier in charge used to keep the key to the room in his backpack, which he left on his desk when he popped out for lunch. 600 million. Sweet. And that's when I broke in . . and ate his fishtank! . . . You won't catch me with me trousers!!
  • $8.8 billion that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for Stung by Waxman’s revelations about Halliburton’s petrol profiteering, and realising that KBR’s costs were spiralling out of control (LOGCAP costs in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan rose from a projected yearly total of $5.8 billion in September 2003 to $8.6 billion in January 2004), the army vice chief of staff ‘asked units to control costs and look for alternatives to the LOGCAP contract’. This was the first admission that the Pentagon could not afford the occupation on top of the war. KBR’s response has been to tough it out. The company wrote to the auditors saying that its position regarding the meals ‘had been misquoted as well as misinterpreted’. The auditors, the corporation said, knew full well that KBR had ‘established a Tiger Team that is actively researching and analysing the facts and circumstances surrounding each of its DFAC subcontracts’. ‘Tiger Teams’ are in-house investigative units. KBR’s Tiger Team stayed at the five-star Kuwait Kempinski Hotel, where its members ran up a bill of more than $1 million. This outraged the army, whose troops were sleeping in tents at a cost of $1.39 a day. The army asked the Tiger Team to move into tents. It refused. As to how the Tiger Team ‘actively researched and analysed the facts’, we have the sworn testimony that a KBR employee gave to Congressman Waxman’s committee: ‘The Tiger Team looked at subcontracts with no invoice and no confirmation that the products contracted for were being used. Instead of investigating further, they would recommend extending the subcontract.’ Wow. This is pretty amazing stuff. Too bad the red states won't read it. Let's get Hannity on the case- he's all about justice. /outraged_snark
  • Pilfering was rife. Millions of dollars in cash went missing from the Iraqi Central Bank. Between $11 million and $26 million worth of Iraqi property sequestered by the CPA was unaccounted for. The payroll was padded with hundreds of ghost employees. Millions of dollars were paid to contractors for phantom work: $3,379,505 was billed, for example, for ‘personnel not in the field performing work’ and ‘other improper charges’ on a single oil pipeline repair contract. Good god.
  • U.S. says oil in Iraq to pay for rebuilding. "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and Budget. Attention Bush apologists . . . Bush apologists, cleanup in aisle 7
  • They are dogs that avoid returning to their vomit.
  • From petebest's link: "Iraq has all the elements to be become a successful country once again." Reading between the lines ----> successful country = funds of Iraqi oil sales "diverted" to US That my friends, *is* the nutshell...
  • I wish the people who need to know this stuff . . y'know . . knew this stuff
  • So tell me again why it would be a bad thing if somebody shot Bush?
  • Because he's easily replaceable.
  • he'd become a martyr.
  • Profiteering from war is as old as war itself, and Bush and his cronies are rather half-assed about it compared to, say, Johnson and his during Vietnam, whose "oil" cost much more blood. Nor is this administration any less caring than the previous several on the subject of veterans' health issues - the Clinton administration, for example, fought hard against listing Gulf War Syndrome as an actual health issue, citing it as primarily pyschological. Yes, yes, we all hate Bush and everything he stands for, our outrage needles are pegged! But a bit of historical context lends a perspective more in line with Messrs. Townsend and Daltry's pronouncement of 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." That said, this is particularly egregious, wildly fiscally irresponsible, and I don't support it, although I yet support what I believe the ultimate aims of the Iraq War are: the liberation of a country under the grip of a dangerous tyrant, the introduction of democracy to the middle east, and the defanging of state sponsored terrorism throughout the region.
  • "I took an oath of office. I took those words that I was going to protect the interests of my government and my country. So help me God," she says. "And nobody. Has the right. To take away my privilege. To serve my government. Nobody." Beautiful. Alas, like her husbad, I find myself biting my lip...
  • Speaking on behalf of the private sector, we'll be happy to take Bunny back. With a nice raise, too.
  • Laudable on its face, but I suspect they're merely jealous at not having a bit at their formerly more substantial piece of the pie. I cannot recall a single Senator coming out, say, in support of a BRACC closure in their district, or not cutting swell porky peacetime defense contracts. Their moral high ground in the minority is somewhat undercut by their gleeful rooting at the trough when in the majority.
  • I yet support what I believe the ultimate aims of the Iraq War are: the liberation of a country under the grip of a dangerous tyrant, the introduction of democracy to the middle east, and the defanging of state sponsored terrorism throughout the region. Thank you Fes for injecting an opinion that wasn't the same - and I would agree that those aims are good ones. At the risk of further debate however (kidding) I would like to take a minute on each of these: the liberation of a country under the grip of a dangerous tyrant There are a lot of these - N. Korea for example, Darfur, Venezuela and plenty more. I know it's only one factor, but N. Korea has nukes - outright has them, why fake a case for WMD's in Iraq instead of focusing on a country that has them and hates us? the introduction of democracy to the middle east a noble idea to be sure, and one I would also like to see. But at best the administration's planning and actions toward this end are so inept that nothing less than a cabinet-clearning (and not promotions & medals) is acceptable. and the defanging of state sponsored terrorism throughout the region. Probably the best reason of all, only ties to Muslim extremists are weaker in Iraq than they are with the Bush family friends in the House of Saud. Or Yemen, or our allies in Pakistan for that matter. It's a poorly run war and the costs are great. I just think cooler and wiser heads did not prevail. Now that we're stuck there, we need to oust the people who got us in it and fix their immensely profitable mess. On preview: why didn't they add an anti-profiteering amendment to the 87 billion though? Pork is one thing, and yeah they all want that- but no-bid billion dollar contracts with 9 billion missing and a threatened auditing team is another.
  • Sorry pete, had to sleep... There are a lot of these - N. Korea for example, Darfur, Venezuela and plenty more. I know it's only one factor, but N. Korea has nukes - outright has them, why fake a case for WMD's in Iraq instead of focusing on a country that has them and hates us? Excellent point. Inconsistency in foreign policy is very much asn aspect that I feel detracts from the US ability to generate goodwill amongst our allies and those on the fence - we seem to pick and choose who and where based on reasons other than either ethics or realpolitik. Yet, two points: the examples you make (and through them, we can represent the greater set), are all three VERY different situations, as from each other as they are from Iraq. North Korea has nukes - but it also has a powerful army, much more so than Iraq had, but even so the defining factor is that we done *have* to attack them - N. Korea's sabre-rattling has always been not so much an actual threat but a call for aid - they threaten, we bluster, then a couple weeks later, a dozen C130's full of grain, cheese and first-run DVDs shows up in Pyongyang. Additionally, we already have lots of troops massed on the North Korean border, so they are well aware we could make it serious if we wanted to - we don't because we don't have to. Venezuela has some interesting Iraq-like features - anti-US president, lots of oil - but is differetn in two very important ways. First, Chavez, for all his red menace, is not (to my knowledge) associated with any sort of terror, nor has he tried to curtail trade. He talks smack, but in the end, Venezuela is not our enemy. Darfur is the latest of the (to my mind) unbelievably cavalier attitude we (the West) have with regard to Africa. Time and again, we are willing to let Africa burn, then get involved in something infinitesimal elsewhere. I don't understand it, and I cannot explain it, but it is in my opinion one of the greatest detractions of American foreign policy that we are so willing to ignore the truly awful plight of Africa. It is a shameful thing. In any event, the point being - different strategies for different situtaions. Let me comment briefly on the IRaq WMD issue, which I do NOT thing was just cut from whole cloth. It was eminently plausible that Iraq did indeed have WMD's - they'd used them before, on the Kurds and the Iranians; they'd dicked around the inspectors for years; and Hussein intimated that he *did* have them in the run-up the war. I think despite the end result, the administration ully expected to be vindicated in this, and it was just incredibly bad luck combined with shitty intel that it did not happen. Which is, I think, representative of a lot of what plagues this administration - they expect an easy grounder, it takes a bad hop and they promptly muff it. Less malevolence than incompetence and bad contingency planning. Which leads to...
  • the introduction of democracy to the middle east a noble idea to be sure, and one I would also like to see. But at best the administration's planning and actions toward this end are so inept that nothing less than a cabinet-clearning (and not promotions & medals) is acceptable. I concur. At the very least, an admission (if only internally) that there has been some significant fucking-up of some important things, and an effort to remedy that. Which I haven't seen. Rumsfeld is a glaring posterboy for this. Remember that he was initially put in as Defense Secretary (iirc) as a *reorganizer*, someone who was going to remake the military as a smaller-faster-streamlined force, better able to deal with low intensity conflict. Then, 9/11 happened, and he was thrown into the soup. and the defanging of state sponsored terrorism throughout the region. Probably the best reason of all, only ties to Muslim extremists are weaker in Iraq than they are with the Bush family friends in the House of Saud. Or Yemen, or our allies in Pakistan for that matter. Also concur. However, Iraq remained the biggest military in the middle east, the greatest anti-US voice, and centrally located to boot. By placing a large military presence in Iraq, we can very effectively threaten all the more obvious state sponsors of terror. Imagine what Bashir Assad in Syria thinks today (as opposed to four years ago) when someone from the State Department asks if they might not curtail their support for Muslim extremists. Even Saudi Arabia, who very much want to remain our friends, is moving (albeit slowly, but still) toward taking down extremists. Pakistan is doing the same. Iraq is a proxy of sorts, but a good one, I think. It's a poorly run war and the costs are great. I just think cooler and wiser heads did not prevail. Now that we're stuck there, we need to oust the people who got us in it and fix their immensely profitable mess. Again, I agree. On the other hand Bush, for better or worse, is definitely out in '08. For all that, I don't think that we'll still be in Iraq at that point. But until then, I wish that this adminsitration was showing a bit more of the fiscal concersatism purportedly the purview of the Republican party, and a LOT more willingness to get the job done in Iraq properly before abandoning it. My fear, though, is that the war will get politicized to the point that the US simply departs, and the insurgency has free reign - that would be worse than having left Hussein in power. On preview: why didn't they add an anti-profiteering amendment to the 87 billion though? Pork is one thing, and yeah they all want that- but no-bid billion dollar contracts with 9 billion missing and a threatened auditing team is another. I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that they were afraid of (a) a veto, or if that didn't happen (b) that this law would come round later (like McCain-Feingold) and bite them in the ass. I am a cynic when it come to the motivations of Congress, and I think they were simply scared that an anti-profiteering law would be applied later, post-War, to the usual gravy train. Bush and Cheney may have shitcanned it today for Halliburton's sake, but I think the rest are complicit as well. Personally, I think the bill itself was cosmetic, like the Democratically sponsored draft bills from a few years back - designed to make political hay at the moment, then disappear without fanfare.
  • [Re: N. Korea] but even so the defining factor is that we done *have* to attack them Good points on their military, motives etc. But couldn't this summation be applied to Iraq? Hussein's brutality etc. aside (see above regarding brutal dictatorships), he was contained - now the ants are swarming. Add to this the well-documented attitude of Bush to overthrow Saddam pre-2000-election. And the unprecedented act (for the U.S.) of a pre-emptive strike. The good intelligence - the ones the Bush administration flat-out refused to listen to - knew the odds of Saddam having WMD were slim to none. And yet there's the POTUS at the State of the Union frightening the kids with untrue uranium stories. And Cheney doing his Darth Vader best to mention nuclear weapons. They knew that the reality of Iraq's WMD was unimportant. They just wanted a war. (remember when people thought once no WMD's were found there'd be a big backlash? Heh . . enhhh) I'm not sure a continued presence in the Middle East will actually deter as much as it will create. Isn't that the motivation behind Osama in the first place? The methods of war are so different from WWII, that occupation may actually be a bad thing. For all the good that might come of it, with the exception of Saddam's removal it has been all bad. Our status in the world is incredibly diminished, our treasury has been hit with a massive debt, thousand(s) of US soldiers have been lost with many more wounded, many thousands of innocents murdered, no good outcome in sight - the justifications aren't there as far as I can see. Profiteering amendment: even if it was cosmetic, it would have been law. To say the President didn't want it in there so that he & friends could profit is . . well . . pretty incredible? I'm also intrigued that "only" 50-some-odd percent of Americans polled think the invasion was a bad idea. And (a derail:) I'm more and more curious how religious people reconcile the "Thou shalt not kill" thing with Bush's actions.
  • Ahem. Fingerpointing beginneth...
  • Nothing to add to the discussion, but just a slight quibble. petebest: ...many thousands of innocents murdered Could we please be unequivocal about the deaths of innocent Iraqis? They were not murdered (which implies malice and intent to kill them). They were killed. It's that simple. This constant painting with an unfair brush is why some of us feel uncomfortable discussing these kinds of issues...
  • Doesn't "killed by other people" = "murdered"? I can't understand the need for neutral language here, but I think "murdered" is a reasonable word. (Mind you, when I think about it, I can't recall many news articles that refer to US/British soldiers being "murdered" by Iraqis either. I'd do a google but that's for another time.)
  • I agree with f8x on this one. "Murder" is defined under the law as intentional, illegal killing (IANAL, but thats the basic gist). Many kinds of killing (accidental, self-defense) are not murder.
  • Murder: killing with intent and without social sanction. When the social sanction is debatable, people start throwing around the "murder" word as a judgement. In war, the state of war provides sanction; yet some certainly consider soldiers murderers. A criminal execution is not murder, because it occurs under the aegis of the law; yet many consider capital punishment immoral, and executions tantamount to murder, albeit a murder committed by the state. Going back to your derail, petebest: one should interpret the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13) in the light of the rest of Mosaic law, wherein there's quite a bit of killing. In particular, capital punishment is mandated for all sorts of offenses, from premeditated manslaughter (Exodus 21:12) to sassin' yo' momma (Leviticus 20:9). And there's plenty of Biblical one-on-one smiting as an antecedent, too: see 1 Samuel 17, wherein David (a very significant figure in both Judaism and Christianity - I don't know what role he plays in Islam) slays Goliath the Philistine - stuns him with a slung stone, then decapitates him - kills him. The commandment notwithstanding. I am agnostic. I do, however, have a couple of friends in the Christian clergy. And my wife spent a while in divinity school, where (she says) "the Catholics leave as Episcopalians, and the Episcopalians leave as Buddhists."
  • heh that's kinda funny :) I see your point f8x, and although the chickenhawks who planned the war (can I say chickenhawks? To indicate someone who has never served in the military possibly because they have "other priorities" and yet make decisions that intentionally rush the country to war?), when they planned it they allowed for a certain amount of collateral deaths. Whether or not that counts as "intent" is debatable. ( But to your larger issue of not using the term "murder" when discussing civilian deaths to allow for more input, okay. To your comment goetter, it would seem that the four-word commandment would need the least interpretation of all. Parables, other quotes from the bible all deserve interpretation (as this does in it's own way) but as the Onion article put it "Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."? I'm not preachin' I'm just askin why the Religous Right who shove every aspect of their morality down everybody else's throats lives with that direct contradiction. I tend to suspect it's because they're hypocritical. on topic: see the counter flip to 200 Bil!
  • Pete, to belabor my clumsy re-derail: my example was meant to demonstrate that we, as non-Judeo-Christians (I'm making a big presumption here in my first person plural, and I apologize if I err) really shouldn't try to tell Christians "You should adhere to this part of your God's law, taken out of context, but not these other parts that happen to offend us non-Christians." It's no more appropriate than when sundry non-Muslim wingnuts jump on specific passages in the Koran (E-Z-2-Read English version) and use them to rail about the wickedness of Islam. Our accusations of hypocrisy look to them like a fusion of cluelessness and great arrogance. If the intent is to convince them change their behavior, then this isn't ultimately productive. (And, yeah, I'm glad to see the Onion archives reopened, too. If only this gambit by Clinton had worked, you'd never have needed to make this post.)
  • Hmm . . not clear on the out-of-context part; or are you saying that "Do not kill" is contextual? (or do GWB supporters consider it contextual?) Which is to ask what's the point of the commandment then? Agreed on the Clinton gambit - fortunately he didn't have to resort to this.
  • As goetter demonstrated, the fourth commandment indicates one thing, but with sanctions provided as precedent and antecedent, you HAVE to take the commandments in context. If the Hebrews were told by God to go slaughter wicked towns wholesale, that seems to indicate that "Thou shalt not kill" has some provisos, some quid pro quos (I'm arguing from the Judeo-Christian perspective). And goetter, that's a pretty interesting observation. I have always been bothered by non-Christians who wank on Christians for not following some parts of the Bible, but then get upset when we...follow the parts of the Bible they don't like. You've articulated one of my great peeves!
  • I dunno - (good derail, anyway) - I don't necessarily agree that the ten commandments should be taken "in context" (I'd like the context to be expressed for one). f8x said the fourth commandment indicates one thing But I'd argue that it's an explicit direction - that it's not an indication, and all the context it needs are implicit. Saying it's okay to kill if the homicide involves non-Christians or whatever the contextual reading is - I can't buy that. Maybe this derailment needs to be looked at exclusively from the point of view of evangelical Chrsitians who interpret the bible literally (as Bush is said to).
  • Dunno why I typed 4th. It's the 6th that is in question. pete wrote But I'd argue that it's an explicit direction Agreed. And translations don't help. There's a wide variety of opinion and interpretation on top of the vast array of translations possible from the original lo tirtsah, so much so that the Church has predictably fallen back onto common theology. In this case, it seems that the Judean maxim "He who comes to kill, kill him first" (or something to that effect) is of influence, so that killing in self-defense (and by proxy of national defense, in wartime) is permitted by the Law. Coupled with God's explicit instructions to the Israelites to invade Canaan and kill every last mother, it's not as easy as the commandment at first seems to indicate.
  • That's one of the Old Testament - New Testament things that i could see a derailing derail about. I'm curious how Bush himself would explain the seeming (to me, anyway) contradiction. A Google of lo tirtsah came up with an interesting page that says the translation is "don't murder" and also references the Canaanite . .um. . slaughtering? The King James Version of the Bible translates verse thirteen of the twentieth chapter of Shemot as “Thou shalt not Kill.” It is here where a lot of people part company with G-d. That is because they claim, in one part of the Bible HaShem tells us not to kill while in another part of the Bible He instructs the bnei Yisrael not only to kill the Cannani (Canaanites) but to wipe them of the face f the earth, men, woman, children and livestock included. The problem here however this that the word “Kill” as it is rendered in the King James is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew word. The publishers of the King James Version of the Bible recognized this and in fact correct the mistake in their New King James Version. The Hebrew root word used in this verse is רצח “RA-TS-ACH,” which is most often used in Hebrew when referring to premeditated murder of a human being. When HaShem told bnei Yisrael to kill the Cannani the Hebrew word He used there was מות “MOOTH.” This Hebrew word is used most often to mean execute. Didn't we have a thread about this very thing some where? I remember a good long theological thread but I forget where it was (or if this fits there)
  • I think we did have a thread about this at some point.
  • An estimate that the total cost of the Iraq war may be more than a trillion dollars by the time it's all over. (This figure includes more than just what we're spending on the military.)
  • If the war lasts another five years, it will cost nearly $1.4 trillion, calculates Linda Bilmes, who teaches budgeting at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. That's nearly $4,745 per capita. Her estimate is thorough. She includes not only the military cost but also such things as veterans' benefits and additional interest on the federal debt. I want my well-funded schools, alternative energy research and competently prepared disaster relief. Not a war in Iraq. "Well this is a whore's nightmare." --overheard
  • It can get worsde. The Administration can decide the way to solve this problem is to print more money.
  • Would be hatefully ironic -- but not altogether unexpected -- if some of it went to finance and arm the insurgency. Gate, gate, parasam gate.
  • Fortunately, early and often supporters of the US war in Iraq can now throw their money down a hole themselves! It's convenienterrific! Donate and know not where it go! Thems some secret financin' Dale. guh.
  • Many people support war on the grounds that it boosts the Gross Domestic Product and hence the national economy. The money all spreads around. Trickles down like piss. By this logic, I would assume that these people also support things like cancer, robbery, natural disasters, etc... as these all promote spending, boosting the GDP, and growing the economy.
  • Yeah the first time I heard someone say they supported the war for that reason I literally did a double-take.
  • Senate approves $50 billion more for wars The Bush administration has not formally requested more war money, but costs are certain with no end to the Iraq conflict in sight. You're doing a heck of a job, ShrubCo.
  • His war. His Senate. Ain't demovracy wonderful?
  • Right - I'm unconvinced we've elected the best and the brightest.
  • a friend sent this oldie but goodie by e-mail today: While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people. Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent. "I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate." Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: Your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?" Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am." "Correct. Thank you and goodbye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr Bush?" Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!" Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me." "Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?" Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem. "Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course." Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb shit, it's Tony Blair!"
  • 1) Wage a corrupt, unjustified, unwinnable war 2) Bankrupt the USA for generations 3) ??? 4) Profit! Dick, your inky cyborg soul is beeping.
  • Casualties When Greenhouse was busted down, she became just another of the casualties of the Bush administration -- not the countless (or rather uncounted) Iraqis, or the ever-growing list of American troops, killed, maimed, or mutilated in the administration's war of convenience-- but the seemingly endless and ever-growing list of beleaguered administrators, managers, and career civil servants who quit their posts in protest or were defamed, threatened, fired, forced out, demoted, or driven to retire by Bush administration strong-arming. Often, this has been due to revulsion at the President's policies -- from the invasion of Iraq and negotiations with North Korea to the flattening of FEMA and the slashing of environmental standards -- which these women and men found to be beyond the pale. Since almost the day he assumed power, George W. Bush has left a trail of broken careers in his wake. Below is a listing of but a handful of the most familiar names on the rolls of the fallen:
  • $30 Billion tracked Q: Are there qualities that make Iraq a fertile environment for fraud? A: Yes, it's a cash environment.
  • U.S. Businessman Charged in Iraq Scheme Philip H. Bloom, a U.S. citizen who has lived in Romania for many years, conspired with Coalition Provisional Authority and U.S. military officials to win millions of dollars in contracts, according to a federal affidavit made public Wednesday. Bloom paid at least $630,000 in kickbacks to CPA officials and their spouses, the affidavit said. One of the officials is a Defense Department employee, said a government official who did not want to be named because court documents are under seal. $630 large is 0.00000315% of the total cost so far. And he paid us! . . or . . the crooks who represent us anyway.
  • An Army lieutenant colonel who received the Bronze Star for her wartime service in Iraq was arrested yesterday and charged with taking bribes in a growing corruption scandal involving the Iraq reconstruction program. An investigation has jolted the program, embarrassed the United States military and exposed a dark underside of the American occupation authority that ran the country after the invasion in April 2003. NYT article (reg. req.) Wow with literally billions in cash floating around, who woulda thought some people could be so greedy?
  • $357 billion via MeFi Many aspects of the Iraq venture have turned out differently from what was purported before the war: there were no weapons of mass destruction, no clear link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, no imminent danger that would warrant a pre-emptive war. Whether Americans were greeted as liberators or not, there is evidence that they are now viewed as occupiers. Stability has not been established. Clearly, the benefits of the War have been markedly different from those claimed. So too for the costs. It now appears that Lindsey was indeed wrong—by grossly underestimating the costs. Congress has already appropriated approximately $357 billion for military operations, reconstruction, embassy costs, enhanced security at US bases and foreign aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This total, which covers costs through the end of November 2005, includes $251bn for military operations in Iraq, $82bn for Afghanistan and $24bn for related foreign operations, such as reconstruction, embassy safety and base security. [4] These costs have been rising throughout the war. Since FY 2003, the monthly average cost of operations has risen from $4.4bn to $7.1 bn – the costs of operations in Iraq have grown by nearly 20% since last year (whereas Afghanistan was 8% lower than last year).[5] The Congressional Budget Office has now estimated that in their central, mid-range scenario, the Iraq war will cost over $266 billion more in the next decade, putting the direct costs of the war in the range of $500 billion . . . Consider, as an example, accounting for the value of the more than two thousand American soldiers who have died since the beginning of the war, and the more than sixteen thousand who have been wounded. The military may quantify the value of a life lost as the amount it pays in death benefits and life insurance to survivors – which has recently been increased from $12,240 to $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $500,000 (life insurance). But in other areas, such as safety and environmental regulation, the government values a life of a prime age male at around $6 million, so that the cost of the American soldiers who have already lost their lives adds up to around $12 billion[7]. If only Toby Keith could use his super ma-cheese-mo to fix this situation.
  • Yes, yes, but 911.
  • Ah. Right. Terra terra terra.
  • Terra has nothing to do with it. It's all Mars' fault.
  • That's right, maybe those little green men took all the WMD's. *smirk* *trample privacy rights*
  • Green, grey, they all bleed blue. Cursed Martians.
  • $20 ice trays Same shit, different corrupt administration.
  • $70 Billion Schools, Environment, Homeland Security underfunded. Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job.
  • Continued corruption in Iraq could damage efforts to create a democracy there, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday, adding that it is up to the Iraqis to seize control and take more responsibility for their country. Rummy, you're doing a heck of a - ohhhh phfttttthhhh!!
  • Interesting. But . . . ??
  • Just a note on how difficult it can be to create a democracy, especially when the locals who we eventually want to run the show don't turn out to be what everything hoped they would. I didn't mean to suggest it was an EXACT parallel.
  • Ah - But they didn't spend 300 billion on that one. Back when prices were reasonable . . .
  • NYT article on gross overcharging by Hallicheney. props to tha H-dogg for the reminder For example, the Times reports that "the fuel transportation costs that the company was charging the Army were in some cases nearly triple what others were charging to do the same job." This is war profiteering, and it takes money away from where it's needed: to protect our soldiers in the field and heal them when they're wounded.
  • Where's All the War Dough? One soldier told us that although his unit could not get enough armor, it got a 60-in., $15,000 plasma TV to watch the daily brief, but the dust ruined it--just like it did the nine others they got to replace the first one."
  • That's just sick.
  • Cheneyburton steals 1.2 BILLION This just in, nation's schools underfunded, water polluted. Way to wage the conceptual war ShrubCo.
  • With 250 billion dollars the United States could have purchased... TWO manned missions to Mars! And thems, 2020 dollars! 80,000 Worlds-biggest-trucks ...Full ride 4-year college scholarships for 7,260,000 students But they voted!! Many Iraqi's actually voted!! So, y'know, definitely worth . . umm . . something.
  • What a lot of whining.
  • Please elaborate.
  • The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding. Look, All I'm asking for is a measly million dollars. They'll still have millions and billions left.
  • Somebody post a review!
  • How much to "celebrate success" in Iraq and Afghanistan? $20 Million Are you on fucking crack?? Do you . . . $20 fucking million dollars?? Shiiiiit.
  • American military spending on Iraq is now approaching $8 billion a month. Accounting for inflation, this is half as much again as the average monthly cost of the Vietnam War; the total spent so far has long surpassed the cost of the entire Apollo space programme. Three and a half months of occupation costs the equivalent of Iraq’s estimated oil revenues for the current financial year...If the US army left the region, and if the money was instead handed out to every Iraqi man, woman and child, they would each receive more than $300 a month. They need it: Iraq has run out of reconstruction money.
    -The Least Accountable Regime in the Middle East
  • Thanks AC! Reading the beginning of this thread is int'rsting. 'course I like them french-fried pertaters. Mmm-hmm.
  • Most of the projects planned in sewerage, irrigation, drainage and dams have been cancelled. ...the [Baghdad Police Training Academy] is now closed: raw sewage from the toilets was leaking into the overhead light fittings. But construction of the US Embassy compound – the largest and at more than $1 billion the most expensive embassy in the world – is on schedule. More of the same. Iraq continues to be ass-raped in the same fashion - just with a bigger, and more hairy, dick now...
  • Perhaps you're just not thinking long-term enough SMT.
  • Perhaps. *slaps on some Iraqi crude lube*
  • But construction of the US Embassy compound ... is on schedule. Y'see, it's not all bad news!
  • Ummmm . . lessee . . uh . . hmmmmm . . Ooh! Oooh! I know! Let's throw 100 BILLION MORE at it!
  • 1.2 TRILLION. "But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself — the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq — is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington. That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending. The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country."
  • The effort to map the human genome cost about 4 billion dollars. That's just two weeks of the war. The cost of a manned mission to Mars is estimated at 60 billion dollars. We could have made 20 round trips
  • There you go with "logic" and "facts" again. Always on about "making sense". You liberals will never learn. America has only allowed U.S. entry to 466 Iraqis since the beginning of this war -- while the UN reports that nearly 3.4 million have fled Iraq to escape the violence and are refugees practically everywhere except the United States. That's .001%! Whee!!9!11!
  • Wow. *goes on with more liberal facts and logic* ... *cries* seriously, thank you so much h-dogg and the petes_best collective for keeping these threads updated with so many great links. I don't comment every time cos it would frankly get repetitve, but it's really appreciated.
  • Well personally I prefer to keep my head in the sand, and I think that homunculus should balance his links of frankly treasonous propaganda by giving us all more sand.
  • Sign here. virtual sand collection *tips hat, scuttles off*
  • *starts referring to quiddy as Happy Captain Ostrich-Butt*
  • Hey you're alright Canada, you're okay! Yeah! Here ya go, buy yourselves a real conservative think tank okay? Hey, it's a good-lookin' country alright, okay.
  • KA-ching baybeee!
  • Five indicted in alleged Iraq contracting scam $8.6 million in Iraqi reconstruction funds to a contractor in exchange for kickbacks that included vehicles, jewelry and real estate. 8.6 million? Allright. Just a cool $8,400 million left to track down.
  • 363 tonnes of $100 bills disappeared. "Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"
  • America won't simply be paying with its dead. The Pentagon is trying to silence economists who predict that several decades of care for the wounded will amount to an unbelievable $2.5 trillion. Despite its independence from the Pentagon, the VA is run by Robert James Nicholson, a former Republican Party chairman and Bush's loyal political appointee. Following Bilmes's exchange with Winkenwerder - on 10 January, to be precise - the number of wounded listed on the VA website dropped from 50,508 to 21,649. The Bush administration had, once again, turned reality on its head to concur with its claims. "The whole thing is scary," Bilmes says. "I have never been conspiracy-minded, but watching them change the numbers on the website - it's extraordinary." Interesting read.
  • Will someone point me to the thread where we're covering the current spending bill & associated drama, please?
  • This one seems like a fine one. The drama with "attack dog Cheney" and such is scattered (Justify Bush's War) and maybe (The Impeachment of George W. Bush), but bill-wise why not here?
  • I would like to take this moment to say that Lieberman can lick, and then kiss my ass. Condi, you're next in line...
  • Okay, then. Here's a tidbit from the blue: Filtering the D-Yeas and the R-Nays from the Senate listing: Graham (R-SC), Not Voting Hagel (R-NE), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting Sanders (I-VT), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea I second SMT on the Leiberman sentiment. What a shit. Any thoughts on why McCain didn't vote?
  • Fencepost firmly wedged where the sun don't shine?
  • He was in New Hampshire I think. For some reason.
  • Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill. There was talk in the blue about how the headlines would look. Turns out the cynics had it right. I wrote an e-mail to the AP to remind them it's not a Troop Withdrawal Bill, it's a Supplemental Spending Bill. If anyone else would like to chime in about that, the best address I could find was info@ap.org
  • Thanks mindatwofive!
  • Iraq War Hampers Kansas Cleanup GREENSBURG, Kan. (AP) -- The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, Kansas, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state’s governor. Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone. She said not having immediate access to things like tents, trucks and semitrailers will really handicap the rebuilding effort.
  • $1826 per person or almost $6K per family.
  • The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says. ...The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years. About $19.2bn has been spent by the US since 2003 on Iraqi security forces. GAO, the investigative arm of the US Congress, said at least $2.8bn of this money was used to buy and deliver weapons and other equipment.
  • According to a new Congressional Research Service report, the war in Iraq has cost $450 billion to date. Further, if Congress approves the Bush administration’s latest supplemental funding request, the total cost of the war will exceed $550 billion by October 1 of this year Jiminy Fsck! Dat's a spicy meat-a-ball!
  • ouch. is that verified? $2Bil/day?
  • The simple solution? Introduce Robert Gates to Bill Gates. I tried to think of a serious comment, really I did. But what can you say in the face of such lunacy?
  • Cool, the war keeps getting more expensive! Thank goodness we are seeing such great results! Great work guys!
  • Medals for everybody!
  • Our government is so brave! They're not letting a seriously troubled economy, the devalued dollar, or the millions of people that are in foreclosure stop them from spending every penny the nation has on achieving TOTAL and ABSOLUTE victory. They're willing to drive the nation into complete poverty, willing to RUIN it, in order to prevail. No cost is too great for such a lofty goal! Their steely resolve is truly awe-inspiring. *vomits*
  • The high cost of Blackwater: Waxman's staff says that the State Department is paying Blackwater the equivalent of $445,891 per contractor per year. A real apples-to-apples comparison may be difficult, but Waxman's staff argues that that's six to nine times as much as the government would pay if it had an Army sergeant performing the same work. I hear that kids insurance bill costs taxpayers too much of their hard earned revenue.
  • Right, we US taxpayers are paying all this dough for Blackwater, and for what? So Preznit Bush can defend his war plan of sending a small force to Iraq?
  • Chimp change...
  • dangit! Scooped again!
  • That's 196 berzillion this year alone, folks. What's our grand total so far? Jimmy, let's show 'em the big board! US$462,193,000,000.00 When this latest dump is approved, that'll be US$658,193,000,000.00 and some change.
  • Yikes!...that's approaching Yankees' payroll territory.
  • Or education! Booooooooo, education!
  • $658,193,000,000.00 I work about 20 hours a week as a volunteer at a K-8 private school that tries to find ways for exceptional children to become exceptional adults. At the moment, we can't come up with $1,200 that we need to replace computer monitors that are scorched, pinkish, fluttering, and your basic circa-1988 disasters. Could you please sneeze a couple of thou our way, Mr. Commander and Decider In Chief?
  • New projection over the next decade for Iraq + Afghanistan: $2.4 trillion.
  • Have I ever mentioned how I hate Bush and his war machine? I thought not.
  • Can I just say what a great idea invading Iraq is, was, and always shall be?
  • The Long Term Economic Cost of War Continuing his analysis, Clayton indicated that up to 1967, veterans benefits for the Spanish-American War had amounted to twelve times the original cost of that war, and didn’t peak until 51 years after the war ended; that World War II veterans benefits would probably peak around 2000, and that dependents of Vietnam War veterans would be drawing benefits until the 22nd century.
  • I hadn't thought about that; it's interesting.
  • Pfft. Everybody spends too much at Christmas.
  • Hey, I still have a $15.00 gift card left that I can't remember where it went. Now the big decision is to hand it over for defense, or get myself something from the clearance rack!
  • Remember when they fired the General Accounting Office guy for publicly saying the war would cost more than a few billion? Everyone around me is totally convinced we're safer because of the war too, fwiw. Gosh, they've got to be right. They just gotta be!
  • Umm, this is going to be a dumb question, but the Cold War was basically won by bankrupting the other guy through military spending, so why would the States, you know, get on track to bankrupt itself? Atsa lotta money. That's all I'm sayin'.
  • We have met the enemy and he is us.
  • "Imagine what we could do with the influx of capital we’re wasting on a failed venture that has cost thousands of lives and tens of millions of dollars." Ummm...tens of millions? Aim a bit higher...