Stevens: Cost Of Iraq, Afghanistan And The War On Terror ‘Is Approaching $15 Billion A Month’
Stevens: Cost Of Iraq, Afghanistan And The War On Terror ‘Is Approaching $15 Billion A Month’
In a little-noticed Senate floor speech on December 18, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, revealed that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “is approaching $15 billion a month.” Stevens made his comments while arguing for adding $70 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan to an omnibus spending bill for 2008. President Bush signed the budget bill yesterday. Watch it:
Instead of the $70 billion that Congress passed before the holiday break, the Bush administration originally requested $189.3 billion for the wars. Based on that request, the Congressional Research Service reported earlier this month that Bush’s war spending requests have increased significantly over the past two years:
the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration’s request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006.
In November, congressional Democrats released a study estimating that the “hidden costs” of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “so far total approximately $1.5 trillion,” costing “the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.”
As former Office of Management and Budget official Gordon Adams told the Washington Post upon hearing Steven’s numbers, “Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror are not getting cheaper.” In October, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said she was “not worried” about the cost of the wars.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fiscal conservatism at its finest. Keep running up the bill with no end in sight!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:06 amI’m glad Airhead Peroxide isn’t worried about the cost of the wars, but I sure as hell am.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:07 amOur kids, grandkids and great-grandkids are going to be paying this debt off, not just monetarily.
Can the majority FINALLY cut funding now?
Jeez this is embarassing.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:10 amIf there’s one thing we know Ted Stevens can do, it’s add up MONEY.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:12 amWoud someone PLEASE remind these people that their was origially supposed to cost “no more than $1.7 Billion” and paid for “in Iraqi oil revenues”?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 amdeebaser, is there such a thing as criminally embarassing?
Again, sorry about the name-morphing yesterday, my bad….
And do these numbers include replacement of equipment being ground up in the Iraqi sands?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 amWhat’s a literal ton of cash on a pallet here or there in a time of war?
Get real, people.
It’s not like it was being squandered on poor American children’s health care. Now THAT would be an outrage…
http://www.FEARandSMEAR.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:14 am“Fiscal conservatism at its finest.”
I’ve noticed a subtle rhetorical change in the last year. Now, it seems “fiscally responsible” has replaced “fiscally conservative” by many in the media.
It’s about time.
“Conservatives” have squandered the public’s previous perception of them, and now hold the mantle of moral and ethical irresponsibility.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 amAnd Osama bin Laden wins again!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 amHis number one reason for attacking us was to hopefully get us to launch needless wars in the middle east so that we bankrupt ourselves and decimate our military (see U.S.S.R. circa 1979-1989).
Not to mention the cost that the families of the soliders have to endure by purchasing body armor, bedding, etc. for their sons/daughters.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:19 amI would like to know if they are factoring in the cost to individual states for all of the National Guard equipment that is left there.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:22 amThey are NOT counting the continuing costs of caring for the soldiers who come back with brain damage, the leading injury from Iraq. These poor guys are going to require trillions over the next 50 years.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 amIs this all actual military spending, or does it include all of the American taxpayers’ money that this government is redistributing gleefully to Halliburton and Blackwater and KBR etc etc etc?
Welcome to First National Contractors’ Bank of America! Please swipe your contract…
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 amThe rhetoric “the cost of the war” or “war costs” is too vague and uncommittal. The rhetoric needs to change to taxpayers’ monies being spent on Blackwell, luxury embassy Baghdad, KBR, Haliburton, bonuses for personnel willing to stay in the “Green” zone, 10s of thousands guns and munitions unaccounted for, lawless violence against women and innocents, and so manyother unnamed “costly” circumstances that have come from this WH and its failed foreign policy.
Currently, I have big doubts that this president cares about our men and women in uniform. This war is Bush’s war, and it was he who decided to invade and occupy a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Since we’ve been there, profits for his good buddies have flowed from our Capital steps into their coffers, often without any competitive bid process. George and his friends are skimming our taxpayer monies through this constant war they seem to want us to support.
I have my hand on my wallet and over my fly lest Mr. Bush has some other thing in store for us over the next year’s time. -Kevo
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 amIn October, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said she was “not worried†about the cost of the wars.
———————————————————
This sounds like the kind of “happy to be ignorant” blather we’ve come to expect from Bubblehead Peroxide, but this remark only serves to augment her general cluelessness instead of to downplay the importance of war costs.
Unfortunately, I think most Americans are about as concerned with skyrocketing spending as she is. Too many people don’t realize that we can’t spend without limits indefinitely. That we pay INTEREST on our national debt. And that this interest runs into the billions of dollars EVERY YEAR (406 billion dollars in interest for 2006 — this is creeping up to half a trillion dollars on INTEREST ALONE). This works out to every one of our men, women, and children (approx. 250 million citizens) having to pay about $2,000 EVERY YEAR just in debt interest. That’s Blondie’s taxes, as well as the rest of us.
Furthermore, our debt is spiraling at such a rapid rate that faith in the dollar around the world is eroding like a sand castle being attacked by a tidal wave. Who would have thought that the Canadian dollar would be worth more than ours? It is! Our money is worth less and less all the time.
And it’s not like we have run ourselves into unprecedented debt because we have been investing in something. Our debt has come through mismanagement, stupid wars, and other costs with no payoff.
Blondie may not care. Americans may not care. But unless something is done to stem our fiscal irresponsibility, our economy will have all the stability of a house of cards. When it finally collapses, people will pay attention (and they will blame whoever is in the White House at the time), but it will be too late.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:32 amAnd Osama bin Laden wins again!
His number one reason for attacking us was to hopefully get us to launch needless wars in the middle east so that we bankrupt ourselves and decimate our military (see U.S.S.R. circa 1979-1989).
Comment by OxyCon — December 27, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Exactly. Our own strategy is coming back to bite us in the butt, and we don’t even recognize it.
And yes, I DID see “Charlie Wilson’s War” over Christmas.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:34 amCurrently, I have big doubts that this president cares about our men and women in uniform. This war is Bush’s war, and it was he who decided to invade and occupy a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Since we’ve been there, profits for his good buddies have flowed from our Capital steps into their coffers, often without any competitive bid process. George and his friends are skimming our taxpayer monies through this constant war they seem to want us to support.
I have my hand on my wallet and over my fly lest Mr. Bush has some other thing in store for us over the next year’s time. -Kevo
Comment by kevo — December 27, 2007 @ 11:30 am
####
I wish I could agree with you hat this is Bush’s war. However, as the democrats have continued to fund it, they have bought a share of the blame as well. I know there have been resolutions that the republicans have filibustered, but the dems have still rolled over without filibuster or anything, and given more and more funding. Hopefully, with the upcoming elections, there will be a change.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:34 amTed Stevens: “This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month”.
He added, “No-one tell the children”.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:35 amI guess this truly proves beyond a doubt:
Freedom isn’t free.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
######
And there is no end in sight. At what point can we bring our troops home and stop spending $15 billion per month? 6 more months? 10 years? Never?
And to think back to all the conservatives criticizing Clinton for the cost of the Balkans.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:36 amIn October, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said she was “not worried†about the cost of the wars.
So Bush’s love slave tells us she is not worried about the cost of the war. I guess whe you are on the public tit and you have a wealthy husband, one mustn’t worry, huh? These people are not human.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:36 amThe notion that there is an actual “WAR ON TERROR” is complete bullshit….
December 27th, 2007 at 11:37 amCap’n, you were planning on spending more time with your kids, right?
Make sure you tell them about the debt they’re going to be paying off for your bushfuhrer.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:38 amI think ol Teddy is going to be in deep doodoo for letting this slip out.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amNext year he’ll only get two bridges to boondocks, instead of six.
Freedom isn’t free.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Ahhhh. the feel good bromides start flying now. Next up, “we are fighting them over there so we don;’t have to fight them here”. Or how about “these colors never run”. Or maybe the winner take all: “the insurgency is in its last throes”.
Words are just words. Real Americans are dying and we utter catch phrases which don’t mean a thing. How sad.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amI guess this truly proves beyond a doubt:
Freedom isn’t free.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
How cute a trite expression to grossly gloss over a real issue.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:41 amCap’n, you were planning on spending more time with your kids, right?
Make sure you tell them about the debt they’re going to be paying off for your bushfuhrer.
Comment by RUCerious — December 27, 2007 @ 11:38 am
#####
And their kids. And their grandchildren. And their great grandchildren. Most of the debt being paid to China. Also, as Manslagt stated yesterday, we never pulled our troops out of Germany. So if republicans have their way your great grandchildren will be serving in Iraq.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:41 am$15 Billion? how many TUBES does that buy?
Stevens should be more concerned that he’s going to jail
December 27th, 2007 at 11:43 amFreedom isn’t free.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
And how is refereeing a series of tribal disputes in Anbar and promoting the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad preserving freedom, exactly?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:43 amWhat’s more relevant is whether the cost is worth it or not? The 4 trillion for our involvement in WWII: worth it. The 1.5 trillion+ for the war in Iraq: ?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Not.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:44 amComment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:42 am
####
I would like to share a dicussion I had on a different blog (vetvoice), as I think it is relevant here. The first part is from Lt Nixon, a Navy officer currently stationed in the Green Zone. The second part is my response.
Happy New Years everybody… (0.00 / 0)
…I’m not a huge Christmas person, but I’m definitely a huge New Years person. That’s because you get to start all over again and learn from the mistakes you made in the past. Hopefully, as a country we can do the same.
Right now I’m stateside on R&R and I swung by the old folks home to visit my Grandpa and Grandma. He was an infantry guy in the Pacific Campaign during WWII and has a couple of silver stars. He asked me about Iraq and if we were winning. I had trouble answering that. I also had trouble explaining that the enemy in Iraq wore no uniform. He kept asking me if we were at war with the Iraqi Army and I kept telling him no (he’s 86, give him a break). He found it really hard to understand the conflict against insurgents. Then my Grandma told me about how when WWII started her family donated all of the brass in their house to the war effort and everyone did their part. Wow, times sure have changed…
by: LT Nixon @ Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 21:19:10 PM EST
[ Reply | ]
by: you @ soon
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
# You must enter a subject for your comment
OIF is a war like none before it (4.00 / 1)
While I was there I seldom questioned anything, except why were still there. Since I came home I have been questioning the basic things that you should know about any war. Who is the enemy, and how do we know him when we see him? When I was there, the “enemy” was anyone who shot at you. What is “making progress” or “winning”? Many people say that if violence declines then that is winning, but violence can decline for a number of reasons. What is “victory”? In other words, what do we have to do in order to bring our troops home? No one seems to have an answer for that one either. I was asking a guy about this just yesterday who said “we never brought our troops home from Germany.” He is one of those who believes we should stay in Iraq forever. Hopefully, with the upcoming elections, there will be a change.
“The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy” – General Omar Bradley
December 27th, 2007 at 11:46 amby: clejeune @ Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply ]
If they’re not getting suicide bombed at the mall, they’ll probably be willing and able to pay it off.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:47 am
You really are a piss soaked paranoid, aren’t you?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amIf they’re not getting suicide bombed at the mall, they’ll probably be willing and able to pay it off.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:47 am
#####
Name one time in history, just one, where we were attacked by Iraqi terrorists? Also, how do our troops fighting in Baghdad keep Saudis from attacking us?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:49 amIraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces” as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:50 amIf they’re not getting suicide bombed at the mall, they’ll probably be willing and able to pay it off.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:47 am
But certainly they would be unwilling to shoulder any potential economic hardship related to maintaining the planet as a livable sphere. After all that climate stuff is all hocus pocus. My neighborhood mall blowing up, now that is a real threat!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:51 amI spend a lot of time on the milblogs. I have copied and pasted some of the trolls comments from this site to guys still serving in Iraq. They are convinced that the trolls here are either school kids trying to stir things up, or seriously mentally retarded.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:53 amIraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces†as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
Comment by Chris L — December 27, 2007 @ 11:50 am
How would you rate your current occupying power [insert name here]?
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Terrible
If you could be occupied by [insert name here] again, would you?
Yes | No | Maybe
Would you recommend an occupation by [insert name here] to your friends?
Yes | No | Maybe
(apologies to Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me for stealing their bit)
December 27th, 2007 at 11:55 amThey are convinced that the trolls here are either school kids trying to stir things up, or seriously mentally retarded.
Comment by Chris L — December 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Can’t it be both?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:56 amThat Cap’n sure is off his game.
I mean, he’s never much more than a higher-level troll. Occasionally he seemed willing to invest in a real discussion in times past, but he never brought much more than talking points to any debate.
But the last few weeks, his game has been crumbling, to the point where the trollmasters can send in Jason ManHandler or O’Bigfool to replace him, and not skip a beat.
That’s kind of sad.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am“What’s more relevant is whether the cost is worth it or not? The 4 trillion for our involvement in WWII: worth it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
The U.S. spent an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies.
Perhaps Manny can supply a link that supports his $4 trillion contention, but I doubt it.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:59 amThere were plenty of terror attacks against the west prior to 9/11. And there are plenty of reasons for jihadists to be upset with the west. But, jihadists have declared war on us.
And what the hell does any of that have to do with invading and occupying Iraq?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmToday’s dollars:
http://wiki.answers.com/ Q/ How_much_did_World_War_2_cost
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
I bet the Soviets did similar conversions to 1989 rubles to claim that fighting the Afghans was “worth it.”
December 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
###
Saddam is dead. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. We have NO defined enemy in Iraq. At all. And that changes regularly. One month we’re fighting against one group, then supporting them the next month. Should we stay there forever so that the Saudis don’t attack us? The war in Iraq is drawing us away from the war on terror. Support for continued occupation of Iraq = support for Al-Qaeda.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pmUm… Cap’n? That link you supplied quite clearly pegs the cost in today’s dollars at 3 trillion (3.19, to be a little more precise), not 4. But then, what’s a trillion dollars to quibble over? It’s only one-third extra, right?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pmThe situation has evolved that has made pre-emption a reasonable strategy. Waiting to fight the last war is a mistake we may not be able to afford.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
So any group/nation who believes some other group/nation poses a threat to them are justified in any preemption they see fit? That is the logical conclusion of this bs premise of yours correct or does this bs logic only apply to the USA?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmThis deserves to be repeated:
There were plenty of terror attacks against the west prior to 9/11. And there are plenty of reasons for jihadists to be upset with the west. But, jihadists have declared war on us.
And what the hell does any of that have to do with invading and occupying Iraq?
Comment by RUCerious — December 27, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
December 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWho is the equivalent of Hitler in Iraq? Saddam is dead. Who is the enemy, and how do our soldiers know when they see them? If we see one group of Iraqis attacking another, which side do we jump in on? How do we know which side is our “friend” this month?
When you have nothing but a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The solution to the problems in Iraq cannot be helped by the American military, only hindered.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
#####
Saddam is dead and we have known for four years now that there is no WMD in Iraq. So why do our troops have to stay there forever? When are you going over? When is your wife signing up?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pmCapt’n. Post #51. and it all went downhill from there.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:13 pmSo, because Saddam was in power in 2003, and we thought they had WMD, we have to invade and stay there forever. Yep, sounds exactly like what Bin Laden wanted.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThe situation has evolved that has made pre-emption a reasonable strategy. Waiting to fight the last war is a mistake we may not be able to afford.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
So you bought the neocon con job? Pearl, addington, cheney, wolfawitz, yoo, etc…You believe these snake oil salesmen? You would destroy our entire way of life because these chickenhawks said so? Wow, you folks really don’t like the Constitution do you? Pre-emption is a reasonable strategy? Hurting someone before we have any proof? Are those words in our most sacred document? I keep one in my pocket, but I don’t see where we are allowed to hurt people without proof.
Don’t you think it is a little insane to take away our rights, while fighting an enemy that – you say – want to take away our rights? To a reasonable person, that stance is sorta CRAZY. Why does that make sense to you?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pmDonald Rumsfeld: “… the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost.
10/21/2002
December 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pmCaptain,
Did you support Clinton in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.? Shouldn’t we have 360,000 American in the Balkans forever, according to your logic?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pmLeadership at the time (Republican and Democrat) decided that pre-emptively removing the suspected WMD was in the best interest of the country – given the circumstances occuring at the time.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Please look up the definition of “pre-emptive” before you continue incorrectly using it to describe the invasion of Iraq.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pmComment by StratRat — December 27, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
#####
I think pre-emption is a good idea. I heard one time that terrorists sometimes post on blogs, and CaptainMantastic sounds like a terrorist sympathizer to me. Let’s kill his entire family and everyone they have ever met, just to be safe.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmAirhead Dana’s “not worried” about the cost of the war because she flunked basic math, for pity sakes! She has zippo comprehension of fiscal accountability or she wouldn’t make a ridiculously imbecilic comment publicly like that. She’s totally clueless.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmGrover’s bathtub won’t be needed to drown the government: just the interest on aWol’s ruinous Iraq war debt will prevent any new services from being considered.
Bathtub drownings are so 1990s!
December 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pmPre-emption is a reasonable strategy? Hurting someone before we have any proof? Are those words in our most sacred document? I keep one in my pocket, but I don’t see where we are allowed to hurt people without proof.
Comment by StratRat — December 27, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Pre-emption is a reasonable strategy – striking an enemy confirmed to have both the capability of attack and imminent plans to attack. This is the right of any nation, and is recognized under international law.
The invasion of Iraq was in no way pre-emptive. Iraq had neither the capability nor the plans to attack the United States. It was preventative war, not pre-emptive war.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmLeadership at the time (Republican and Democrat) decided that pre-emptively removing the suspected WMD was in the best interest of the country – given the circumstances occuring at the time.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
I see that the Cap’n has signed on to the Rovespin newsletter, reporting on a world in which the Democrats in Congress rushed the president into war so that they could take advantage of the electoral benefits in 2002.
It’s like trying to convince an insane person that a car isn’t milk. Where do you even start?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pmFrom Manny’s wiki link:
Answer
Found an estimate of $288 Billion (in 1940s dollars) for the cost of WWII.
Answer
According to my Oxford Companion to WWII in strictly monetary terms here was the breakdown for the major players in their currencies:
UK-Pounds Sterling 20,500,000,000 US-$306,000,000,000 Germany-Reichmarks 414,000,000,000 Japan-Yen 174,000,000,000 Italy- Lire 278,500,000,000 USSR- Ruble 582,000,000,000
I’m not sure if the US figure even takes into acount the 50 billion in Lend lease aid that was given out.
Answer
The monetary cost to the U.S. was $288,000,000,000.
Answer
trillion dollars according to some other sites (trillion dollars total for Germany, EVERYONE involved including france, US, etc.)
Answer
$1.5 trillion
Answer
In today’s money, the cost to the U.S. would be over three trillion dollars (at 288 billion 1945 dollars) or about $3,189,752,033,348.
So, that’s your proof? The “answers” are all over the place.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pmIt’s like trying to convince an insane person that a car isn’t milk. Where do you even start?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 27, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
####
You don’t. Let him and all other republicans continue to say that we should stay in Iraq forever. That we need to cut taxes in a time of war. Let them continue to say that OIF is like WWII. It just makes the elections easier. This is why the only OIF veteran in congress, and the only OIF veteran running for Senate are both democrats.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pmWrong Captain. Dead wrong.
9/11 was perpetrated by a tiny sliver of religious fanatics. They had tried before at the same target, but this time they got lucky beyond their wildest dreams. Not only did the towers unexpectedly come down, but because we had a weak, pissy pResident at the time, we overreacted and let the Chimp act out his personal drama. Bush used 9/11 as cover to attack Iraq. Only fools believe otherwise.
And because of his war (sorry Chris L, it is Bush’s War) your kids and grandkids are much more likely to get bombed in the mall. Bush’s War in Iraq has taken a splinter group of religious fanatics and raised them to a level of an equal enemy of the USA. Bush is by far the best recruiter for Al Qaeda yet.
Was it worth it is an ignorant question. We will have spent 3,4,5 trillion dollars to create more enemies, kill and maim our finest, ruin our reputation in the world and create breathing room for Russia, India and China to supplant us as world leaders and you ask if it was worth it.
That’s like paying a bum $100 to slap the shit out of you and wondering whether the $100 was worth it or not.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pmLet’s kill his entire family and everyone they have ever met, just to be safe.
Comment by Chris L
But, that is exactly the slope we are stepping on to. It seems Bush has turned the country into a vigilante state. Watch everybody, suspect everybody, report everybody! Pre-emption is the lazy mans way of fighting. But OBL is still alive! Why is that? Captain? Anybody?
If folks like the Captain were brave, they would trust their government to keep them safe, without throwing away the fundamental principals this country was built on. If the government cannot keep us safe, get a new government – don’t lower our principals. We hired thses people to keep us safe, but it seems they cannot do that unless we shred our conscience – so we fire them and get a new group of representatives.
Once a worker proves they are not capable, then they must go. You don’t lower your standards to accommodate a sub-standard worker. You keep your standards high, and expect the workers to meet that challenge.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI see, Cap’n. I didn’t realize that you were sending a link that you were then seeking to revise according to your own estimates. Thanks for clearing that up.
You see, where I got confused is that most people supply a link that supports their position and then let it stand on its own merits.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmEssentially – if you want a continued, open-ended commitment to Iraq – vote republican
If you think we have done enough for Iraq, and it is time to start bringing the troops home – vote democrat
December 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBut, that is exactly the slope we are stepping on to. It seems Bush has turned the country into a vigilante state. Watch everybody, suspect everybody, report everybody!
Comment by StratRat — December 27, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
#####
Sounds like the USSR during the 80’s
December 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pmIn one simple comment left in this diary, ArmyofOne, an Army officer currently stationed in Iraq, has summed up the situation on the ground there.
This comment should be forwarded throughout the blogosphere and to all American policymakers:
This post will lack my normal level of articulation but this is as close as I can get to the truth of it.
1) There is a problem
2) Government of Iraq (GOI) ask us to fix the problem
3) We tell them to fix it themselves, here is the money
4) Problem remains unfixed
5) We say we will fix the problem, give us the money back
6) They give us 1/3 of the money and say the rest was used to think of a way to fix the problem
7) We fix the problem with our own money
8) There is a problem
Starting to get the picture? Things like this make me a real fan of “Baptism by Fire” for this “Democratically” elected government. As long as we keep doing for them, they have no reason to do it themselves.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pmTed’s upset because that means we could have built 60 bridges to nowhere every month.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmCaptain,
You are scared of these mythical creatures “jihadists” who have “declared war” on us. It is an argument based completely on fear and misinformation. As for your financial figures, you are missing one crucial part for analysis:
regardless of what WWII cost in todays dollars – WE PAID FOR MOST OF IT THEN. The American People sacrificed, saved, donated, and volunteered to support the war effort. The Exact OPPOSITE is happening now. Now, as many companies and crooks are dipping their fingers in the blood of this war to get a piece of the blood soaked dollars flowing out of our government like a river.
The facts remain that we are chasing ghosts and scaring the once proud and brave American people and we are destroying not only what makes this country great and moral, but what makes it STRONG. We will not “win” by creating more enemies. We will not defeat “evil” with “evil”. We will not stop people from trying to killing us by giving them more motivation and reason to hate us.
I am by no means a pacifist. I would never have joined the USMC if I was; however, our military might should be used to DEFEND, not attack those we think MIGHT BE A THREAT. It should be used to PROTECT THE WEAK – not torture our enemies. If other countries acted as we did, who do you think they would see as the biggest threat? I will answer it for you, most, including allies in Europe, see the US as the most dangerous country. Let’s be the protector and not the aggressors. Lets convince our enemies that we are right, not torture them and force them to agree at the barrel of a gun. If they choose to attack, then we swat them back and continue to show our benevolence. Let’s not prove to them that we are the monsters they want to see us as.
We may suffer attacks and death – however, just like we have lost more lives in Iraq than in 9/11 (not to mention Iraqi casualties), we lose less in the long run and our COUNTRY BECOMES STRONGER. We gain more allies, and if we are ever in need, the world would come to our aid. Do you think the world would help us now? They would have after WWII. You keep chipping away at our enemies by expanding our common ground, not increasing the distance and misunderstanding.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmWhat I find funny is that Manny’s link provides many differing estimates – and he immediately gloms onto the most expensive estimate, to downplay the size of Bush’s war spending. Just like Bush cherrypicking data to provide justification for invasion.
You have learned well, little padwan.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSo, is TP no longer doing their Thinkfast round-up? Or are they just slack for the holidays?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pmPre-emption is a reasonable strategy – striking an enemy confirmed to have both the capability of attack and imminent plans to attack. This is the right of any nation, and is recognized under international law.
Comment by toasterhead
When your loved ones are dying, the semantics of the phrases do not matter. Words like pre-emption or preventative are just words people use when they are not in the line of fire.
You lost your point when you wrote: “Imminent plans to attack”. In our long history very, very few instances of imminent plans to attack can be found. As you stated, certainly not Iraq: but we invaded anyway?
We have had nukes pointed at us since the 1950’s. Do you consider them to be imminent? Why not invade Iran then? or No korea?, or china? How can a reasonable person pick iraq as an imminent threat (we invaded), but leave other, more capable countries alone (Pakistan)?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWell, it may sound crazy to you, but guess what, at the time over half of the democrat leaders of congress (and almost all the republicans) thought the same thing.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
####
That still isn’t justification for why we are there now. Four years later, with 360,000 Americans on the ground. It takes four months to turn a civilian into a soldier and send him into Iraq. Yet, in four years the Iraqi Army still doesn’t function. There are 12 powerstations in Baghdad, NONE of them are run by the Iraqi government. In the last four years, two major highways have been built in Iraq, none by the Iraqis. And if we stay there another 50 years, things will be the same. Support for the occupation of Iraq = support for Al-Qaeda.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pmat the time over half of the democrat leaders of congress (and almost all the republicans) thought the same thing. They agreed with the ‘crazy’ idea of pre-emption.
Two points, Cap’n: one, the “democrat” leaders of Congress were told what the Bush administration wanted them to hear. Dissenting views were suppressed, threats were magnified. That’s pretty much beyond dispute.
And two, the proper adjectival form of the noun “Democrat” is “Democratic”. When you employ the sneering right-wing tactic of using the noun as an adjective, it just makes you sound ignorant.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThey agreed with the ‘crazy’ idea of pre-emption. Don’t forget the Brits. Come to think of it there are quite a few people just as crazy as I am.
How can that be?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Back in 2003 a lot of people and foreign governments were fooled by the manipulated intelligence, particularly after the neocons persuaded the formerly respectable Colin Powell to lie to the UN about the threat posed by Iraq. The size of the coalition doesn’t change the fact that the Iraqi threat was a lie.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pmComment by toasterhead — December 27, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
####
And regardless of why we went in, it is now time to come home.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pmSounds like the USSR during the 80’s
Comment by Chris L — December 27, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
And the 70’s, and the 60’s, and the 50’s too…
And don’t forget East Germany… the Stasi learned well.
Funny, some of the rightie posters here are so fond of calling us Stalinists, yet they’re the ones who claim they feel safer living in a police state, under constant surveillance.
Oh, the irony…
December 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pmThey agreed with the ‘crazy’ idea of pre-emption. Don’t forget the Brits. Come to think of it there are quite a few people just as crazy as I am.
How can that be?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Easy. The stovepiped intelligence was shoved down everybody’s throats. In the aftermath of the attack, our representatives were dumbfounded and clueless. Our reps should have questioned the neocons, but they didn’t. That situation makes our reps incompentent, it does not make correct bush’s strategy. Congress simply crumbled and failed us all.
Out of the chaos rose the neocons with their already made plans to bring the world to the feet of America. You do read history, right? You do avail yourself to the many, many sources of information, right? You do know about PNAC, right? If not, please check them out.
We know Bush lied. We know he lied to the british. We know he lied to the planet (colin powell, condi rice). We know they were wrong from the start.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm“… it just makes you sound ignorant.”
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
What???? Ignorance on the part of a troll? How… could… this be?!?!?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pmWell TP friends, it has been a good morning, but I’ve got to get to work. Have a good day, and keep tearing up the trolls.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pmYou lost your point when you wrote: “Imminent plans to attackâ€. In our long history very, very few instances of imminent plans to attack can be found. As you stated, certainly not Iraq: but we invaded anyway?
Comment by StratRat — December 27, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
No – that is my point exactly. The bar for a preemptive attack is set very high intentionally. If you’re going to military attack, invade, and occupy another soveriegn nation, you’d better have a damn good reason for it.
My point is that the invasion of Iraq was not preemptive, despite the repetition of this lie by the conservatrolls.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pmCaptainMantastic,
Regardless of how many countries we bullied into stamping their name on our “war”, only 3 of the 15 countries on the UN security council were “willing” to use force in Iraq when we went to war. One of which was Spain who was a “non permanent” member of the UNSC. Even though the passage of resolution 1441 was passed unanimously in 2002, the rest of the countries did not want war – Of course, Bush and Cheney knew better. Oh yeah, didn’t Cheney predict the EXACT quagmire (even used that word) when he justified NOT going into Iraq in 1992 as Secretary of Defense. (He repeated this in 1994 and 1996). He knew it would cause MORE violence – but war = profit. As for Bush, I think he just likes the power.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmFreedom isn’t free.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Shouldn’t the bill for this “freedom” be paid by those who want it, Captain Mantast?
And should the bill be divvied up equally, or should some pay more than others?
And if you aren’t willing to pay your share of the bill, isn’t that – mmm, what’s the word – stealing?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmI did accept it for the “sake of argument”. I also showed you what you were missing – part of which is sacrifice and the fact that we paid for it at the time so we didn’t burden our country and in turn our children. When have the American people been asked to sacrifice for these SOOOO IMPORTANT “WARS”?
If it is so important, why are we exhausting our military instead of sharing the burden?Since you like to compare to WWII – remember the draft? Remember how it was necessary to have enough troops?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmMy point is that the invasion of Iraq was not preemptive, despite the repetition of this lie by the conservatrolls.
Comment by toasterhead
You are most correct on this point.
We could have approached the Iraq issue thousands of different ways, but we chose the absolute worst way to respond. And now, six years later, we are still stuck in the mud.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmBesides, what’s 300 billion among friends?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Apparently for BruschCo (America’s CEO!!!), it’s the cost of a comfy retirement in Paraguay!
December 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pmDeal.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
So does this mean you will never, ever take one cent from Social Security or Medicare?
December 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pmThose damn big spendin’ libruls are denying Iraqi children the right to have new schools!
-Redstate Pudwipe
December 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pmCaptainMantastic,
I have been asking myself why the President hasn’t been impeached already also. I am also upset with my elected leaders (although I am happy to report my representatives from WI are doing a pretty good job – namely Russ Feingold); however, that is still not a logical argument to justify or dispute any of our policies. The fact he hasn’t been impeached for the multitude of crimes and when close to (if not over) 50% agree he should be, does not prove or disprove ANY facts.
Try to stick to reasonable and logical arguments.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pmYou pay for global warming initiatives and all the social entitlements you support, conservatives will pay for the war. Deal.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Looks like I get the better end of this “Deal”. Thanks, sucker.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pmWe understand your reasoning on the numbers, Cap’n. What I find telling is that you offered a link that asked the question: “How much did World War 2 cost?” and offered this fairly definitive answer:
In today’s money, the cost to the U.S. would be over three trillion dollars (at 288 billion 1945 dollars) or about $3,189,752,033,348.
The link acknowledged the disputed “lend-lease” costs associated with the war, but none of the suggested answers saw fit to calculate that line item into its estimate.
Yet you saw fit to include it, and to further pump up your estimate another 9 or 10%, in order to “round off” to the nearest trillion. I suspect that if you were stuck with the original 3.189 trillion, you would not have “rounded down” to the nearest trillion.
But the real question is one of judgment — how could anyone place OIL on the same level as WW2 in terms of national commitment, degree of threat, even moral justification? It’s an absurd comparison, one that does not serve historical analysis, just right-wing apologists.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIf what you are saying were true, ask yourself, why isn’t the President impeached already? Maybe your confidence that we have been lied too, should be re-examined.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
I am a citizen, having no say in what my representatives spend their time on. Why would you ask me about impeachment? maybe the dems are scared of the fallout. maybe the dems are complicit in the way things went down – I don’t know. Maybe impeachment is indeed imminent.
The bottom line is your assertion that all the “actual” facts were on the table for all to see – and you know that was not true. The actual facts are still being hidden from view – but enough have been brought to light to understand the strategy employed by william kristol and his PNAC conspirators.
You were duped by the very folks you hired to keep you safe. Doesn’t that bother you at all? 70% of America is bothered by it.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pmYou pay for global warming initiatives and all the social entitlements you support, conservatives will pay for the war. Deal.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Sadly, Cap’n, it doesn’t work that way. There’s this little concept of “shared burdens” that tighty-righties like yourself fail to adequately grasp.
Too bad, because we on the left could have benefited from all of the technological innovations that a green economy would demand, and you’d still be stuck with your coal-fired power plants, stripping your tress with acid rains and filling up your creeks with strip-mine debris.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pmDanCaveman. I don’t understand the drive for shared sacrifice, if the need isn’t present. If it makes you feel better to send you brass to the government, or wear shoes made of old tires, go for it. I don’t get it. And why would you institute a draft. You’re taking a situation that is voluntary and making it mandatory. Unless it is your aim to create more disgruntled people instead of less, unneccessarily, implementing a draft doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Because the current system allows people like you to claim the occupation as a noble cause without actually having to give up a damn thing. You don’t serve in the military, you don’t give up daily luxuries, you don’t even pay additional taxes. You just claim it’s worthwhile for everyone else to do those things. And it’s our children that are going to be paying the very real financial price down the line, if nothing else.
The administration is running this entire operation on a credit card, and the damn bill is going to hurt.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pmYou are joking right? Aside from the financial argument we are talking about (paying for it now versus putting it on credit card), we have a good portion of troops that have been in an active combat zone longer than the whole duration of US involvement in WWII.
Not to mention General Petraeus’ own counter insurgency manual which says we need at least 350,000 – 500,000 troops for an area like Iraq.
Oh yeah, we have increased the age limit from all the way up to 42 now and are allowing criminals, previously barred from service, into our ranks.
Oooops, I almost forgot, we are sending injured soldiers back to Iraq. We are sending troops with severe PTSD back into Iraq.
oh, I almost forgot – when I was there, we did not receive ANY of the combat replacements we asked for because there weren’t any. We operated at 76% (by all military manuals, this is “combat ineffective”.
Yeah, I guess you know better. We don’t need any more sacrifice.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pmUnless it is your aim to create more disgruntled people instead of less, unneccessarily, implementing a draft doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Bush is averting a countrywide mutiny by employing Blackwater and other mercs to do our dirty work. If the country saw more of their sons and daughters sent off to war, they would challenge the decisions much more forcefully. Bush is also putting the war on a credit card so we don’t “feel” the sacrifice on a dialy basis. This is Bush’s hideaway strategy: Put a sticker on your car – and you’re good to go.
Bush said we are fighting for our very civilizations survival. Would that not suggest we need to bring all of our weapons to bear on the enemy?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pmDanCaveman. I don’t understand the drive for shared sacrifice, if the need isn’t present.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
If you had the capacity for empathy, this statement might come close to revealing the ability to understand the position of millions of Americans who DON’T see a threat from Iraq and never did. How frustrating it is to see our tax dollars flow toward propping up a failing Iraqi government and enriching miltary contractors, who coincidentally have strong connections to the Bush administration and little to no accountability under the law.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWell thats one thing Stevens would know about , spending is what he’s been doing during the Bush terms. Funny how he has no idea about the fraud and crimes he has committed yet he now is wide awake. Looks like another Senator is losing his State.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pmI sure would be nice to know how that money is protecting anybody from terrorists. Seems it’s more like providing terrorists with an outstanding training ground.
10s if not 100s of thousand of innocent Iraqis have died. Dunno about innocent Afgans. 4200 coalition troops dead. 10s of thousands injured.
If we had done nothing at all, absolutely nothing, what would the death toll have been?
I’m all for going for broke to destroy the Taliban and OBL’s organization. Can’t do that fighting wars the old fashioned way.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pmDoes Ted really care about 15B a month? A good portion is being funneled into his reelection campaign. It’s cash under the table ted.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pmWe’ll just have to borrow from Communist China until they own us.
Thanks moral majority of greed.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pmUnless it is your aim to create more disgruntled people instead of less, unneccessarily, implementing a draft doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Hey, freedom isn’t free, you know.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pmAnd your right, if we as a generation decide to make the world safe from terror, we should pay for it. -CM
We cant pay for it now.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIf you don’t have your retirement funds in order, do it now! There will be no SS for us. No medicare either. Because of this invasion and the rape of our treasury, your kids will have nothing to fall back on. That then, will create a welfare state of elderly citizens. And we all know that America does not take care of its elderly (or its youngsters, or its veterans).
You will not recognize this America in 30-50 years. Lots of pain and suffering.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmAnd why would you institute a draft. You’re taking a situation that is voluntary and making it mandatory. Unless it is your aim to create more disgruntled people instead of less, unneccessarily, implementing a draft doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Exactly. A draft doesn’t need to be reinstated unless it’s needed. Where it gets murky is when we attempt to define “needed”.
Let’s look at the current situation with our volunteer military.
1) We have no back-up combat units left to replace the ones we’re using in Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re all in use.
2) Our “stop-loss” policy is turning our volunteers into draftees whether they like it or not. I don’t care how often the term “all-volunteer” army is tossed around — when a volunteer is kept against his will beyond the term of time he volunteered for, he is no longer a volunteer.
3) Our National Guard units — you know, the men and women who are supposed to be keeping us safe at home — are fighting half a world away. Now, when disasters like Katrina and California wildfires hit us, we have to make do without our Guard. AND their equipment, which is also half a world away.
4) Private contractors like Blackwater are sucking up our money faster than our military is. Yet we use them because we don’t have enough of our own military to do the job.
5) Drums are beating now for bombing Iran. Because it’s doubtful that Iran will just roll over like an obedient puppy aftern they’re bombed, a ground invasion would follow. But with what? We have no available combat units. See Point #1.
6) Volunteerism for the armed forces has declined. Standards have been lowered, the maximum age has been raised, and signing bonuses have skyrocketed just to keep recruiting at an absolute minimum level. Potential recruits see that they would be sent off to fight and get killed in a stupid war having nothing to do with the defense of this country. They also see how wounded vets are treated. As potential recruits grasp more and more what a rotten deal the military is, expect this trend to worsen.
So — at what point do you think a draft would be needed? Would you be more in favor of scaling back our military involvement in other countries instead of reinstating the draft? Or do you think the current situation is just hunky dory?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pmAnd your right, if we as a generation decide to make the world safe from terror, we should pay for it. You have changed my mind. Thank you.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
On behalf of my generation, I’d like my money back since it’s obviously not being spent wisely.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pmNot to worry, this is why we must make the repeal of the Estate Tax permanent. That way the wealthies 1% can continue their dynasties, freed from the burdens of having to pay for war. While continuing to profit from the deaths of other people’s children.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm“… decide to make the world safe from terror…”
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Okay, one more time, Masturbastic…
How, pray tell, do you defeat an emotion?
(Never mind that the US has severely traumatized several generations of Iraqis for years to come at this point… Shock and Awe… Shock and Awe…)
December 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm(I’m trying to limit myself to changing one major position a day).
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
From flat on yer back w/ legs spread to all fours?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pmOn behalf of my generation, I’d like my money back since it’s obviously not being spent wisely.
Comment by toasterhead
Most correct.
History will look back on these times as the start of our decline and downfall. We consider the US unbreakable. Ancient Rome thought so too, but their greatness is gone. Ancient Greece thought so too, but they are gone. Ancient Egypt thought so too, but they are gone. These civilzations have been around many, many more years than the US. Sadly we have not learned from these lessons – you cannot commit yourslef around the globe, indefinately without dire consequences to your treasury and citizenry.
America, as you knew her, will never be the same. It will not be a glorious time for us.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pmCaptain Mantistic hasnt changed his mind. He wants to continue to finance an asymmetric war fought by asymmetric means that WAS NOT decided by the people.
As we have seen occupying whole countries for a rag-tag group of extremists doesn’t work.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pmthat should be: “Fought with symmetric means…”
December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmThere should be some reasonable maximum of expectation from each individual troop (even though they did volunteer) if that expectation is exceeded, the administration should be required to get more troops.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 27, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
One rebuttal to this comment: By and large, the troops who volunteered did so in what they thought was a patriotic duty to defend their country. They didn’t volunteer to wage a war of aggression against a country that was not a threat. They didn’t volunteer to serve as an occupying army in a foreign country for the foreseeable future. They didn’t volunteer to be part of an oil grab in the Middle East.
And they volunteered in the understanding that their medical needs would be adequately taken care of by the same government that put them in harm’s way to begin with.
I’d argue that the “volunteer army” that the Bush supporters like to yap about isn’t really “volunteer”. It’s more like deceived, misled, and double-crossed.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pmdeebaser, is there such a thing as criminally embarassing?
Again, sorry about the name-morphing yesterday, my bad….
Comment by RUCerious — December 27, 2007 @ 11:13 am
——–
Legislative cowardice should be a crime in my opinion. Peolsi and Co. should not be terrified that they’ll be accused of “Not supporting the troops” if they do what they were put in power to do.
As for the name morphing thing, apology accepted. I overreacted. It reminded me a little of when the DU mods called me a freeper troll on because I would give the (D)s crap for enabling the (R) majority. Needless to say it left a sour taste in my mouth. =D
December 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm15Bill a month for a war that is ephemeral. What country are we at war with?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pmIt’s just money. We can always print some more.
Comment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Brilliant idea! That strategy is working like a charm in Zimbabwe!
December 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pmIt’s just money. We can always print some more.
You really think that someone at some point is really going to stop lending us money? That’s never going to happen. If we really get into trouble, we can always suspend the payments anyway. Do you really think that someone’s going to come after us if we refuse to pay back the loans? No. We’ll just re-negotiate the deal.
Comment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
——————
Fiscal conservatives, lawl
December 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pmWell, you know it is pretty expensive to have to keep bribing those Shieks to not kill us.
Please don’t keep responding to the moron Frank M who thinks that as long as we keep printing money we are OK. To him it’s monopoly money. He has no concept whatsoever about economics and how it works.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pmComment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
The ignorance in this comment is breathtaking.
“Print more money”? wow….
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmPlease don’t keep responding to the moron Frank M who thinks that as long as we keep printing money we are OK. To him it’s monopoly money. He has no concept whatsoever about economics and how it works.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 27, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
He may have a point. All we need to do is knock down houses and build hotels all over the Middle East, then wait for China to land on one of our properties. Then BAM! – we’ll be raking in the dough.
And then there’s always plan B – try to land on Free Parking.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pmAnd then there’s always plan B – try to land on Free Parking.
Comment by toasterhead — December 27, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
——-
That rule is not on the top of the box and is against the Baltic Avenue Accords!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmDo you really think that someone’s going to come after us if we refuse to pay back the loans? No. We’ll just re-negotiate the deal.
Comment by Frank M
We need their money, much more than they need ours.
Frank, the declining value of our dollar should give you a quick lesson on how transnational finance has us all intertwined. If only 2-3 more contries moved their currency reserves AWAY from dollars, we could be back in depression era trouble.
The bully you call our imperial king thinks just like you: We will push everybody around until they think like us. Strategies like that work only on the gradeschool playground – not in the adult world.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pmThe ignorance in Frank M’s posts is just breathtaking.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pmFrank enjoys the fact that China holds enough of our debt to bring us to our knees, a position he’s an expert at.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pmFrankie, why ask for some money if you can just print it?
December 27th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThat rule is not on the top of the box and is against the Baltic Avenue Accords!
Comment by deebaser — December 27, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
HA! This administration doesn’t care about rules as long as they have a Get out of Jail Free Card.
Comment by justasking — December 27, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
———
touché sir. well played.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmWhen Frank got both Baltic AND Mediterranean, he hopped around as happy as a frog, and bought ONE house on each. Watch out!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#135: You really think we’re that dependent on foreign investment? Nonsense.
Comment by Frank M
We are dependant on them everyday, of every week, of every year. Always and certainly. Please read about this, Frank. It is important to you.
The bully only survives if those he bullies do not coordinate their activities against the bully. That is happening to us now. We do not make enough money through taxes to pay our daily bills, so we borrow billions and billions every week (Tuesdays). Once the lenders stop lending, our ability to support our infrastructure evaporates. Our nation is becoming bankrupt. No amount of ‘feel good platitudes’ changes that fact.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pm#135: You really think we’re that dependent on foreign investment? Nonsense. We’re the strongest economy in the world.
Comment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
The statistic at the center of the foreign debt debate is the net international investment position (NIIP), the value of foreign assets owned by U.S. residents minus the value of U.S. assets owned by nonresidents. Until 1989, the United States was a creditor to the rest of the world; the NIIP peaked at almost 13 percent of GDP in 1980. But chronic current account deficits ever since have given the United States the largest net liabilities in world history. Since foreign claims on the United States ($10.5 trillion) exceed U.S. claims abroad ($7.9 trillion), the NIIP is now negative: -$2.6 trillion at the start of 2004, or -24 percent of GDP.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html
December 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pmIt only makes sense for mouthpiece Dana Perino to spew;
“What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number. What I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country”
It appears there’s no end to the rhetorical fear mongering.
Considering that this is an administration that would slaughter the village milk producing cow in order to rob the filet mignon for the elite few while proclaiming “trust us”, this statement, as asinine as it is, should come as no surprise. Of course they’re not worried as they’re not going to be the ones paying for it anymore than they would be paying for the cow. In their prospective of the land of milk and honey, they get the milk and we bury the carcass.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:22 pmOkay, for all of the abuse heaped on the Cap’n this morning (and rightfully so), he deserves credit for changing his mind on an issue, and admitting to it.
I take back my lumping of him in with O’Biggie and the like. The Cap’n may have demonstrated an openness of mind previously never seen among our guests.
I am glad I didn’t equate the Cap’n with Frank M, however. That would have been an insult that few would desrve.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmIt’s just money. We can always print some more.
You really think that someone at some point is really going to stop lending us money? That’s never going to happen. If we really get into trouble, we can always suspend the payments anyway. Do you really think that someone’s going to come after us if we refuse to pay back the loans? No. We’ll just re-negotiate the deal.
Comment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
That is so incredibly mind-boggling that I confess I have no response except…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI agree. In fact, as angry as I am at the direction our country has taken, we need to start having open discussion with those we don’t agree with. Finding common ground is a great start. I was disappointed that a few here berated CaptainMantastic when he conceded some points. No one is right all the time and sometimes it takes working through many different positions to find the best solution. The problem we face as a nation belongs to ALL of us and we need to start working together.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pmWhile our dollars are concentrating on Iraq our Borders and Ports are left short funded. Our cities and infra structures are falling apart, our educational system is lagging behind other countries from lack of funding. I highly recommend everyone watch Charlie Wilson’s war if you wonder how our government functions.
And yes, there is an end to America’s money flow, check out other countries that spend years and years in war and hope we don’t end up like that.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThe Captain has shown glimpses of reasonableness in the past, I wouldn’t give up on him. Reminds of Exley at times. He is definitely not a 24%er like sweet and lovely Francine, or Jason who has those gaping oozing holes in his psyche.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:40 pmDan, your point is well taken. If the good Cap’n actually concedes a point or two, then we should take these small victories with good grace.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI think he’s just putting us on, however, and the only thing he’s conceding is that we should continue to occupy Iraq, just pay for it instead of borrowing for it.
I wonder how he intends to do that, cut government programs or raise taxes.
We’ll have to ask…
BTW, Frankie, you’re just nucking futz, showing a complete and utter lack of understanding of international finance.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pmDoes anyone know what is happening with Iraqs oilfields? Last I heard Halliburton and another major player was vying for getting them up and running. Also, how is it that we lost track of 8 Billion in Iraq and now this morning I heard we lost track of 5 Billion to Pakistan. Just how does one lose track of billions?
December 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTexas lady, add one part Halliburton, two parts Cheney, several pallets of cash and a dash of CIA.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pmHe is also on his way to understanding the need for a draft if we choose to continue this “war”. Whether he is “putting us on” or not, we have to assume that he is not, lest we become like those we hate that demonize for the sake of demonizing someone. Like the right assuming that my concern is not genuine and that, for some reason I have yet to have someone explain to me, I want to see the US fail.
At a very minimum, CaptainMantastic stuck to the issues and was willing to engage the topics at hand, instead of willfully misdirecting and clouding the issues to avoid the real facts.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAnyone who has never witnessed a city or state going through a recession or depression can be excused of being naive. Frank cannot imagine absolutely no jobs anywhere. Unfortunately there are more Franks out there than people with common sense.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pmFrank M is just ridiculous and is just having a good laugh at our expense (and that of the country), or is extremely ignorant on every issue. His comments clearly show a lack of any understanding of how our economy works and no desire to learn.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou really think we’re that dependent on foreign investment? Nonsense. We’re the strongest economy in the world.
Comment by Frank M — December 27, 2007 @ 2:04
Rank knows this is true because Limbaugh and O’Reilly told him so.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThe ignorance in Frank M’s posts is just breathtaking.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 27, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Or gag inducing.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pmJust how does one lose track of billions?
Comment by texaslady
Very easy: By allowing the criminal enterprise known as bushco to manage it.
BTW, I seriously doubt the money is just “gone”. It may not have ended up where it was intended, but it is not gone. My guess is that all the major players in the money mix have set up hundreds of sham companies, all vying for the same bunch of dollars.
We being bankrupt and we do not know why? That should be a problem for most reporters, no? All I hear is silence.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmYep, their ‘pearl harbor moment’ is really paying off for them now.
Oh, but they had no idea . . . . it was coming . . . or that wmds in Iraq was a lie.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pmNo one wants to believe their government would do such a thing.
They are known to lie about everything, including wmds in Iraq.
Why wouldn’t they lie about their knowledge of, or participation in, a ‘terrah-ist attack’? If you don’t think they’re capable, have a look around at what they’ve
been doing. They don’t care about human life, unless they are a contributor.
For them, people’s lives are expendable. Just a tool for them to use.
Why do you suppose there is no impeachment?
There has to be something so huge that has everyone lassoed.
Something that encompassing can’t stay hidden forever.
Watch out Nancy, there may come a day when you won’t be under control.
I was disappointed that a few here berated CaptainMantastic when he conceded some points. No one is right all the time and sometimes it takes working through many different positions to find the best solution. The problem we face as a nation belongs to ALL of us and we need to start working together.
Comment by DanCaveman
I suspect the problem is that most people here don’t believe that the captain has converted his position. I suspect that he is trying to “make nice” so that we will stop flagging him. If I see a change in the attitude of his postings, I am more than willing to admit I was wrong. But, until I see some real change, other than “ok, you changed my mind”, I’ll withhold the “atta-boys”.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI’d really like to see the trolls admit that since they are 30%ers, they should pick up 70% of the war cost, and donate that money to the treasury.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pmCan we dispense with the insane comparisons between WW2 and the “GWOT”?
Once more, for the slow of mind, the nation of Japan committed their military to an attack on us, China, the Philippines, Java, Malaysia, and a host of others. After the attack on Pearl Harbor (BTW, do our trolls know that the Japanese military believed we would take our lumps and allow them to seize whatever territory they desired? They were shocked we chose to fight.) Germany and Italy declared war on us.
Even before these events, the entirety of the unconquered world (not to mention those already conquered.) was begging us to intervene. WW2 was fought between nations. The “GWOT” is being “fought” against criminals. Most of those criminals have no nation and operate in lawless regions. They are as despised by the societies which spawned them as they are by us.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pmI read something on another blog about how to prevent future illegal, unneccesary and incompetently run wars. Any time some idiot politician puts forth a resolution for war an automatic 5 or 10% tax increase goes into effect. I don’t know how to go about getting this started but it sounds like a hell of an idea to me. Taxes on greedy republicans = No More War. And even if it was a neccesary war ( if there is truly such a thing) we would all share some of the sacrifice.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pmI think Stevens is talking about the huge amounts of money spent for the Iraq war so people will think, what the hell, the bridge to nowhere is pennies!!!
December 28th, 2007 at 2:36 amComment by Chris T — December 27, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
The problem is that the 24%ers approve of tax dollars being spent to kill people. Especially “brown people”. Yet, if one earmarks tax dollars to help people? The 24%ers scream “bloody murder”!
December 28th, 2007 at 2:53 amPete, be fair!!!! They are ok with spending money forcing brown people to birth more brown people (I am thinking they might rethink that once they see the numbers on abortions by race). I hear they are worried about white people not reproducing enough.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:57 amWhat the hell is this idiot crying about it was his party who put America in the F*&^%$# mess to begin with!!!!
December 28th, 2007 at 10:56 amCould someone please find out how much of the money you and I are paying for these atrocities is going to private killers and trolls that show up here and at other sites to spread their nonsense? Rove has his own private armies and many of you will obviously say anything for a buck.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:49 amWho would’ve thunk that TERRORISM killed CONSERVATISM? Conservatism is now proven to be a very weak philosophy, if something like Terrorism can defeat it!
Whenever the Republicans are pointed out to be betraying Conservatism, they say, “Things changed since 9/11″!
Doesn’t that mean Conservatism is a lousy philosophy, if it can’t withstand everything? If you “throw it out the window” because of 9/11-Terrorism?
“We have a huge deficit because of 9/11!!! Waaaaah, waaaaah, waaaah! We’re not betraying Conservatism! If 9/11 didn’t happen, we woulda shown ya’z all!!!”
Conservatism was easily defeated by Terrorism!
“We have to spy on you because of 9/11!!!!! We have to have Big Government, but we wouldn’t have, if it wasn’t for 9/11!!!
THEREFORE, CONSERVATISM WAS ALWAYS BULLSHIT! SNAKE-OIL!!!! IF IT COULDN’T WITHSTAND ANY HEAT!!!!!!!!!!
December 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pmI guess “conservatism” does work…in “theory”…like “communism” works “in theory”!
December 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWant to know why she was assasinated? Here it is. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/17925 If you still think the war on terror is legitimate, you need to have your head checked!
December 28th, 2007 at 7:37 pmyea quit spending money on the war he needs money for his bridge to no where and home renovations!
December 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm