About time: Breaking news White House asks for 25 billion more for War

[chrisms]

It is not "already" another Vietnam. ~750 soldiers have died. If I remember correctly, about ~55,000 died in Vietnam. I understand that the death toll wasn't too high a year into the Vietnam war, but nevertheless you can't say it is already being repeated because right now it isn't nearly as bad.

The only chance the congressmen had to say no was in authorizing force. After they'd done that, they can't just refuse to give money to sustain the effort they supported in the first place. And if you'll remember the war seemed like a much better idea, maybe not to you but to the general public, when we were convinced that Iraq had WMDs.

 

[Jhhnn]

Figure $5B/month, for the next several years. the $25B is just to tide them over, until after the election. And no, Congress can't say no. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes...

And this one, priceless-

"Security against a potential threat, payback for an insult and unfinished chore in 1991."

Threat? to who? Nobody, according to Powell, a short while prior to the invasion-

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. "

from here-

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Not that the abrupt turnaround would upset any Bush Fanbois...

Insults? Damn, we could just insult them back, save American lives and dollars... Too easy? Does that make too much sense? Is there no Glory, no prelude to Armageddon, no profit in that, or what?

Unfinished chore? That's the only part that even comes close to coherency, in a sour grapes sort of way... Sentiment at the time was that Saddam would fall from internal pressures- didn't happen. Just couldn't seem to get over that, move on to a more constructive policy...

What happened to the WMD's? The nukes? Links to Al Qaeda? Freeing the Iraqi people?

Or was it sold on the basis of Kicking some r@ghead butt, any r@ghead butt, for revenge over 9/11?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: chrisms

The only chance the congressmen had to say no was in authorizing force. After they'd done that, they can't just refuse to give money to sustain the effort they supported in the first place. And if you'll remember the war seemed like a much better idea, maybe not to you but to the general public, when we were convinced that Iraq had WMDs.

huh? So Congress should roll over and hand the administration whatever billions they want for whatever reason they want to fight this war in Iraq? Of course they WILL roll over, but Congress is an equal branch of the gov't with the Executive branch. In theory, Congress has oversight over the amount and the way the money is spent. They could in theory cut off all money by simply passing a law. It is not, opps too bad, you all voted yes to my war so give me my blank check.

Edit:
Notice how Halliburton lost all those gov't fuel contracts (i.e. spending) after Congress found out about how wrong they were.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: chrisms
It is not "already" another Vietnam. ~750 soldiers have died. If I remember correctly, about ~55,000 died in Vietnam. I understand that the death toll wasn't too high a year into the Vietnam war, but nevertheless you can't say it is already being repeated because right now it isn't nearly as bad.

It not the dead that made vietnam, and to say that the lack of dead means that Iraq isn't another vietnam is foolish. That complete lack of leadership and a plan made vietnam and it is making another in Iraq right now.

 

[DealMonkey]

Rumsfeld just said today that we'd have our ~130,000-troop force in place until at least 2006. So, the $25B is just a small down payment on what's fast becoming our biggest welfare state.

Hey Crimson, perhaps you should look at it that way instead: We're rapidly handing over billions and billions to the Iraqis who were too apathetic to overthrow their own stupid dictator and take their fate into their own hands. Those stupid pussies can't even get it together EVEN AFTER we do everything for them. Pathetic.

 

[Turkish]

Crimson, please tell me you are 7 year old or are stupid.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: chrisms
It is not "already" another Vietnam. ~750 soldiers have died. If I remember correctly, about ~55,000 died in Vietnam. I understand that the death toll wasn't too high a year into the Vietnam war, but nevertheless you can't say it is already being repeated because right now it isn't nearly as bad.

It not the dead that made vietnam, and to say that the lack of dead means that Iraq isn't another vietnam is foolish. That complete lack of leadership and a plan made vietnam and it is making another in Iraq right now.

I believe it is dead that made Vietnam. We've been in many stupid wars, but mistakes are inevitable when one is running a country. We don't care as much about the deaths in Grenada or Somalia because they weren't as hard-hitting as the 55,000 (again, this is from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) that died in Vietnam. When something happens on that scale we are more determined to make sure it never happens again. If Iraq were to be liberated and a stable government was set up, at the cost of 1,000-2,000 American troops, I believe history wouldn't view the invasion as a mistake. On the other hand, maybe we'd look at it as a mistake if the government didn't last long and 10,000+ troops died. So far niether scenario has been proven true so we must not jump to conclusions so soon.

Planning an entire regime change is simply not possible. Bush couldn't have known that Sadr would set up a militia, or even the exact cost of the operation. War is variable, and detailed plans must only be short term to achieve an overall long-term goal (which we do have).

 

[Deadtrees]

Bush is the most successful business man in the world!
He and his buddies are making tons of money REBUILDING what they destroyed
and his back-up funds are not even coming out of his or his buddies' pocket.
Unlike the rumor, he, indeed, is a very smart man...

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Bush is the most successful business man in the world!
He and his buddies are making tons of money REBUILDING what they destroyed
and his back-up funds are not even coming out of his or his buddies' pocket.
Unlike the rumor, he, indeed, is a very smart man...

Where is this proof that Bush is personally profiting from the War? I'd like to see it.. I mean, if Bush is profiting and not claiming it on his taxes, you libs could have him thrown in jail for tax fraud.

You guys amaze me.. you complain when companies make money, you complain when they lose money and have to lay people off. So companies are only allowed to make money when its made for an approved liberal reason or cause?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Bush is the most successful business man in the world!
He and his buddies are making tons of money REBUILDING what they destroyed
and his back-up funds are not even coming out of his or his buddies' pocket.
Unlike the rumor, he, indeed, is a very smart man...

Where is this proof that Bush is personally profiting from the War? I'd like to see it.. I mean, if Bush is profiting and not claiming it on his taxes, you libs could have him thrown in jail for tax fraud.

You guys amaze me.. you complain when companies make money, you complain when they lose money and have to lay people off. So companies are only allowed to make money when its made for an approved liberal reason or cause?

Well, the government(provided it is run by liberal democrats) should decide who can make a profit, how much profit they make, and what price they sell it for. Then we could all dance around in the grass with flowers in our hair...

/ libbie socialist mode

CkG

 

[DoubleL]

It was 58,000+ dead and Iraq will never be another Vietnam, We were fighting two world powers at the time in Vietnam,

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Bush is the most successful business man in the world!
He and his buddies are making tons of money REBUILDING what they destroyed
and his back-up funds are not even coming out of his or his buddies' pocket.
Unlike the rumor, he, indeed, is a very smart man...

Where is this proof that Bush is personally profiting from the War? I'd like to see it.. I mean, if Bush is profiting and not claiming it on his taxes, you libs could have him thrown in jail for tax fraud.

You guys amaze me.. you complain when companies make money, you complain when they lose money and have to lay people off. So companies are only allowed to make money when its made for an approved liberal reason or cause?

Well, the government(provided it is run by liberal democrats) should decide who can make a profit, how much profit they make, and what price they sell it for. Then we could all dance around in the grass with flowers in our hair...

/ libbie socialist mode

CkG

On the other hand they could be facist war mongering lovers of death.

/ todays conservative mode.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: tallest1
Our children are going to go broke paying for all this crap. Thanks a lot Bush :|

And the previous dozen or so Presidents who contributed to the National Debt had nothing to do with it? Oh wait, that wouldn't fit your Hate Bush Agenda.

We are not going broke.. and if you want to complain about government spending, complain about ALL of it.. not just the Iraq spending.. otherwise you are just being a hypocrit. I'll tell you one thing, I get a hell of a lot more out of this Iraq spending than I do from welfare or countless other social programs and wasteful government programs.

People like you are so pathetic its funny. Did you know Einstein that all of the social programs rolled up into one equal less than 5% of goverment spending? Welfare is 3%. Obviously your not well informed or just uneducated all together.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: chrisms
It is not "already" another Vietnam. ~750 soldiers have died. If I remember correctly, about ~55,000 died in Vietnam. I understand that the death toll wasn't too high a year into the Vietnam war, but nevertheless you can't say it is already being repeated because right now it isn't nearly as bad.

It not the dead that made vietnam, and to say that the lack of dead means that Iraq isn't another vietnam is foolish. That complete lack of leadership and a plan made vietnam and it is making another in Iraq right now.

I believe it is dead that made Vietnam. We've been in many stupid wars, but mistakes are inevitable when one is running a country. We don't care as much about the deaths in Grenada or Somalia because they weren't as hard-hitting as the 55,000 (again, this is from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) that died in Vietnam. When something happens on that scale we are more determined to make sure it never happens again. If Iraq were to be liberated and a stable government was set up, at the cost of 1,000-2,000 American troops, I believe history wouldn't view the invasion as a mistake. On the other hand, maybe we'd look at it as a mistake if the government didn't last long and 10,000+ troops died. So far niether scenario has been proven true so we must not jump to conclusions so soon.

Planning an entire regime change is simply not possible. Bush couldn't have known that Sadr would set up a militia, or even the exact cost of the operation. War is variable, and detailed plans must only be short term to achieve an overall long-term goal (which we do have).

Of course buish couldn't have planed for that he was to busy having the CIA make up intelligence about WMD that they couldn't come up with any realistic post-invasion plans.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: chrisms
It is not "already" another Vietnam. ~750 soldiers have died. If I remember correctly, about ~55,000 died in Vietnam. I understand that the death toll wasn't too high a year into the Vietnam war, but nevertheless you can't say it is already being repeated because right now it isn't nearly as bad.

It not the dead that made vietnam, and to say that the lack of dead means that Iraq isn't another vietnam is foolish. That complete lack of leadership and a plan made vietnam and it is making another in Iraq right now.

I believe it is dead that made Vietnam. We've been in many stupid wars, but mistakes are inevitable when one is running a country. We don't care as much about the deaths in Grenada or Somalia because they weren't as hard-hitting as the 55,000 (again, this is from memory so correct me if I'm wrong) that died in Vietnam. When something happens on that scale we are more determined to make sure it never happens again. If Iraq were to be liberated and a stable government was set up, at the cost of 1,000-2,000 American troops, I believe history wouldn't view the invasion as a mistake. On the other hand, maybe we'd look at it as a mistake if the government didn't last long and 10,000+ troops died. So far niether scenario has been proven true so we must not jump to conclusions so soon.

Planning an entire regime change is simply not possible. Bush couldn't have known that Sadr would set up a militia, or even the exact cost of the operation. War is variable, and detailed plans must only be short term to achieve an overall long-term goal (which we do have).

Of course buish couldn't have planed for that he was to busy having the CIA make up intelligence about WMD that they couldn't come up with any realistic post-invasion plans.

That isn't true. The State Department came up with some very realistic and precient post invasion/occupation plans.

Rumsfeld and the neo-cons chose to ignore it and believe the crap Chalabi was feeding the,.

 

[chess9]

Uh, just a few side bars here:

1. I don't care how much it costs, or how many lives it takes, IF THE CAUSE IS JUST-such as fighting Hitler-then it must be done.
2. If the cause is worthless, hopeless, or meaningless, as in Vietnam and Iraq, then it doesn't matter if one man died or 1 million men died. If I'm going to put my life on the line for my country, I want to know that the cause is just, meaning good and necessary.
3. If the Republicans are smart, they will kiss Rummy goodby and start a phased withdrawal commencing June 30, 2004
4. Inasmuch as the Republicans are known to be dumber than a box of rocks, I expect them to stay the course as long as they own the Presidency. And who can say Kerry will do any better?
5. We are screwed. So what's new?

-Robert

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Our children are going to go broke paying for all this crap. Thanks a lot Bush :|

Originally posted by: classy
People like you are so pathetic its funny. Did you know Einstein that all of the social programs rolled up into one equal less than 5% of goverment spending? Welfare is 3%. Obviously your not well informed or just uneducated all together.

Just to clarify for all of the imbeciles suffering under this delusion about the defense budget:

(From the Instructions for Form 1040EZ- an IRS publication)

Federal Outlays for Fiscal Year 2003:

Social security, Medicare, and other retirement 38%
Social programs 21%
National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs 20%
Physical, human, and community development 10%
Net interest on the debt 8%
Law enforcement and general government 3%


To begin with, your definition of "welfare" is circumscribe to say the least. The majority of money in our budget, has, for a very long time been Social security and medicare. Although we pay into them, it's basically a welfare service for the elderly.

As you can see, your "5%" budget allotment figure is incorrect as well. Social programs consume more of the budget than our defense budget.

If you want to be a troll, at least have your sh** straight.

 

[conjur]

Wolfowitz: Iraq, Afghan costs could top $50B

Pentagon had said $ 25B request would come after elections

Thursday, May 13, 2004 Posted: 12:34 PM EDT (1634 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's next request for financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will push next year's total beyond $50 billion, a top Pentagon official told Congress on Thursday.

The remark by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put a partial price tag on operations in both countries for the budget year that begins next October 1.

The administration has long insisted it will not be able to accurately estimate those costs for many months because of uncertainties over conditions in Iraq and possible contributions by allies.

President Bush had formally sought an initial $25 billion for next year's military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday.

Administration officials notified congressional leaders about the request a week earlier, abruptly reversing earlier declarations that they would not seek the money until after the November elections.

On Thursday, Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration's second request for funds will come early next year.

"It will surely be much larger than $25 billion," he said.

That would bring the total requested so far for next year to over $50 billion. Many lawmakers of both parties have said they believe even that figure will ultimately prove short by many billions of dollars.

Bush's initial request for $25 billion would give him nearly unfettered control over details of how the money would be spent, which drew fire from senators.

Though Congress is considered certain to provide the money he wants, it is uncertain whether it will grant him such leeway in dispensing it. Democrats and some Republicans, rankled by reports that the administration used earlier funds for Iraq war preparations without telling them, are leery of providing him with unlimited flexibility in spending the money.

Levin: 'A blank check'
"This is not responsible because it's just a blank check for $25 billion," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the committee. "So in terms of balance with Congress, there's no balance here."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said he was troubled by a request "that basically outlines some priorities and that states it can be used for any fund."

Wolfowitz defended the administration's request for flexibility.

"We're not looking for a blank check," he said. "We are looking for the kind of flexibility that will make sure that when a need arises, we can allocate funds to where that need exists."

According to the lower request, the $25 billion would be placed in a fund under Bush's control. He could decide how the money would be spent, as long as he informed Congress that his request was "an emergency and essential to support activities and agencies in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"This reserve fund will ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need when they need them," Bush wrote in a brief request barely longer than three pages.

The documents said the largest portion of the funds -- up to $14 billion -- may be used for Army operations and maintenance, which includes items like fuel purchases and equipment repair.

As much as $6 billion could be for Navy, Marines, Air Force and Defense Department-wide operations and maintenance, and up to $5 billion would be for classified and other programs.

But the request says the Defense Department could transfer any of the $25 billion "to any fund" of the department or to classified programs, as long as the administration notifies Congress five days in advance.

The $25 billion is just a first installment in paying for U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, and it excludes any additional costs for rebuilding the two countries.

Some lawmakers have said they expect the final amount to reach $75 billion for the Pentagon alone.

 

[chowderhead]

what a difference 1 year makes:
Iraqi oil unlikely to pay for cost of rebuilding
To hear some Bush administration officials tell it, the reconstruction of Iraq will largely pay for itself, thanks to a postwar gusher of petroleum revenue.

"The one thing that is certain is Iraq is a wealthy nation," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

A look at the national balance sheet tells a different story.

Iraq will emerge from the war a financial shambles, many economists say, with a debt load bigger than that of Argentina, a cash flow crunch rivaling those of Third World countries, a mountain of unresolved compensation claims, a shaky currency, high unemployment, galloping inflation and a crumbling infrastructure expected to sustain more damage before the shooting stops.

So far, the administration seems not to have noticed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz testified recently that Iraq would be able to pick up much of the tab for postwar rebuilding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. asserted that oil and gas revenues and confiscated Iraqi assets would provide "abundant" resources for reconstruction. (now Mr. Daniels wants to run for governor of Indiana)


OR here
Democrats: Bush downplaying Iraq costs

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, speaking to the House Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2003, estimated the figure in the tens of billions of dollars if Iraq's oil fields were not destroyed.

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he said.

Once major combat ended, however, administration officials acknowledged that the oil revenues would be much lower than previously stated, partly due to some dilapidated infrastructure, and that reconstruction costs would be higher than expected.

---------------------
Wolfy and the rest of the neocons should forgo their huge salaries for mismanaging the aftermath of this war and the costs to the American taxpayer and future generations.
:roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

One interesting aspect of the costs of OIF, and one I haven't seen widely reported on, is our use of private contractors like Blackwater USA and CACI to fulfill what would traditionally be military or CIA/military intelligence functions.

The Blackwater contractors who were killed in Fallujah last month were highly-trained former Spec Ops troops, and the federal government paid Blackwater $1,000 per day, per man, for their services. They were performing "security" services when they were killed by militiamen in Fallujah, and by all appearances were essentially mercenaries.

The CACI interrogators and translators at Abu Ghraib prison (some of whom are now implicated in the abuses there) were performing a function that would ordinarily be the bailiwick of CIA agents, and which involved the highest levels of secure compartmentalized information, since it appears to have related to national security. Again, they were highly paid (I don't know the exact amount).

I find this interesting for a couple of reasons.

It strikes me that DoD draws two meaningful benefits from hiring such contractors (and this is sheer conjecture on my part), neither of which benefits the American public in any way:

1. This allows them to be paid from a different pot of money than the designated OIF funds, allowing DoD to request smaller appropriations for the war, and thus ruffling fewer feathers in Congress. Thus, as far as I can see, we are paying Blackwater hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for work that could as easily be done by an Army E-5 for 1/5 the amount.

2. They afford DoD plausible deniability as to whatever it is they're doing. That is, if one of them commits a crime or war crime, DoD can say, "hey, they are contractors, and they were acting in accordance with their own training, not at our direction." Interestingly, the chairman of CACI has already taken great pains to clarify that their employees were acting under military direction at Abu Ghraib (obviously I have no idea whether that's true).

Whether my theories are valid or not, I'm not crazy about us spending this amount of money on operators over whom we lack tight, UCMJ-style control.

 

[conjur]

Bush Team to Rework Iraq Funding After Senate Balks

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration officials said they would rework a plan for a $25 billion reserve fund for Iraq (news - web sites) operations after Republican and Democratic senators on Thursday deplored it as an effort to get "a blank check" without congressional oversight.

In a frequently testy Senate Armed Services hearing, even reliable Republican allies balked at the White House's unusual proposal to let it allocate the money to help finance Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) operations for coming months without the approval of Congress.

"Our forefathers would have scorned such arrogance as has been demonstrated by this request," said Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat. "I'm going to support this $25 billion but we're going to put limitations on it."

Pressed by lawmakers, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House deputy budget director Joel Kaplan agreed to try to rework the plan to give Congress more oversight.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain criticized the administration's handling of Iraq, citing "mistakes that have been made which have led us to a situation which I think is very grave," and said Congress must increase its oversight.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), a Massachusetts senator, said in a statement he would back the additional money despite voting against a previous supplemental bill for Iraq. "The situation in Iraq has deteriorated far beyond what the administration anticipated. The money is urgently needed," he said."

The White House late on Wednesday sent Congress its formal request for the $25 billion fund it says it needs until Congress acts on a larger supplemental bill next year.


BIGGER BILL EXPECTED

Wolfowitz said that bill "will certainly be much larger than $25 billion," which would push the cost next year well above the $50 billion the White House originally projected.

Under the White House plan, the reserve funds could be shifted among accounts without congressional approval, which lawmakers said would give the Pentagon (news - web sites) full control over the money, cutting Congress out of its constitutional role of overseeing expenditures.

The Senate will debate the issue next week when it takes up a $422 billion bill for defense programs.

Congress has so far sent the White House about $160 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Until last week when it suddenly asked for the $25 billion, the administration had insisted it would not seek more money for Iraq until next year, which would have put off debate on the issue until after the Nov. 2 presidential election.

Pressed by the military, which was running short of money with the heightened Iraq conflict, the White House sought the fund as a bridge until it gets a bigger bill next year.

With the Pentagon putting the monthly cost of Iraq and Afghanistan operations at nearly $5 billion, Democrats questioned why the Pentagon did not simply ask for a full supplemental spending bill instead of the reserve fund.

"There is no reason not to be direct on this issue and to acknowledge what the costs are of this war," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat. "This is the very definition of a blank check."

Wolfowitz said the fund was needed to help the Pentagon manage its accounts until Congress acted on the larger bill next year. "You can do the arithmetic, Senator, we're not hiding the ball on what we're spending now."