Kennedy brands Iraq war a fraud to benefit the GOP

[BOBDN]

From one of the 23 Senators who had the courage to say NO to Bush's invasion of Iraq.


Kennedy brands Iraq war a fraud to benefit the GOP

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," Kennedy said.

Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

"My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops," he said."

[...]

"Kennedy said the focus on Iraq has drawn the nation's attention away from more direct threats, including alQaeda, instability in Afghanistan and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea.

"I think all of those pose a threat to the security of the people of Massachusetts much more than the threat from Iraq," Kennedy said. "Terror has been put on the sidelines for the last 12 months."


Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, I wondered what "Swimmer" was upto these days. Now I know

must have fallen off the wagon.

CkG

PS - good to see you back BOBDN

 

[Insane3D]

Hmmmm...was Teddy "hittin the 'sauce" when he did this interview?

Seriously though, he makes some interesting points about the lack of detail on where exactly all these billions of $$$ are going. We all know how good the government is at handling money...

 

[UltraQuiet]

More proof that Kennedy is always drunk.

 

[tcsenter]

We're talking about Edward Kennedy here.

Anyone care to guess how Kennedy voted on the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Hmmmm...was Teddy "hittin the 'sauce" when he did this interview?

Seriously though, he makes some interesting points about the lack of detail on where exactly all these billions of $$$ are going. We all know how good the government is at handling money...

Hey has anyone asked Kennedy how "accountable" he's going to make sure the Prescription Drug "down payment" bill is going to be?

But yes, I'd like to see ALL gov't spending be combed to weed out stray waste - lets just hope that those who are whining about the $ for Iraq have the balls....uh I mean "conviction" to do it on ALL spending measures.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Quick, let's shoot the messenger!

Kennedy a drunk? At times, yes.

An ass? Yep

Should he have been prosecuted for the "swimmer" incident? I think so.

Is he right about this? Yep.

 

[BOBDN]

Thanks everyone for proving me right.

As I said "Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will)."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks everyone for proving me right.

As I said "Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will)."

OK, Mr.INEVERBRINGUPUNRELATEDSHIZWHENONMYBUSHBAHSINGTANGETS, I'll make sure to keep an eye on your posts

First off, it wasn't "made up in Texas" - Clinton used it in '98 so it wasn't "made up"...right? even if it was....both of them concocted the same exact stories? WOW!:Q

I covered the spending accountability stuff already

I think 'Ol Swimmer forgot the little FACT that we are still working hard on Afghanistan and are making progress there. "terror" hasn't been put on the sideline - it's been met head on. Terror doesn't only come from Al Qaeda

CkG

 

[phillyTIM]

I'm glad we still have lawmakers that can stand up and call something for what it really is, instead of kissin' #SS all the time.

I'm certainly voting democratic, but no one who kissed up to Bush during the pre-war stage will be getting my vote!

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey who better than a Fraud to detect another Fraud?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I'm glad we still have lawmakers that can stand up and call something for what it really is, instead of kissin' #SS all the time.

I'm certainly voting democratic, but no one who kissed up to Bush during the pre-war stage will be getting my vote!

Voting now, in lieu of a bloody coup?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey who better than a Fraud to detect another Fraud?

LOL! Good point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks everyone for proving me right.

As I said "Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will)."

BOBDN- You are probably the most vocal objector to Bush and his policies. When this war was beginning, objectors to it were very often shouted down. I remember the jokes about how easy it was going to be to kill the Iraqis. It was of course. We all had to support Bush, because he had WMDs and we knew it with certainty

Objectors were

1) Cowards

2)"unpatriotic"

3)Socialists/Communists

4)All the above


Now, the bill of goods sold to the public was false. Those WMD's we knew about? Not there. What was this war about? WMDs. That was what 1441 was about. Blix was making progress. Oh people dragged their heels, but he was getting cooperation anyway. If you followed the administrations rhetoric, you practically went to sleep saying "1441, 1441", which is exactly what we were supposed to do, like Johnson did with Tonkin.

Now, people HATE to be wrong. So a great many confabulate and justify a construct that might hold up better. Unfortunately, their arguments weren't the same as the administrations, and make no mistake it is this administration which started this war.



Fact- We were told that there were WMDs. Not maybe, or we think. A definite. So what happened with this one? Well, Bush & Co. did two things wrong, and I will leave motivation out of it.
First, they came to a conclusion and then used intel that supported their position. Intel that suggested a less than optimal conclusion was discarded because it didn't fit the "vision".
Second, they committed an elementary mistake that a Jr. level official should not have made. They took intel as evidence. INTEL IS NOT EVIDENCE, IT IS INTEL. It is not proof, but a guide.

So what happens when an administration takes a position that causes only intel that is favorable to policy, and that intel is taken as evidence? You get a war. You can justify a war with the Brits this way. How? Well, the populace was against war. There are certainly people with the ability to make great trouble there. Certainly the IRA exists, and they are a terrorist organization. Therefore, GB is a terrorist supporting state and that makes them our enemy. Also individuals within GB could make explosives, and since the people were anti-US as a whole as evidenced by polling, they are an imminent threat.

They need to be attacked and liberated now! Absurd? Obviously, but with a leader who was genuinely a SOB, and had made war more than a decade ago, you can go far. You could make him into the next Hitler (that was done here). You could promote the concept of linkage between Saddam and 9/11 without directly stating it (that was done). A whole host of obvious tactics that would not have worked before 9/11 do just fine now. Why?
Because fearful, vengeful people can be talked into most anything. Witness Hitler. Americans aren't genetically superior to the Master Race, they are just raised in a different atmosphere. That is why we did not do what Germany did. We have not suffered as much as the Germans did, not nearly, as they did in the post WWI/pre Hitler days. If we did, the Muslims would be our Jews. Since we are not yet that far along yet, what can we do about 9/11? Get even with someone. Someone bad. Saddam did nicely. We can prove we are strong by beating up someone who is weak. Saddam was a fish in a barrel.

Evidence of this? How many people feel Saddam was responsible? A great majority, and this administration has not seriously dispelled that myth. That would weaken support if fear lessened. Oh, a very large number of Americans believe the hijackers were Iraqi.

Keep posting, just realize they are going to bring up BJ's, aspirin factories, anything. We can bring up Vietnam, the last "liberation" of the Iraqis by the British. Of course Vietnam pales in significance to Monica

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY Terror doesn't only come from Al Qaeda

CkG

Sadly we know this, and that's one reason many object to Bush.

 

[glugglug]

Was Kennedy drunk at the time? Possibly....

Alcohol does have a way of bringing out the truth.

 

[phillyTIM]

true that!

 

[lozina]

If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks everyone for proving me right.

As I said "Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will)."

OK, Mr.INEVERBRINGUPUNRELATEDSHIZWHENONMYBUSHBAHSINGTANGETS, I'll make sure to keep an eye on your posts

First off, it wasn't "made up in Texas" - Clinton used it in '98 so it wasn't "made up"...right? even if it was....both of them concocted the same exact stories? WOW!:Q

I covered the spending accountability stuff already

I think 'Ol Swimmer forgot the little FACT that we are still working hard on Afghanistan and are making progress there. "terror" hasn't been put on the sideline - it's been met head on. Terror doesn't only come from Al Qaeda

CkG

The current justification for invading Iraq was made up in Texas. Stop trying to compare Clinton's limited strikes against Iraq with Bush's total invasion. They aren't comparable.

You can never cover the spending stuff. The spending is ongoing and likely will be for the next several years before the US gives up and leaves Iraq to its own devices just like before the invasion.

We are still working in Afghanistan, as we were when the Afghan war began, to bring any order to the chaos that reigns there. We've made very little progress in Kabul and none in the rest of the country. Our only true accomplishment was regime change, we got rid of the Taliban, but even the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now resrugent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lozina
If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

About 3/4's is going to troop support. There is comparitively little going to reconstruction. When this is all said and done, my best guess is that this will cost over a trillion dollars, and less than 10% of that going to reconstruction. People always forget to count indirect costs, like reduced pay for reservists- an obvious cost, just to the economy not the administration. This optimistic estimate assume things go fairly smoothly.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina
If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

About 3/4's is going to troop support. There is comparitively little going to reconstruction. When this is all said and done, my best guess is that this will cost over a trillion dollars, and less than 10% of that going to reconstruction. People always forget to count indirect costs, like reduced pay for reservists- an obvious cost, just to the economy not the administration. This optimistic estimate assume things go fairly smoothly.

What's the number they said for monthly requirement, 4 billion dollars? so with 3/4 you're saying 115,000 troops require 3 billion a month? Now I don't claim to know how to calculate costs for them (another reason I wish the administration would plainly lay out where this money is going- exactly) but 3 billion a month seems alot to me for troops. Can anyone break it down for me ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Thanks everyone for proving me right.

As I said "Feel free to comment on the article and Senator Kennedy's comments. No need to bring up unrelated issues (although I'm sure some will)."

OK, Mr.INEVERBRINGUPUNRELATEDSHIZWHENONMYBUSHBAHSINGTANGETS, I'll make sure to keep an eye on your posts

First off, it wasn't "made up in Texas" - Clinton used it in '98 so it wasn't "made up"...right? even if it was....both of them concocted the same exact stories? WOW!:Q

I covered the spending accountability stuff already

I think 'Ol Swimmer forgot the little FACT that we are still working hard on Afghanistan and are making progress there. "terror" hasn't been put on the sideline - it's been met head on. Terror doesn't only come from Al Qaeda

CkG

The current justification for invading Iraq was made up in Texas. Stop trying to compare Clinton's limited strikes against Iraq with Bush's total invasion. They aren't comparable.

You can never cover the spending stuff. The spending is ongoing and likely will be for the next several years before the US gives up and leaves Iraq to its own devices just like before the invasion.

We are still working in Afghanistan, as we were when the Afghan war began, to bring any order to the chaos that reigns there. We've made very little progress in Kabul and none in the rest of the country. Our only true accomplishment was regime change, we got rid of the Taliban, but even the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now resrugent.

Now what were Clinton's STATED REASONS for attacking Iraq? What were Bush's? Yes -that's right they ARE the same, it's just one of them is actually going to FINISH the job. The "HOW" doesn't make the "WHY" different.

How many years do you think Prescription Drugs "coverage" will be around? "several years"? No - they'll be here forever I sure as hell hope you yell and kick and scream like you are now about "accountability of funds" - when the discussion on Prescription Drugs rolls around.

Afghanistan is seeing progress no matter how you try to spin it
****************

Time for a little game of 'Who Said It'. BOBDN, you're our first contestant, and here is your first 'who said it' question.
Who said: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." almost exactly 1 year ago?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina
If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

About 3/4's is going to troop support. There is comparatively little going to reconstruction. When this is all said and done, my best guess is that this will cost over a trillion dollars, and less than 10% of that going to reconstruction. People always forget to count indirect costs, like reduced pay for reservists- an obvious cost, just to the economy not the administration. This optimistic estimate assume things go fairly smoothly.

What's the number they said for monthly requirement, 4 billion dollars? so with 3/4 you're saying 115,000 troops require 3 billion a month? Now I don't claim to know how to calculate costs for them (another reason I wish the administration would plainly lay out where this money is going- exactly) but 3 billion a month seems alot to me for troops. Can anyone break it down for me ?

I cant get you an itemized list, but the 87 billion provides about 20 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. That leaves 67 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq ops.

Lets see..
Troop pay, obviously.
Cost of support, which would include medical, intel, PMC's, military equipment, maintenance, etc.
When you change forces globally to compensate, that costs money too. That ought to be part of the tab.

It cost a great deal of money to keep one fighter battle ready and flying. Multiply that times however many planes we have. Armor isn't cheap either.
I don't think that 4 billion is too much, but probably not enough, maybe not nearly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey who better than a Fraud to detect another Fraud?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: lozina
If anything, as someone else suggested, he does bring up a point about accountability and transparency with all this money we are sending to Iraq... where exactly is it going? Iraq's GDP was like 60 billion last year, and we're funnelling more than 200 billion in one year into it. There was no extensive damage to the oil fields, CENTCOM told us they did not do much damage to the infrastructure, only military targets- so what are we spending this money on besides some of the obvious things like troop pay and supply? I'd just like to know, since it's coming out of my pocket too, and preventing money from going into public services like education for my children in the future.

About 3/4's is going to troop support. There is comparatively little going to reconstruction. When this is all said and done, my best guess is that this will cost over a trillion dollars, and less than 10% of that going to reconstruction. People always forget to count indirect costs, like reduced pay for reservists- an obvious cost, just to the economy not the administration. This optimistic estimate assume things go fairly smoothly.

What's the number they said for monthly requirement, 4 billion dollars? so with 3/4 you're saying 115,000 troops require 3 billion a month? Now I don't claim to know how to calculate costs for them (another reason I wish the administration would plainly lay out where this money is going- exactly) but 3 billion a month seems alot to me for troops. Can anyone break it down for me ?

I cant get you an itemized list, but the 87 billion provides about 20 billion for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. That leaves 67 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq ops.

Lets see..
Troop pay, obviously.
Cost of support, which would include medical, intel, PMC's, military equipment, maintenance, etc.
When you change forces globally to compensate, that costs money too. That ought to be part of the tab.

It cost a great deal of money to keep one fighter battle ready and flying. Multiply that times however many planes we have. Armor isn't cheap either.
I don't think that 4 billion is too much, but probably not enough, maybe not nearly.

Reason why it dosen't make sense to me is, take a country like Israel. In 2002 Israel spend est. 9 billion on military expenditures, for the entire year. Why are they doing fine with their occupation given those limited funds ?