Time to celebrate?

[TexasTiger 13,054]

Even as the Bush administration urges Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Republicans in Congress have put down a quiet marker in the apparent hope that V-I Day might be only months away.

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation's capital "for commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent. Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

Your tax dollars "at work."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washingt...artner=homepage

[Bottomfeeder 244]

$20 million would go along way to help the displaced of NOLA and Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. This is ridiculous.

[Tiger Al 0]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

[Tigermike 3,067]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

[Tiger Al 0]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

Is that the insurgents who were supposed to greet us as liberators?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

I wonder what Paul Wolfowitz thought about the Iraq funding?

Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

And, about that insurgency; I wonder if more troops could've prevented that?

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general (Gen. Eric Shinseki) said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

Hmm...the Army's Chief of Staff believed it would take several hundred thousand for several years to maintain stability. Cheney said Shinseki's analysis was 'innacurate' and an 'overstatement.' Surely, the leaders at the Pentagon would know it was the understating Cheney who was 'innacurate.'

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

And, in June, 2005, the omniscient VP announced that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' Perhaps if he and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had listened to General Shinseki, the 'last throes' would've been going on in June of 2003. Instead, we seem to be in a perpetual state of 'next throes.'

So, tell me again why the Iraqi oil isn't funding this instead of our children's grandchildren?

LINK

LINK

LINK

[Tiger Al 0]

-------<crickets>--------

[Bottomfeeder 244]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

Bull####. Haliburton is stealing the oil.

[Tiger Al 0]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

Is that the insurgents who were supposed to greet us as liberators?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

I wonder what Paul Wolfowitz thought about the Iraq funding?

Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

And, about that insurgency; I wonder if more troops could've prevented that?

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general (Gen. Eric Shinseki) said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

Hmm...the Army's Chief of Staff believed it would take several hundred thousand for several years to maintain stability. Cheney said Shinseki's analysis was 'innacurate' and an 'overstatement.' Surely, the leaders at the Pentagon would know it was the understating Cheney who was 'innacurate.'

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

And, in June, 2005, the omniscient VP announced that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' Perhaps if he and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had listened to General Shinseki, the 'last throes' would've been going on in June of 2003. Instead, we seem to be in a perpetual state of 'next throes.'

So, tell me again why the Iraqi oil isn't funding this instead of our children's grandchildren?

LINK

LINK

LINK

Tigermike???

[Tigermike 3,067]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

Is that the insurgents who were supposed to greet us as liberators?

No Al, I would imagine most of the damage was done by terrorists who have made their way from other parts of the world. Fortunately for the world, many of them have died.

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

I copied that from somewhere when I first posted it. $16 billion is a lot of money. Even for dimocrats. Strange that you latch on to insurgents and completely over look criminals and bad equipment. That's normal for you isn't it?

[Tiger Al 0]

TT, didn't this administration tell us that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil? Anybody have any idea what the total cost to current and unborn taxpayers has been to this point?

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

Is that the insurgents who were supposed to greet us as liberators?

No Al, I would imagine most of the damage was done by terrorists who have made their way from other parts of the world. Fortunately for the world, many of them have died.

Since you brought up Iraqi oil. "Iraq's most important moneymaker - its oil industry - lost $16 billion in two years to insurgent attacks, criminals and bad equipment"

I copied that from somewhere when I first posted it. $16 billion is a lot of money. Even for dimocrats. Strange that you latch on to insurgents and completely over look criminals and bad equipment. That's normal for you isn't it?

Because, insurgents/terrorists, it would seem to me, would be where the majority of the money was lost. Wouldn't more troops, say, several hundred thousand as Shinseki recommended, have stopped most of that insurgent AND/OR terrorist activity, especially in light of the belief of the administration that we'd be greeted as liberators? We're also paying for a police force, aren't we? Can they not be trained in 3 1/2 years to protect "Iraq's most important moneymaker?" Bad equipment??? Please. This would be the same equipment used to acquire/produce/transport Iraq's "most important moneymaker" and 3 1/2 yrs. later they still haven't fixed or replaced it? I don't buy that, either.

But, the truth is, we and Congress were told that the war would cost Americans very little because the oil, they were positive, would finance the post-war period. No more than $95B. What's that figure up to now?