Iraq and Its Costs

[Tigermike 3,078]

Iraq and Its Costs

By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM

April 7, 2008; Page A13

When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.

This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.

As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.

In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.

Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."

Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.

Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.

These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.

It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.

There is no question the war in Iraq – like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history – costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.

Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.

The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims – both Sunni and Shiite – are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.

It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. Mr. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207523086...in_commentaries

[RunInRed 16,528]

The stated purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence to allow for Iraqi political reconciliation. The violence has been reduced (big kudos to our troops) but the Iraqis haven't made the political progress. Which begs the question, how is the surge working? Unless of course, the mission has been changed to stay there 100 years and mediate a civil war.

As for a cost of the war, it really looks something like this:

- 4000+ American Lives

- Over $500 Billion tax payer dollars and counting ($300M+/day)

Taxpayers in Alabama will pay $4.2 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

1,741,613 People with Health Care OR

3,084,427 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

115,632 Public Safety Officers OR

80,727 Music and Arts Teachers OR

791,708 Scholarships for University Students OR

288 New Elementary Schools OR

50,680 Affordable Housing Units OR

4,371,048 Children with Health Care OR

648,756 Head Start Places for Children OR

84,014 Elementary School Teachers OR

67,959 Port Container Inspectors

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoff...f_item_item=999

[Auburn85 434]

The stated purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence to allow for Iraqi political reconciliation. The violence has been reduced (big kudos to our troops) but the Iraqis haven't made the political progress. Which begs the question, how is the surge working? Unless of course, the mission has been changed to stay there 100 years and mediate a civil war.

As for a cost of the war, it really looks something like this:

- 4000+ American Lives

- Over $500 Billion tax payer dollars and counting ($300M+/day)

Taxpayers in Alabama will pay $4.2 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

1,741,613 People with Health Care OR

3,084,427 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

115,632 Public Safety Officers OR

80,727 Music and Arts Teachers OR

791,708 Scholarships for University Students OR

288 New Elementary Schools OR

50,680 Affordable Housing Units OR

4,371,048 Children with Health Care OR

648,756 Head Start Places for Children OR

84,014 Elementary School Teachers OR

67,959 Port Container Inspectors

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoff...f_item_item=999

isn't it amazing how much people play this rather than actually solving stuff? Then, we have all of these studies of how much it costs per month, how much it costs per day, how much it costs per hour, how much it costs per minute, how much it costs per second. now, it's what it could have paid for. Guess what rir? It's people that aren't coming back, it's money that isn't coming back.

But please keep them coming. I'm so glad music and arts teachers are a priority. So much for paying off that massive debt huh? a $3 trillion dollar budget isn't big enough for you is it? How ig a budget do you want? Would $10 trillion be enough? You should really sit down and write a book. I hope God blesses you with a New York Times bestseller.

[GoAU 1,612]

The stated purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence to allow for Iraqi political reconciliation. The violence has been reduced (big kudos to our troops) but the Iraqis haven't made the political progress. Which begs the question, how is the surge working? Unless of course, the mission has been changed to stay there 100 years and mediate a civil war.

As for a cost of the war, it really looks something like this:

- 4000+ American Lives

- Over $500 Billion tax payer dollars and counting ($300M+/day)

Taxpayers in Alabama will pay $4.2 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

1,741,613 People with Health Care OR

3,084,427 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

115,632 Public Safety Officers OR

80,727 Music and Arts Teachers OR

791,708 Scholarships for University Students OR

288 New Elementary Schools OR

50,680 Affordable Housing Units OR

4,371,048 Children with Health Care OR

648,756 Head Start Places for Children OR

84,014 Elementary School Teachers OR

67,959 Port Container Inspectors

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoff...f_item_item=999

Don't forget to include in your comparison the Kurdish villages decimated with blister chemical agents in Northern Iraq, the countless people tortured and killed by Saddam, or the price that would have to be paid if that idiot had successfully got nuclear or chemical munitions into the hands of terrorists.

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war, and the overwhelming support of the American people. Now, so many people love playing "Monday morning QB" and saying "it's too hard, we don't have the intestinal fortitude required to finish it through". Throwing our hands up and walking away is something I expect my 5 year old to do after he tries raking leaves in the front yard, not the greatest country in the world. As a nation we are growing soft and lazy and it sickens me. Leaving now would create a bigger problem than any anti-war proponent could possibly understand. I think we all agree that we needed to go into Afghanistan, right? Afghanistan came into being when an Islamic state was abandoned and left in a power vacuum - we did it there after we helped

the mujhadeen beat the Russians, we'll be doing it in Iraq aagain if we don't finish the job now.

[RunInRed 16,528]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

[BamaGrad03 0]

People also fail to mention how many jobs government military contracts create.

All that spending isn't just lighting dollars on fire.

[GoAU 1,612]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Ahh, a perfect example of selective memory and hindsight being 20/20. How many times did Iraq expel inspectors, refuse them access to key sites, and even allude to havings WMD's?

Also, make sure you remember that this guy not only had WMDs in the past, but also USED them against unarmed women and children in Northern Iraq. let's see, he's used them before, intentionally gives every indication that he has them, and you would have done what? He also even financially supported terrorists - this is well documneted, but easily forgotten. It's that kind of thinking that leads to crap like 9/11. I am much more inclined to a proactive vs reactive defense of our nation. Saddam tried to pull a bluff and got called out...

[RunInRed 16,528]

People also fail to mention how many jobs government military contracts create.

All that spending isn't just lighting dollars on fire.

Now that might be the best justification for war I've heard yet

[RunInRed 16,528]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Ahh, a perfect example of selective memory and hindsight being 20/20. How many times did Iraq expel inspectors, refuse them access to key sites, and even allude to havings WMD's?

Also, make sure you remember that this guy not only had WMDs in the past, but also USED them against unarmed women and children in Northern Iraq. let's see, he's used them before, intentionally gives every indication that he has them, and you would have done what? He also even financially supported terrorists - this is well documneted, but easily forgotten. It's that kind of thinking that leads to crap like 9/11. I am much more inclined to a proactive vs reactive defense of our nation. Saddam tried to pull a bluff and got called out...

Some people read the intelligent reports and came to the conclusion that the evidence wasn't there...of course, that takes judgement.

[OldNewby 27]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

The Jerusalem Post

Apr 7, 2008 21:57

'Report on Sept. 6 strike to show Saddam transferred WMDs to Syria'

By JPOST.COM STAFF

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

[arnaldoabru 11]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Don't forget the Iraqi ties to 9/11 and the yellow cake and tubes he was trying to get.Wait a minute, no ties to the terrorist on 9/11,no evidence what so ever he was trying to get nukes.Oh, yeah, he had shut down his WMD program.Our great piece of evidence was someone's nephew in the INC who was trying to get a green card from the Germans,who they didn't think was crdible.

[GoAU 1,612]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Ahh, a perfect example of selective memory and hindsight being 20/20. How many times did Iraq expel inspectors, refuse them access to key sites, and even allude to havings WMD's?

Also, make sure you remember that this guy not only had WMDs in the past, but also USED them against unarmed women and children in Northern Iraq. let's see, he's used them before, intentionally gives every indication that he has them, and you would have done what? He also even financially supported terrorists - this is well documneted, but easily forgotten. It's that kind of thinking that leads to crap like 9/11. I am much more inclined to a proactive vs reactive defense of our nation. Saddam tried to pull a bluff and got called out...

Some people read the intelligent reports and came to the conclusion that the evidence wasn't there...of course, that takes judgement.

"Some people" also don't think we didn't really land on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Elvis is living in Area 51....

[arnaldoabru 11]

People also fail to mention how many jobs government military contracts create.

All that spending isn't just lighting dollars on fire.

And how many needless American deaths we have created.I'm sure Haliburton loves us.

[arnaldoabru 11]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Ahh, a perfect example of selective memory and hindsight being 20/20. How many times did Iraq expel inspectors, refuse them access to key sites, and even allude to havings WMD's?

Also, make sure you remember that this guy not only had WMDs in the past, but also USED them against unarmed women and children in Northern Iraq. let's see, he's used them before, intentionally gives every indication that he has them, and you would have done what? He also even financially supported terrorists - this is well documneted, but easily forgotten. It's that kind of thinking that leads to crap like 9/11. I am much more inclined to a proactive vs reactive defense of our nation. Saddam tried to pull a bluff and got called out...

Some people read the intelligent reports and came to the conclusion that the evidence wasn't there...of course, that takes judgement.

"Some people" also don't think we didn't really land on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Elvis is living in Area 51....

You left out rasslin

[GoAU 1,612]

It really rubs me the wrong way when everyone conveniently forgets the circumstances that led up to the war,

You mean the part about "Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction?"

We had Saddam under supervision and could have kept him contained with inspections and international pressures. There are a lot of bad dictators in this world but you just can't go invading other countries on such a premise, at least not based on the evidence we had.

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Ahh, a perfect example of selective memory and hindsight being 20/20. How many times did Iraq expel inspectors, refuse them access to key sites, and even allude to havings WMD's?

Also, make sure you remember that this guy not only had WMDs in the past, but also USED them against unarmed women and children in Northern Iraq. let's see, he's used them before, intentionally gives every indication that he has them, and you would have done what? He also even financially supported terrorists - this is well documneted, but easily forgotten. It's that kind of thinking that leads to crap like 9/11. I am much more inclined to a proactive vs reactive defense of our nation. Saddam tried to pull a bluff and got called out...

Some people read the intelligent reports and came to the conclusion that the evidence wasn't there...of course, that takes judgement.

"Some people" also don't think we didn't really land on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Elvis is living in Area 51....

You left out rasslin

Good point...

[Tigermike 3,078]

The stated purpose of the surge was to reduce the violence to allow for Iraqi political reconciliation. The violence has been reduced (big kudos to our troops) but the Iraqis haven't made the political progress. Which begs the question, how is the surge working? Unless of course, the mission has been changed to stay there 100 years and mediate a civil war.

As for a cost of the war, it really looks something like this:

- 4000+ American Lives

- Over $500 Billion tax payer dollars and counting ($300M+/day)

Taxpayers in Alabama will pay $4.2 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

1,741,613 People with Health Care OR

3,084,427 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

115,632 Public Safety Officers OR

80,727 Music and Arts Teachers OR

791,708 Scholarships for University Students OR

288 New Elementary Schools OR

50,680 Affordable Housing Units OR

4,371,048 Children with Health Care OR

648,756 Head Start Places for Children OR

84,014 Elementary School Teachers OR

67,959 Port Container Inspectors

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tradeoff...f_item_item=999

The Iraq war was the result of war mongering and using 9/11 as bludgeon to scare up support.

Would anyone like to know something about where this little guy gets his talking points?

National Priorities Project

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

The National Priorities Project (NPP) was founded in 1982 to "educate the public on the impacts of federal tax and spending policies at the community level." Its mission is to offer "citizens and community groups [the] tools and resources [they need] to shape federal budget and policy priorities which promote social and economic justice." In NPP's view, such justice can best be achieved by means of government-mandated redistribution of wealth --through higher taxes and greater allocations for social welfare programs. To justify these means, NPP publishes synopses and analyses of federal spending data and disseminates these to leftist activists and the media. In general, NPP's publications are critical of military spending while supportive of social welfare expenditures.

Some NPP reports are published annually, including the "President's Budget" (which shows the impact of various federal budgetary components on different demographic groups) and the "Tax Day Report" (which evaluates how tax dollars are apportioned at the state level).

Since the start of the War on Terror, NPP has sought chiefly to expose what it considers to be wasteful spending by the Pentagon. Of the 32 press releases published by NPP between mid-2003 and mid-2007, more than half were specifically critical of military expenditures, particularly with regard to the Iraq War. NPP exhorts the government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal health insurance, environmentalist projects, and welfare programs.

NPP administers an interactive online database designed to serve as a resource for grassroots activists. According to NPP, this tool "has the potential to empower community groups and national organizations … [to] create tailored reports on how the federal budget impacts their communities on an array of social issues ranging from hunger and poverty to military spending." The database also has a "Trade Off" feature that allows users to see, for example, how many music and art teachers could be employed with funds currently earmarked for the ballistic missile defense program.

NPP worked with the Media Education Foundation on the 2004 documentary film Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire, which examines "how a radical fringe of the Republican Party has used the trauma of the 9/11 terror attacks to advance a pre-existing agenda to radically transform American foreign policy." Notable leftists who lent their voices to this production were Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer, Cindy Sheehan, and Howard Zinn. The film is narrated by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond.

In January 2007, NPP and USAction jointly conducted a workshop titled "Cost of War to Local Communities -- Building Peace and Economic Justice." The objective of the workshop -- which was organized by the pro-Castro coalition United for Peace and Justice -- was to provide information on the monetary cost of waging the Iraq War, and to "identify strategies and new groups to work with nationally and in your community to bring this war to an end."

Prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, NPP collaborated with the Institute for Policy Studies on a program called "Cities for Peace," which was established to help publicize news of upcoming anti-war events and to provide resources that citizens could use to lobby their congressional representatives to vote against the Iraq War. The campaign has since been renamed Cities for Progress, and its three principal goals are to "bring the troops home," advocate for the implementation of a universal health care system, and organize against the allegedly unfair labor practices of Wal-Mart.

While NPP identifies itself as a "nonpartisan" entity that does not endorse any candidates for public office, it consistently partners with organizations of the political Left. Members of NPP's "Local Partner Network" include Peace Action, the League of Women Voters, the American Friends Service Committee, ACORN, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Win Without War, the Children's Defense Fund, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

NPP is a member of the Moving Ideas Network, a coalition of more than 250 leftwing activist groups, which began as a project of the Center for American Progress -- a think tank run by Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

The founder and Executive Director of NPP is Greg Speeter, a longtime opponent of military spending who alleges that neoconservatives are essentially warmongers indifferent to the needs of the poor. "The neoconservative movement," he says, "really represents a very radical approach to the role of the federal government. It's basically trying to cut back the ability of the federal government to address many of its community needs by increasing the military budget."

Board members of NPP include: Michael Klare, a socialist professor who formerly directed the Institute for Policy Studies and currently sits on the Boards of the Arms Control Association and Human Rights Watch's Arms Division; Jen Kern, former Director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center; Stephanie Luce, a longtime labor movement activist who co-authored The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy; Vijay Prashad, co-founder of the Forum of Indian Leftists who writes each month for ZNET and occasionally for CounterPunch; and M. Sue Thrasher, who has worked with the Institute for Policy Studies.

NPP receives funding from a number of foundations, including the Carnegie Foundation, the Colombe Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Proteus Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, the Tides Foundation, the Peace Development Fund, and the Open Society Institute

.

link

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

[BamaGrad03 0]

People also fail to mention how many jobs government military contracts create.

All that spending isn't just lighting dollars on fire.

Now that might be the best justification for war I've heard yet

It's not a justification for the war. It's a note on where all the government spending is going. You people act like NONE of that money spent does any good.

[RunInRed 16,528]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

[Tigermike 3,078]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

Obviously I took a page out of your book. So providing information about a site is attacking the source? BS.

When you post info from a website with a leftist agenda then people have the right to know all the facts. One of those facts is where your info came from and the agenda of your source.

When a site is set up only to promote a leftist agenda, any figures they provide are questionable at best. Are out and out lies at worse.

[RunInRed 16,528]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

Obviously I took a page out of your book. So providing information about a site is attacking the source? BS.

When you post info from a website with a leftist agenda then people have the right to know all the facts. One of those facts is where your info came from and the agenda of your source.

When a site is set up only to promote a leftist agenda, any figures they provide are questionable at best. Are out and out lies at worse.

If a fact I provided is disputable then why don't you provide better documentation to back up your claims of it being false? The documentation I provided sited direct costs of the war. Are you saying they are too high? Too low? Do you have better numbers? What was unfactual about the information? HELLO?

Just tell the truth, you didn't like the facts because you don't like what they say...so you try to marginalize the source in hopes the weight of the truth will be succumbed by your nonsense. Nice try...but its not going to work. We have 4000+ dead, it's costing us well over $300M/day in taxpayer money, we have no strategy that makes any sense, we are mediating a civil war, and all you on the right can do is stick your head in the sand, pretend everything is rosy, and shout "stay the course." No thanks. Thank G_d the American people will reject the biggest foreign policy mistake of this generation in November. Thank G_d.

[Tigermike 3,078]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

Obviously I took a page out of your book. So providing information about a site is attacking the source? BS.

When you post info from a website with a leftist agenda then people have the right to know all the facts. One of those facts is where your info came from and the agenda of your source.

When a site is set up only to promote a leftist agenda, any figures they provide are questionable at best. Are out and out lies at worse.

If a fact I provided is disputable then why don't you provide better documentation to back up your claims of it being false? The documentation I provided sited direct costs of the war. Are you saying they are too high? Too low? Do you have better numbers? What was unfactual about the information? HELLO?

Just tell the truth, you didn't like the facts because you don't like what they say...so you try to marginalize the source in hopes the weight of the truth will be succumbed by your nonsense. Nice try...but its not going to work. We have 4000+ dead, it's costing us well over $300M/day in taxpayer money, we have no strategy that makes any sense, we are mediating a civil war, and all you on the right can do is stick your head in the sand, pretend everything is rosy, and shout "stay the course." No thanks. Thank G_d the American people will reject the biggest foreign policy mistake of this generation in November. Thank G_d.

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

[RunInRed 16,528]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

[channonc 466]

That would hardly qualify as unbiased information from an unbiased source would it?

RR & his far left propaganda tools, as usual.

The point of referencing the site was to define the dollar cost of the war, which that site does an excellent job of. You can't dispute the facts so you attack the source. Typical.

Obviously I took a page out of your book. So providing information about a site is attacking the source? BS.

When you post info from a website with a leftist agenda then people have the right to know all the facts. One of those facts is where your info came from and the agenda of your source.

When a site is set up only to promote a leftist agenda, any figures they provide are questionable at best. Are out and out lies at worse.

If a fact I provided is disputable then why don't you provide better documentation to back up your claims of it being false? The documentation I provided sited direct costs of the war. Are you saying they are too high? Too low? Do you have better numbers? What was unfactual about the information? HELLO?

Just tell the truth, you didn't like the facts because you don't like what they say...so you try to marginalize the source in hopes the weight of the truth will be succumbed by your nonsense. Nice try...but its not going to work. We have 4000+ dead, it's costing us well over $300M/day in taxpayer money, we have no strategy that makes any sense, we are mediating a civil war, and all you on the right can do is stick your head in the sand, pretend everything is rosy, and shout "stay the course." No thanks. Thank G_d the American people will reject the biggest foreign policy mistake of this generation in November. Thank G_d.

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

So have the plots been spoiled due to military intelligence or work done by the DHS that is completely separate? I have heard it was the later.

[Tigermike 3,078]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

[RunInRed 16,528]

No the real cost benefit of the war is your ass is safe and there have been no direct attacks on the United States. There have been plots spoiled but no more planes have been flown into buildings, no bombs in subways. AQ and the Taliban have been decimated and much of their leadership killed.

So figure that into your "what could have been" figures.

EARTH TO TM:

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. AQ and the Taliban were in AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. Once again, trying to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to scare up support. These same old tricks aren't going to work. Nice try.

Earth to Obamaboy get your head out of your ass.

Is AU in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Have they been in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070724-9.html

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/ar...s/20060430.aspx

Iraq violence up as troop levels drop (A great reason to take Obama's lead and surrender.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...op_levels_drop/

I'll repeat one more time:

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Was AQ and the Taliban in Iraq before we invaded or were they in Afghanistan and Pakistan?