unformed 0 #76 October 10, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ March '06 - expected to surpass 1T. [url]http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/] Sept '06 - going up 2B every week Currently we're at about 350B.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #77 October 10, 2006 Who cares if he overstated the cost by 200%. It's the principle of the thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #78 October 10, 2006 Maybe was a tPA overdose. Sounds like the symptoms."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #79 October 10, 2006 Quote Presidents can make poor decisions - it happens, but it isn't an impeachable offense. Lying under oath is an impeachable offense. mh While this is the truth, don't you think there should be some kind of a limit to allowing the president to continue to make these kinds of decisions? Certainly, no president can be infallible. They simply have too much on their plate to be correct 100% of the time. Personally, I don't think GWB should be impeached, but there should be some sort of a reckoning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #80 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou are automatically disqualified by reason of gender. Nothing personal . What a sexist! When it comes to my sex life, I am indeed a sexist... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #81 October 10, 2006 QuoteWho cares if he overstated the cost by 200%. It's the principle of the thing. Maybe the taxpayers care. Oh no, we just borrow the money from our kids and grandkids, so that's OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #82 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq. "Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!" That is a lie right there. Could you provide a link. On this issue, the link you need is to reality. In other words - you got nothing. Ditch the dogma and people will (eventually) overlook your rigid, straight line support of a president who defiles his country. It's much like you continue to rant that the earth is flat, then feign a triumphant laugh when others do not respond to your disconnect from reality as if you had said something remotely reasonable.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 October 10, 2006 QuoteDitch the dogma and people will (eventually) overlook your rigid, straight line support of a president who defiles his country anything that is against the current administration. It's much like you continue to rant that the earth is flat, then feign a triumphant laugh when others do not respond to your disconnect from reality as if you had said something remotely reasonable. With the change above, the same could be said for you...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #84 October 10, 2006 QuoteDitch the dogma and people will (eventually) overlook your rigid, straight line support of a president who defiles his country. It's much like you continue to rant that the earth is flat, then feign a triumphant laugh when others do not respond to your disconnect from reality as if you had said something remotely reasonable. I not sure where you've inferred that I have a "rigid, straight line support" of Bush. Was it when I said: "I'm fairly certain that the decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of a sitting US President." What does chap me is the frequent dishonest representations made by those who lean left. I did a google search for the quoted "lie" in the original post and got zero hits. So I asked for a source. I'm not sure why you think that is unreasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #85 October 10, 2006 >But the cost (so far) does little to support the widely held belief that > Bush intentionally lied to the American people about Saddam and > his weapons. In terms of cost - he did fire one of the few analysts that accurately predicted the cost of the war. That in itself is not a lie, but a pattern of firing/silencing people who were attempting to accurately portray the costs/risks of the war adds up to one. >Speaking of cost - you pegged it at $1 trillion. Where'd you get >that number? I though it was significantly less. As of today, over a third of a trillion. Two researchers recently presented a paper at the Allied Social Sciences Association in Boston, estimating the cost of the war at $1 to 2 trillion. (One of those researchers just won the Nobel Prize for economics.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #86 October 10, 2006 No doubt, Bush is reaping what he sowed, on his handling of the invasion of Iraq. Seems to be standard fare these days for recently retired generals to offer up a healthy dose of criticism... justifiable criticism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #87 October 10, 2006 Quote I'm fairly certain that the decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of a sitting US President. But the cost (so far) does little to support the widely held belief that Bush intentionally lied to the American people about Saddam and his weapons. You're right. The cost of the war has nothing to do with the cherry picking of intelligence. The good intel was ignored and the bad intel (Chalibi, curveball) was embraced. It's all well documented as are the lies that they contiune to spread EVEN TODAY about the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. People were bullied into giving the information that was desired and excluded from the meetings if anything arose that did not fit the policy. You either play their game and give them what they want or you're gone. And if Sen Roberts would get off his ass and allow the investigation to go forward then we could get this over with. Personally, I think that the notion that our leadership would intentionally manipulate intelligence to get us into a war is a very strong accusation. Let the investigation that was promised us go forward. If they conclude that the Vulcans were actually fooled into a war then all then good for them. If they find out otherwise............ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #88 October 10, 2006 Quote In terms of cost - he did fire one of the few analysts that accurately predicted the cost of the war. That in itself is not a lie, but a pattern of firing/silencing people who were attempting to accurately portray the costs/risks of the war adds up to one. Here's a recent example of what happens when you don't give them what they want, even if you do your job well in front of the supreme court. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/ap/national/mainD8KKQ7T00.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #89 October 10, 2006 QuoteWhat does chap me is the frequent dishonest representations made by those who lean left. Personally I prefer to stand up straight...... all that leaning will get you when you get older...back pain can really suck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 October 10, 2006 Quote Where does the buck stop? I suggest it stops in the office of the guy who used lies to justify wasting the lives of 2,700 American troops, maiming 20,000 others, and wasting about $1 trillion, and who clearly manipulated the intelligence available. Only Bush attempted to link 9/11 with SH. Absolutely the bucks stops in the Oval Office. And next month that reckoning occurs. 2 years ago was another opportunity that the public declined to take. But there's nothing impeachable about this incompetence. This isn't like when Ollie North went playing with the Contras against the will of Congress. Congress voted for this war. None of them were so naive as to be confused by the propoganda. That stuff was for the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #91 October 10, 2006 >Congress voted for this war. No, they didn't. Read the resolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #92 October 10, 2006 provide a relevency to the distinction you're trying to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #93 October 10, 2006 >provide a relevency to the distinction you're trying to make. I am not trying to "provide a relevancy," just trying to point out an error. You said that congress voted to go to war; that is incorrect. They voted to support the president's use of the military to defend the USA against threats, including possible threats from Iraq. I would vote for that too; I suspect you would as well. Let's take an example. Let's say that you vote for a resolution that supports the president's authority to protect the US from all threats, foreign and domestic. (I suspect you would, since that's basically the oath he takes, and is his consitutional duty.) Then the president sends troops to Kent State University to stop a protest; they shoot and kill four students. Would it be accurate to say that you voted to send those soldiers there and kill those students? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #94 October 10, 2006 QuoteI am not trying to "provide a relevancy," just trying to point out an error. You said that congress voted to go to war; that is incorrect. They voted to support the president's use of the military to defend the USA against threats, including possible threats from Iraq. I would vote for that too; I suspect you would as well. In the post 9/11 world almost NO ONE would have voted against ANYTHING this administration wanted...The PNAC boys counted on that..anyone who did was seen as un patriotic.. a terrorist sympathizer...etc and were vilified for it. Hell you mods even banned me for calling some right wing poster a name for suggesting I was a terrorist sympathizer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #95 October 10, 2006 Quote>provide a relevency to the distinction you're trying to make. I am not trying to "provide a relevancy," just trying to point out an error. You said that congress voted to go to war; that is incorrect. They voted to support the president's use of the military to defend the USA against threats, including possible threats from Iraq. I would vote for that too; I suspect you would as well. Let's take an example. Let's say that you vote for a resolution that supports the president's authority to protect the US from all threats, foreign and domestic. (I suspect you would, since that's basically the oath he takes, and is his consitutional duty.) Then the president sends troops to Kent State University to stop a protest; they shoot and kill four students. Would it be accurate to say that you voted to send those soldiers there and kill those students? While I agree with you on the premise, I can't let them off that easily. Congress was a bunch of spineless candy asses who abdicated their responsibility. What they signed was technically what you described however they basically "washed their hands" of it and threw the responsibility to make war into the hands of a Crusading, willful pawn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #96 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteDitch the dogma and people will (eventually) overlook your rigid, straight line support of a president who defiles his country anything that is against the current administration. It's much like you continue to rant that the earth is flat, then feign a triumphant laugh when others do not respond to your disconnect from reality as if you had said something remotely reasonable. With the change above, the same could be said for you... Here ya go: http://reality.edu/----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 October 10, 2006 Quote>provide a relevency to the distinction you're trying to make. I am not trying to "provide a relevancy," just trying to point out an error. You said that congress voted to go to war; that is incorrect. They voted to support the president's use of the military to defend the USA against threats, including possible threats from Iraq. I would vote for that too; I suspect you would as well. yes, they gave him a blank check, and with the exception of Barbara Lee gave their support to flattening Iraq. While we don't call these declarations of war anymore, that's as close as we get. BTW, I believe that Clinton would have used the political capital to make the same invasion. Iraq lead by Hussein posed a real threat to the country's interests. Might have cut n run right away like I'd have preferred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,461 #98 October 10, 2006 Quotegave their support to flattening IraqNo. They gave their support to actions up to and including flattening Iraq. That up to matters. You have to pick what's appropriate, and what Congress did was to allow the President that leeway, and didn't require a separate declaration of war to go to war. My feeling is that they shouldn't have. It was a pretty gutless vote in some ways. Now that's a surprise Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,034 #99 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuote>provide a relevency to the distinction you're trying to make. I am not trying to "provide a relevancy," just trying to point out an error. You said that congress voted to go to war; that is incorrect. They voted to support the president's use of the military to defend the USA against threats, including possible threats from Iraq. I would vote for that too; I suspect you would as well. yes, they gave him a blank check, and with the exception of Barbara Lee gave their support to flattening Iraq. While we don't call these declarations of war anymore, that's as close as we get. . That blank check was issued with conditions attached for cashing it. Conditions that we were told were satisfied prior to the invasion, but in fact were not satisfied at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #100 October 10, 2006 QuoteIraq lead by Hussein posed a real threat to the country's interests. Would you mind elaborating?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
