WAR: $45 Billion More For Iraq War

The House of Representatives passed a $409 billion Defense Bill on Monday, despite waning public support for the current war. The cost of the Iraq War now exceeds $300 billion. The Bill is a 'bridge fund' expected to cover Pentagon expenses until March of 2006, when more funds will be needed/voted on.



Ahhhh........money. What this is all about, isn't it?

Quoted from Source Story
House Republicans rebuffed an effort by Democrats to require Bush to submit a report to Congress on criteria that he will use to judge when U.S. troops can be withdrawn from Iraq.

There is no end in sight, and the Bush Administration isn't obligated to even make an estimate......despite many indications and circumstantial evidence to point towards the fact that he has lied to the American public. And the motivation seems clear........409 billion reasons clear.

Now, I'm not necassarily arguing the necessity of spending money in wartime. We do have troops overseas and they need to have what it takes to accomplish their goals as quickly as possible so that they can stay alive. What I am arguing is the perpetuation of a war that almost certainly is based on the allocations of an oil rich land.

This seemed to pass without much fanfare.......I think it is a big deal that we know how are money is being spent.......especially when we have a president with heavy oil interests..........

Related News Links:
www.warresisters.org

[edit on 21-6-2005 by MemoryShock]

Ok, my thoughts are that It would have been better just to give all the money spent on the Iraq to the Iraq People help increase their living standards and well being.. in return for them disarming and reducing their military, and getting Saddam to surrender his presidancy and just live his life of luxary.

Call me an idealist, but you know.. things may have been better that way. All we need is some trust and caring!

The main thing I find interesting about this is the title--any title that makes sense and rhymes gets a vote from me

Okay, seriously, the main thing that caught my eye is the last line in the preview:

Overall, the bill would fund $76.8 billion for Pentagon weapons purchases, up $171.5 million over Bush's request.

Just out of my own curiousity, how would that be best interpreted? That Bush isn't focused as much on weaponry as Congress is? What implications, if any, might that have?

Good question, Mcory1, but when talking billions, what is the difference of $171 million? It could pretty much be the difference of a single private contract granted by the pentagon........

Quoted from Source Story
While the White House backed the overall House bill, it complained that lawmakers trimmed $3 billion from the Pentagon's base operations excluding the wars, which it said could shortchange regular military operations.

Another interesting point - the Pentagon lost funding for it's basic expenses........how will that effect their capacity to perform their jobs? Of course, in an increasingly privatised military and security force.......DynCorp.....maybe the Pentagon and military at large can afford to incur less overhead in favor of the corporate involvement....which allows for a streamlining of many laws. Corporatoions can be exempt from international law due to the privacy clauses written into their contracts........genius......

Over 40 views and not a single no vote........hhhmmmm...this may be a case of watching what I wish for, but..........

A friendly reminder to please vote on submissions.......excerise your 'voice' in ATSNN!!!!

Thats the thing about war, when you start it, it can get expensive. Its a pathetic statement about the american public that it was for the war in very high numbers, but not for the war when it comes to actually doing something.

Agreed Wars are expensive, even more so when there is no reason to start them. The costliest mistakes are always those you could have avioded.

Ofcourse, couldn't they just revoke that Gitmo II thing, that has to save some serious coin right? And the Iraq thing is ending right?

No, the iraq qar won't end anytime soon, maybe when bush finally gets out, 2008? But why bother when another stupid republican will get in in 2008. Instead of helping iraqis, why doesn't our government help the impoverished in this country.

Simple, because they didn't vote for him...

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its a pathetic statement about the american public that it was for the war in very high numbers, but not for the war when it comes to actually doing something.

It is a pathetic reflection of the American populace, but wouldn't you think that the support of war prior to the onset is illustrative of the frenzy induced by 9/11? The waning support and predictable oppositions(of which I am) are also reflective of the realizations of what war really is and the lack of forethought.....not to mention that the many indications that have surfaced about the intelligence failures, etc......

But keep in mind, that the war is more than just expensive.......$300 billion on defense and more to come in March of 2006.........and we're calling them 'emergency funds'........sometimes I think that we have been at war for so much of our history that subsequent research's are in place merely to justify it in different ways to the public........what a waste......

To me this is just payback time for all those companies who will benefit from expenditure on war with Iraq, perhaps they donated a lot to get Bush in. Glad its not like that in Britain.

what, wars are free? what do you expect? untill its over money has to be spent.