on Iraq Archives War
on Iraq [Home]
Cost of Wars a Staggering HALF-TRILLION U.S. Taxpayer Dollars
(Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, December 15, 2005)
The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars. . . . Reps. Bill Young, R-Fla., the chairman of the House appropriations defense panel, and John Murtha, D-Pa., the senior Democrat on that subcommittee, say the military has informally told them it wants $80 billion to $100 billion in a war-spending package that the White House is expected to send Congress next year. . . . That would be in addition to $50 billion Congress is about to give the Pentagon before lawmakers adjourn for the year for operations in Iraq for the beginning of 2006. . . . Military commanders expect that pot to last [ONLY] through May. . . . Murtha mentioned the $100 billion figure last week to reporters, saying, "Twenty years it's going to take to settle this thing. . . . The American people are not going to put up with it, can't afford it."
[NOTE: On March 27, 2003, Bush Crime Family member, Paul Wolfowitz made the following statement (under oath?) to Congress: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people . . . and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.
Of course, Wolfowitz was either lying or incompetentent nit. Now he is in charge of the World Bank! The moral of this story is that the more incompetent a person is, the higher position they will be appointed to by our Benevolent, but incompetent, Dictator.
Iraqi Oil Will Pay For This . . . that's what the Bush Gang told you. Why does anyone believe these people?
. . . Read more!
posted by Lorenzo 9:47 AM
Pentagon Hiding True Number of American Casualties in Iraq
(Mark Benjamin, www.salon.com, 10 December 2005)
Pentagon casualty reports show only a sliver of the injuries, mostly physical ones from bombs or bullets. But war doesn't work like that, the Democrats declare, adding that the reports skip a horrible panoply of accidents, illness, disease and mental trauma. . . . "We are concerned that that the figures that were released to the public by your administration do not accurately represent the true toll that this war has taken on the American people," the group wrote Bush on Dec. 7. The Dems are right. . . . Pentagon casualty reports show 2,390 service members dead from Iraq and Afghanistan and over 16,000 wounded. By far the vast majority of the wounded and dead are from Iraq. . . . But by Dec. 8, 2005, the military had evacuated another 25,289 service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs, according to the U.S. Transportation Command. That statistic includes everything from serious injuries in Humvee wrecks or other accidents to more routine illnesses that could be unrelated to field battles. . . . Yet those service members are not included in the Pentagon's casualty reports. That's odd. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a casualty as "a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment or capture or through being missing in action." . . . In their letter to Bush, the Democrats cite a November 2004 "60 Minutes" segment (to which I contributed), which featured "badly injured soldiers who were upset by their being excluded from the official count, even though they were, in one soldier's words, 'in hostile territory.'" Democrats assert that counting casualties sustained only from bombs and bullets "does not represent the entire picture of American lives affected by the war." . . . As the war goes on, that picture is becoming more painfully clear. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides soldiers with medical care after leaving the military. An October V.A. report shows that 119,247 service members who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan - and are now off duty - are receiving health care from the V.A. Presumably, some of those health problems are unrelated to the war. . . . But the statistics seem to show that a lot of those health problems are war-related. For example, nearly 37,000 have mental disorders, including nearly 16,000 who have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. Over 46,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan receiving benefits from the V.A. have musculoskeletal problems. These are all veterans who within the last four years were considered by the military to be mentally and physically fit enough to fight. . . . In their letter, the seven Democrats assert that the entire picture of casualties coming out of the Department of Defense is distorted. But the letter concludes that one thing is clear: "What we can be certain of is that at least tens of thousands of young men and women have been physically or psychologically damaged for life."
. . . Read more!
posted by Lorenzo 2:22 PM