Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.


The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)


These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081226/u ... 9186836700

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld should be locked up for life for this debacle.

They censored/fired/laughed at those that predicted this. While MSM played along.

When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will." - Richard Perle, chairman of The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars." - Kenneth Pollack,former director for Persian Gulf affairs,National Security Council

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense

dbackjon wrote:The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.


The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)


These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081226/u ... 9186836700

What I hate more than anything here is...there's a nugget (very small nugget) of truth in the Bush quote from the Army War College...but Iraq was the wrong place to take the fight to the terrorists...

Bush started out OK with Afghanistan...but he wanted an excuse..anything...to go into Iraq...Read the writings of his little group of advisors going back to the mid-90's...

So, that nugget of truth was used as a grain of sand is used to start a pearl...only this pearl is butt-ugly...

Attacking Afganistan was absolutely the right thing to do. Iraq was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Question: Is that $1 trillion ADDITIONAL dollars? Or $1 trillion TOTAL for the military? Because there is a cost to just maintain a military as well...

AZGrizFan wrote:Question: Is that $1 trillion ADDITIONAL dollars? Or $1 trillion TOTAL for the military? Because there is a cost to just maintain a military as well...

$1 trillion extra...


Washington Post pegs the total cost at $3 trillion, when you add healthcare, etc.

dbackjon wrote:Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld should be locked up for life for this debacle.

They censored/fired/laughed at those that predicted this. While MSM played along.

I'm not sticking up for Bush when I say this but we should lock up most of of Congress too. They authorized it and they've been voting to continue funding it.

HI54UNI wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld should be locked up for life for this debacle.

They censored/fired/laughed at those that predicted this. While MSM played along.

I'm not sticking up for Bush when I say this but we should lock up most of of Congress too. They authorized it and they've been voting to continue funding it.

the authorization, absolutely - they did not vet the lies that Bush told.

One of the pickles that the Democrats found themselves in is if they voted against the war funding, they get labeled as anti-troop, and get hammered in the next election. No win situation.

dbackjon wrote:

HI54UNI wrote: I'm not sticking up for Bush when I say this but we should lock up most of of Congress too. They authorized it and they've been voting to continue funding it.

the authorization, absolutely - they did not vet the lies that Bush told.

One of the pickles that the Democrats found themselves in is if they voted against the war funding, they get labeled as anti-troop, and get hammered in the next election. No win situation.

That's the problem we have with all politicians. They are more worried about what is politically expedient instead of doing what is right.

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The news that President Bush's war on terror will soon have cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion - and counting - is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports - none by the Bush Administration - suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90 percent of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terror looks set to surpass the cost the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, to be topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.


The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistanor Iraq is about $775,000 - three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq)


These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts - not to mention the wounded - and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice, and the expenditure on the wars, has helped prevent a recurrence of 9/11. "We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again," he said last week at the Army War College. "So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081226/u ... 9186836700

What I hate more than anything here is...there's a nugget (very small nugget) of truth in the Bush quote from the Army War College...but Iraq was the wrong place to take the fight to the terrorists...

Bush started out OK with Afghanistan...but he wanted an excuse..anything...to go into Iraq...Read the writings of his little group of advisors going back to the mid-90's...

So, that nugget of truth was used as a grain of sand is used to start a pearl...only this pearl is butt-ugly...

Butt ugly and built on treason. Unfortunately the crowd that lied us into invading an oil-rich country that didn't attack us is above the law of our land and will spend the next few years happily counting their profits, which is what invading Iraq was all about.

There should be a Constitutional ammendment that whenever our so-called leaders decide to invade another country for any reason their kids must be in the first wave. Maybe then they'd put a little more thought into the right and wrong of the situation. Well, except Cheney. That filthy corksoaker would no doubt consider it a fair trade as long as Halliburton got some contracts out of it.