WAR COST USA OVER $300,000,000,000.00

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050421/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_spending_7&printer=1 ^

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

The Senate moved toward approving $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday in a measure that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give President Bush much of the money he requested, but the chambers differ over what portion should go to military operations versus other assistance.

The legislation is the fifth emergency spending package Congress has passed for wars since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. It would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan — as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide — past $300 billion.

[maestro]

Drugs and oil should pay for it 100X over?

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

I'm not going to point out the logical fallacy in your position but do read Coburn's stand on the issue.

---

It’s not every day that a freshman senator takes on a president from his own party, his party’s Senate leadership and the powerful Appropriations Committee - and comes close to winning.

But that’s what happened Wednesday when Tom Coburn, R-Okla., tried to remove $486 million of the money in the Iraq war supplemental spending bill (HR 1268) for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The bill contains $592 million for construction of the embassy, but Coburn said Congress should provide just enough to start the project. The rest of the money, he said, should be considered later through the regular appropriations process.

Coburn is staunchly conservative and won a reputation as an instigator during three terms in the House. He contends that the appropriations process is seriously out of control.

The $81 billion supplemental represents many of the practices Coburn wants to prevent, especially the practice of using emergency spending bills to fund things that are not emergencies in order to create more room in the regular appropriations bills. “It ought to be designed for emergencies, true emergencies,” Coburn said.

Typically, taking on the leadership and the appropriations hierarchy does not win a lawmaker many friends. Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., an archetype “Old Bull” of the Senate, confidently asked senators to kill Coburn’s amendment.

But Coburn worked the floor, winning votes from conservatives, especially the junior ones. He even lobbied Democrats including Ron Wyden and won the Oregon senator’s vote. Eventually, Cochran made his own way to the front of the chamber to ensure that the unthinkable did not happen, and senior appropriators including Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., set about twisting arms.

At one point, Coburn appeared ahead. But in the end, the Senate tabled his amendment on a 54-45 vote. Domenici said he persuaded two Republicans to switch their votes, but said Coburn nearly pulled off an upset with support from the “ultra-right” and Democrats who hoped to hand President Bush a defeat.

Coburn had less success with two amendments to strike “pork barrel” projects from the spending package. He offered but withdrew an amendment to remove $10 million for flood damage at the University of Hawaii. And the Senate defeated on a voice vote an amendment targeting a provision championed by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., that would ensure that a Philadelphia-based company would benefit from $40 million in earlier appropriations to operate high-speed cargo vessels out of the Port of Philadelphia.

Coburn took care not to cast aspersions on his colleagues, and observed the usual senatorial courtesies. Still, he vowed to scrutinize every spending bill and report that comes to the floor during the appropriations process.

“There isn’t going to be an appropriations bill that I don’t go after,” Coburn vowed.

In that quest, Coburn will join self-styled “porkbuster” John McCain, R-Ariz., who has been doing the same, invariably futile, scrubbing of appropriations bills for years. “He did good,” McCain said Wednesday.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/

[ASTM36]

Daily oil sales from Iraqi oil wells are at $1 Billion per day. I wonder where this money is going?

[KevinDavis]

Yep...

[Billthedrill]

Well, which is it? $300 bil for the war or $300 bil for the war AND the reconstruction? The headline says the former, the body of the article the latter.

Let us not forget that we are not there for the good of the Iraqis - that's a nice side-effect that will, in the long run, be of greater benefit to our security than the primary objective of removing Saddam. It will also be more expensive. Bush and his administration have figured that the benefits will justify the expense. I happen to agree. If you don't, elect somebody else.

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

President Bush asked around two months ago for $82 million in emergency money for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the bill's hung up in the Senate where it's been described as a "Pandora's Box of pork."

Among the pet projects tucked into the bill so far:

* Sen Thad Cochran (R-MS) -- $35 million for a wastewater project in DeSoto County, Mississippi
* Sen Pete Domenici (R-NM) -- $40 million for three projects involving the National Nuclear Security Administration (with three sites in his home state)
* Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA) -- $34.3 million to repair national forest roads in California damaged by winter flooding, $11 million for water projects in southern California
* Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) -- $4 million for the Fire Sciences Academy in Elk, Nevada, $500,000 for a University of Reno oral history project
* Sen Conrad Burns (R-MT) -- $5 million for a Fort Peck, Montana fish hatchery
* Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) -- $42 million for a new aircraft hangar in his home state

[rdb3]

“What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” -Oscar Wilde

[Wiseghy]

We have successfully reordered the world and put organized terror on its heels. Now nearly all Middle East governments are supporting our war on terror, and the US is respected, if not "loved" by our previously false allies.

This entire policy was always driven by the distinct, very real and very imminent possibility of nuclear terror on our continent; never really from Iraq, but certainly from Al Quaida and its Saudi-Arab-Islamist allies. That possibility has now been VERY GREATLY DIMINISHED.

What price should we put on protecting our people from nuclear fire and the destruction of our nation and culture? $300 Billion seems like a real bargain.

[soccer_linux_mozilla]

How exactly will a fish hatchery in Montana going to make us safe from terrorism?

PORK is PORK!

[KevinDavis]

I agree... I think in the long run it is going to be better. Yes it is expensive but war is not cheap.

[vbmoneyspender]

I take it you think the Marshall Plan was a mistake as well?

[KevinDavis]

Well that is wrong..

[Hardastarboard]

OK, where's the headline shouting about the $10 trillion or so that socialism has cost in wasted giveaways to the "poor", and the drag on business and personal incomes caused by excessive taxation and regulation?

[sierrahome]

"Daily oil sales from Iraqi oil wells are at $1 Billion per day. I wonder where this money is going"

Is the really a question? Do you have an idea where it is going that you would share?

[tomkat]

Priceless :

[agarrett]

How is a price put on freedom?

  Please. Let's give the slogans a rest. It is always worth keeping track of the cost of our actions. If you don't know the cost, it's very hard to determine whether or not it really was worth it.

  At $300 billion... That's a lot - but people have been putting it into perspective. We can also break it down per capita - it's around $1,000 per person in the U.S. (a bit less, I believe). Is that worth it to us?

  Frankly, if the only result were freeing the Iraqis, I'd say no. Sorry, that is worth something to me - but I'm not that much of an altruist. Of course, that's not all it bought. We also overthrew Hussein, started some more democratization beyond Iraq, have at least impeded terrorists (how much is open to debate, but it's at least some, maybe a lot). Is that worth it to me?

  Yes.

  Given the vagaries of the terrorist-impeding, I'm not sure it's worth a lot more to me, though. Cutting and running would carry too many costs, and I would not favor that. But I would keep the cost in mind for future ventures.

  I'm glad we know the cost - it adds some facts to the debate.

Drew Garrett

[Thom Pain]

"lbj's war on poverty cost us $5 trillion."

Yes, but we LOST that one!

[Billthedrill]

Welcome to the real world. That's how things are proposed in Congress - let me know which version passes and when. That's when we'll know how much of it is pork.

[Paul_Denton]

Worth every cent!

[CyberAnt]

Does anybody know if this is the legislation which the democrats in the senate are using to amend the bill to hide the charges against all the CLINTON ADMIN PEOPLE ..??

If this amendment stays - and the President signs it - the report of all those high up Clinton people will remain hidden - WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

However, there is a House and Senate version which means they will have some joint committee who will attempt to converge the two bills - and I believe the House members will work hard to get rid of that amendment from the senate.

I believe the dems are counting on the President NOT being willing to veto the bill because of the amendment - but I'm no so sure.