Another $87 Billion...
 

Dubya asks for more green, this time almost 1/5 of our current deficit, for the current fiscal year. 149 KIA since the cessetation of major operations, 131 prior. Didn't someone tell Messuir Bush that colonies are very expensive, and never work out the way the colonizers want them to?

Bush vows to defeat Iraq resistance

US President George W Bush has told the American people that Iraq is "now the central front" in a global war against terrorism, and vowed to bring security to the country.

"Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice," said Mr Bush in a televised address.

"Yet we will do whatever is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure."

Mr Bush said he had asked Congress for $87bn to fund the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and similar efforts in Afghanistan - a sum correspondents describe as huge, coming as it does amid growing public dissatisfaction at the US role in Iraq.

The president has been facing a barrage of domestic criticism following the deaths of dozens of US soldiers in guerrilla-style attacks in the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says the speech was aimed at bolstering public opinion in America amid accusations that Mr Bush has failed to devise or explain a workable post-war plan for Iraq.

'Questions unanswered'

Mr Bush insisted that his administration's strategy in Iraq had three objectives:

* "Destroying the terrorists"

* "Enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq"

* "And helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defence and their own future."

But opposition Democrats have said the speech failed to set out a course that will steer Iraq towards stability.

"Lets be clear - a 15-minute speech does not make up for 15 months of misleading the American people on why we should go to war against Iraq or 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction effort since we have been there," presidential hopeful Howard Dean said.

UN involvement

The Bush administration has come under pressure from opposition politicians to enlist the international community to help shoulder the burden of policing Iraq.

President Bush
Bush said the US had a proud history of rebuilding nations
Washington has now presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council under which it hopes to secure a multinational force for Iraq and boost UN involvement in the country's political future.

But the draft resolution has already been criticised by France, Germany and Russia - countries which also opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq - who complain it does not give the UN or the Iraqi people enough power.

Mr Bush said that he recognised not all of America's allies had supported the invasion, "yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties".

Referring to last month's devastating bomb attack on the UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital Baghdad, Mr Bush said: "Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilised world and opposing them must be the cause of the civilised world.

World Trade Center wreckage
The speech comes as Americans prepare to remember the anniversary of 11 September
"Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation."

However, Mr Bush gave assurances that the Iraqi people would also play a central role:

"They must rise to the responsibilities of a free people, and secure the blessings of their own liberty."

In the latest indication of the instability in Iraq, US forces in the central city of Najaf say Shia Muslim militias there must lay down their weapons or face being disarmed, by force if necessary.

The militias have seized control of the city in the wake of last month's massive car bombing which killed leading Shia cleric Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim and more than 100 others.

'Strategic goal'

Mr Bush said the recent string of deadly bombings in Iraq and ongoing attacks against US troops were designed to intimidate.

"There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilised world," he said.

The speech comes just days before the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington, in the aftermath of which Mr Bush announced the launch of a war on terrorism.

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places," Mr Bush said as he appealed for patience from the American people.

Ruling out any premature withdrawal from Iraq, Mr Bush warned that the Middle East could "either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3088772.stm

My favorite part is declaring its over, that stupid carrier incident, and now backtracking and asking the UN to help!

I can already see how other nations are laughing - "oops and now you come crawlin back" - the only one not laughing is the UK whose leader is in political shit.

What angers me the most are the missing weapons of mass destruction.

When Colin Powell made his speech at the UN outlining our 'knowledge' of Iraq's programs and stocks before the war- I for the most part believed him, along with I think most of America (except for that whole aluminium tube bit..).

But it has become clear that the threat of WMDs was no more than the 21st century's first Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Personally, I hope GWB is criticized in the same manner as LBJ eventually was in this regard. He needs to be held accountable for his lies, apart from the other merits of invasion.

Overall, the speach was lacking. He did not inspire or impress. The $87 million figure is ludicrous and insulting. Maybe I misunderstood him, but it seems as though that money is for reconstruction and intelligence and does not cover the everyday costs of the war. Current estimates are that we are spending 4 billion a month. If $66 billion is spent of reconstruction/ intelligence that leaves $21 billion for the day to day costs. That is only about five months. I realize we are trying to get money and troops from the U.N., but do we really think $21 billion will cover our costs? Maybe I am off base, does anyone have an answer?

I still find it hard to believe that people honestly think Saddam didn't have the weapons. The same dance happened in 98'. This was for the most part a PR war, all Saddam had to do (which he obviously did) was ship the weapons of the country and let the pressure mount on Bush, and hope for the best in a guerilla war. As it stands I will fully agree that Saddam was not a threat to National Security, at home or abroad. Saddam knew his place, he knew we were just waiting for him to fuck up.

Besides Bush didn't have to mislead anyone he had the authorization from congress LONG before he started making his case (If memory serves congress gave the green light months before bush went to the UN in o2').

"We must all make sacrifices" - except for the rich: tax cuts for them! And new subsidy packages for airlines, and farmers, and no-bid contracts for the VP's company.

But he did have to mislead in order to get the support of the American people since every poll leading up to the war showed that Americans wanted evidence before going to war.

I think $87b is just the tip of the iceberg. This is going to cost the US a lot of money and lives over the comming years.

This time, he's really, super-duper double dog serious. Don't make him call his Dad.

whether he did or didn't have to mislead anyone, it seems that he chose to...and that's what peeves me the most. we're waging an expensive, imperial war for what appears to be no payoff. yes, we're fighting terrorists in Iraq, but do we really need to be there for that fight? Would there be terroristic activity capable of harming american interests if it were not for our occupation there?

I would love $200 billion tax payer dollars to go after the person who tried to kill my dad.

I was watching syndication of The West Wing on Bravo, and they have "True Tales of the West Wing." One of their facts was that Kennedy, already a millionare, donated his entire salary to charity. How about if Bush, also a millionare, donates his salary to the deficit? While we're at it, why don't all of Bush's cabinet members who share that happy status take the $1 salary to prove they're serious about the country's welfare?

i saw this headline on yahoo "Monthly costs of Iraq, Afghan wars approach that of Vietnam" and it just amazed me.

Bush is nothing but a spoiled brat to whom nobody has said no when it comes to $.

I tend to agree with some posters that he WILL BE BACK to ask for more.

I really get a kick outta the child president running back to the UN with his tail between his legs. His original stance against the UN is finally going to f*ck him over - you don't often see poetic justice happen so sweetly in global politics.
And shame on all those Democrats who were scared to go up against him then and are jumping on the band wagon now. Right now the election year is looking pretty pathetic...

Yeah its pretty pathetic anyway you look at it.

Funny, lets cut taxes, oh wait i need tax money to fund this war, oh well wait money grows on trees.

I do enjoy the irony of the UN though - all those people crying how useless the UN is suddenly sees their "impeccable" leaders now literally begging other countries to accept it in the UN

It would cost a lot more in the future if the current problems are not taken care of. I prefer to pay some now than a lot later in money or blood of innocent lives.

Sure its been a tough fight in Iraq. Everyone knew it was going to be. Let all the terrorists come from other countries to fight us in Iraq. At least we know where they are now and we can take them out once and for all.

As for WMD's, I have not doubt of them being buried somewhere in the desert or in the elaborate complexes built by the regime. I saw a program over the weekend on the Discovery Channel showing some of the tunnels and bunkers Saddam built. He used Yugoslavian engineers to build them. The Yugoslavins built numerous complexes under ground during the WW II. There are whole cities underground connected to each other by tunnels. The tv crew went down into some of them with US soldiers. Sometimes you can walk right by another entrance to a new tunnel system without realizing it was there.

I have no doubt that Saddam is hiding in them. He probably goes from one set of tunnels to others. Eventually he will captured or killed like the rat he is.

The US should expect help from other countries. We are always helping in all the conflicts and disasters in the world. Maybe we should pull out our troops from Bosnia, Liberia, etc. Let other countries carry the burden.

Not entirely true Glad

Many people, including these board posters, always said the Iraq fight was going to be easy or it was going to be a cakewalk and laughed when the main fighting was declared over. Now the admin has to eat its own words.

The US doesn't expect helpe because it shunned the world oh so recently. The same people who said "fuck france and the UN its useless" because the gov't said so, now realize the government is basically BEGGING france and germany to vote in what the US wants and the US is right now revising its plans just to get the vote.

The other countries are probably laughing now, how the US was once high and mighty and now its literally crawling back. The only country not laughing would be Britain whose own leader has his own career in peril.

i agree...once started, i think that it is probably most wise to complete the task. but i have always held severe reservations as for the wisdom of beginning such as task with no multinational support...

I mean i know its gonna probably pass anyways becuase why would you bother deserting the troops or the people. I just hate it when irony bites back.. especially into everyones paycheck ;)

I am Canadian, and I am NOT laughing. Definitely not laughing, this is a very serious matter, and has the potential to become a very serious quagmire. The UN, including Canada should shut the fuck up and do the right thing. And that goes for America too. Enough of the bullshit and rhetoric and lets work together to get Iraq working again.

At some point you have to get the US and British armies the hell out there and replace them with UN peace keepers from several different nations. That may have to happen sooner rather than later.

This is a very unstable part of the world, even more unstable of late. Like it or not, the international community has to start acting like adults and the american administration has to start rethinking its current strategy of insulting and maligning anyone not american or British.

And yes, Tony Blair is on the hot seat, and the shit may just fly clear across the Atlantic.

I have to think that with an election coming up in one years time that the democrats are going to play their trump cards in about 4 to 6 months time.

Im sure there are allot of Iraqi's that like America and are glad we "liberated" them, but its my estimation that there is just as many that hate the US. The irony that pisses me off is the fact money is coming out of American paychecks to rebuild and aid a populus that would probably piss on America if they had the chance. Not to mention the potential of wealth the country holds.

Security is a nessesary and worthwhile venture to do anything, do you think that once this is all over and the Iraqi's are up and going they'll let us have free oil for awhile as a thank you.

How much of the 87 really, really, really large of taxpayer money is being funneled into Halliburton? Oh well, there goes my tax refund. Damn I hate corporate welfare!

Ha Ha - I'm glad I'm not American - you guys will be paying huge tax's for years to fund Bush's dream of ruling the world.

The part that makes me mad is, if you were to ask GW exactly what we're getting for that 87 billion and he will say "stability in the region". But check back a year from now and see what state Iraq is in, we're going to be right back where we started.

Then I start thinking of all the things we could do in this country with 87 billion, I really get pissed.

Amen brother!

Wasn't it Wolfowitz who said that we would pay for the reconstruction with oil revenue? And by oil revenue I guess he meant "American taxpayer money."

i suppose that's one form of oil based revenue...

87 Billion = roughly $350 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Of course not all pay taxes. Bush & Co. = bankrupt future for the U.S.A.

This whole thing has gotten out of hand because no one can remember that when you go to war, you're supposed to kill people. Not drop leaflets on them, as both Vietnam and this Middle Eastern "crisis" have shown us. Rebuilding is for when everyone is dead or has surrendered.

Anyway. Vote Libertarian, everybody.

Money well spent.
Now lets bitch about the new $400,000,000,000 (that's billion folks) entitlement program that no one wants. The prescription drug program. Yup the young pay for the old even if they can afford it. The 400B is just start up costs, and who ever heard of a government program getting smaller after it's up and running?

haha nice one

see theres a reason why my own family and myself used to vote for the traditionalist conservatives - the ones who keep gov't small - all they do now is just make it bigger and cost more taxes while cutting taxes yet leaving us in the red

Agree completely.

The more I think about the events and the claims made leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, the more it appears that Bush and Blair were not justified in taking military action. I wouldn't find it at all suprising if they were both tried for 'war crimes' and held responsible for crimes agasinst humanity.

wow, you really are well incorporated

Its pretty amazing that Bush even has the hide to ask the rest of the world to get involved in the mess that he hath wrought.

And a question for James. Why the hell should other UN members who opposed the conflict from the start be expected to in any way contribute personnel and equipment to what is quickly becoming a quagmire?

Because the other countries said they cared about Iraq and should help if they really mean it.


Glad

A friend of mine was an Iraqi embassador. He has a large house in Baghdad, and was living the good life abroad.

However, because of the uncertainty of working for Saddam, he decided to leave everything. He did this mainly for the safety of his children. He has been working elsewhere for years now.

When I asked him what he thought of the US going to war against Iraq, I was surprised that he was against it. Here, in my opinion, was someone who had a lot to gain by the ouster of Saddam, yet he though it was a very bad idea. He thought that the average US citizen has no idea of the hatred felt worldwide for the US government, and that the result of an invasion would be uncertain.