Happy anniversary everyone! I can't believe it's been five years already but look at how much has been Mission Accomplished. Gosh, how we were able to get through the day without being boots down in Iraq, I'll never know.
Among all the other happy financial news of late it was certainly delightful to read that Bush's initial cost estimates for the Iraq War have turned out to be just one-tenth of the actual cost.
Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.
Two trillion (and that's just money, lets not forget all of the people who have died or are now wounded for life). That is fan-tas-tic! Absolutely brilliant. I mean, how did we get so lucky to have such great leadership? God bless America?! OMG it's so, so true.
Now, I could be wrong here but if the CEO of any company in the world was to run costs through the roof like this he'd be kicked out on his ass and no one would think twice about it.
You would think that after one year we would have been unsettled enough to kick Shrub out on his head, but after five years? We should all be ashamed of ourselves.
Now, are we having cake for this anniversary or maybe someone brought cup cakes?
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
The magnitude of the transgression against every ideal of good government absolutely astounds... renders me nearly speechless. This comment on Slashdot gives a very interesting perspective on the situation (as does the Douglas Adams-quoted response).
I wonder, though I wasn't alive for Vietnam, why we don't see the same outrage as there was at that time? It's deeply disturbing, top to bottom.
What's another 1 or 2 trillion dollars to the already 9 trillion national debt?
> I wonder, though I wasn't alive for Vietnam, why we don't see the same outrage as there was at that time?
Sorry, I don't have time to reply because Dr Phil is about to come on TV. Maybe I'll get back to this after Entertainment Tonight. Crap. American Idol is also on tonight.
Maybe we can talk tomorrow.
Oh no, I can't stop it here it comes...
THE CAKE IS A LIE!
I am ashamed.
Why aren't you out shopping and visiting America's great destination spots? If you admit we're still in Iraq, the Terrists have won!
Many CEOs today actually do run their corporations' costs through the roof while driving stock prices into the ground and they aren't tossed out so much as given a golden parachute in the hundreds of millions on their way out the door.
I understand that Americans have busy lives and don't necessarily want to dwell on issues that don't immediately or directly affect them, but if you keep voting against your own interests or worse, refuse to vote at all, you need to just look in the mirror to see whom you can blame for your state of affairs.
Harsh but true?
Mr. Bush has lived in a bubble of privilege all his life, with little contact with the real world. His decision making has been similarly marked by smug ignorance of fact and an inability to listen to opinions that are at odds with his own. In this way he is the epitome of the imperious (and ultimately ineffective) CEO. This man is a disgrace to this country and himself and should be tried as a war criminal.
About 11-22%, Stephen. Which is kind of the problem.
I'm making a note here HUGE sucess!
> Many CEOs today actually do run their corporations' costs through the roof while driving stock prices into the ground and they aren't tossed out so much as given a golden parachute in the hundreds of millions on their way out the door.
Sure but not to the tune of two-trillion dollars. At that point sixty-billion looks like pocket change.
> This man is a disgrace to this country and himself and should be tried as a war criminal.
Maybe we can have Client 9's lady friend go visit him in the hallway next to the Oval Office...that worked really well the last time we impeached a President.
>Maybe we can have Client 9's lady friend go visit him in the hallway next to the Oval Office...that worked really well the last time we impeached a President.
I'd chip in a couple of bucks. Anyone got Ashley Alexandra Dupre's cell number?
All of this can be explained through one very absurd rationality. We live in a society (specifically the States, not Earth as a whole) where we find anything related to sex significantly more offensive than violence and death. Combine that with a leader and followers who are even more lenient on the seriousness of violence as long as its purpose is attributed to a higher moral power and you have mass approval of doing stupid things. Except for violent videogames...those are as evil as a monkey brandishing a knife.
I'm sure you can fill in the blanks with where I'm going with this.
Alexander,
Life is the reason. The Iraq war, as financially disastrous as it has been, has had relatively low violence and mortality rate (when compared to Vietnam). Take this into account:
> One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served
WOW guys! Where is the band-wagon to jump on??? And please do tell. What would have been your solution? OH, I see. Easier to blame someone than to come up with another solution!
And I don't even completely agree with what is going on in Iraq.
Just hate people pointing fingers saying, "Your wrong, your wrong!" And thinking that is a solution of itself!
It is like voting for someone one who says we need "change", without even knowing what kind of "change" we may get?
> Just hate people pointing fingers saying, "Your wrong, your wrong!" And thinking that is a solution of itself!
No, the solution would be taking Bush out behind the shed and whacking him upside the head real good and then flying him to Gitmo.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
> It is like voting for someone one who says we need "change", without even knowing what kind of "change" we may get?
Lulz. I assume you're talking about Obama.
Maybe if you paid a bit more attention to what the guy talks about you'd know - instead of repeating weak stuff you hear from other people.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ - Enjoy.
>It is like voting for someone one who says we need "change", without even knowing what kind of "change" we may get?
You mean change like...
National Healthcare - yes, it's expensive. But almost all of our major allies have it and we look like idiots for letting children die every year because their parents can't afford healthcare.
Or maybe you meant change like...reducing carbon emissions? If the environment isn't your thing (who really needs clean air?) then maybe net neutrality is important to you? Obama is the only guy who has come out and said he supports complete net neutrality. And if you like money, maybe you'll enjoy that Obama wants to help the middle class, not his rich buddies.
"Change" doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Good...great. I love hearing and seeing the ideas discussed.
At this point on both sides all we see/read about are the .5% idiots that spout out garbage. But boy does the third estate love them. Because we all know.. "If it BLEEDS, it leads!"
And if more people see both sides talking about issues. Life would be grand. But every news clip I see, is whichever candidate saying, " WE need change, and I am the one to bring it!"
And hoping for national healthcare is like wishing for world peace! Not in this Utopia.
Guess who wants to join in the festivities...
> Good...great. I love hearing and seeing the ideas discussed.
Yes, isn't it nice. Fancy a scone?
> And if more people see both sides talking about issues. Life would be grand.
Yes, because a focus group discussing how great it is that we can call a focus group to discuss about a need for a focus group to discuss the focus groups "group focus" .. is the obvious and best answer.
Lets all have a nice tea and some scones and talk about how we don't need change, whilst young men and woman from a number of countries lay down their lives in yet another meaningless skirmish, in a pointless war Heir Bush states has already been won.
More cake, anyone?
> I wonder, though I wasn't alive for Vietnam, why we don't see the same outrage as there was at that time?
It's called "the Draft" -- if Iraq was sucking up sons (and daughters) of middle America against their will and sending them home in bags or without appendages then you'd see outrage. The gov't realized at that point that a conscripted military was going to be a problem and made the adjustments necessary. Now military families -- with their own communities and own culture -- largely suffer in silence. I was 12 when the Vietnam war ended. Everyone knew someone that had been killed, wounded, or who had fled to Canada or the Peace Corps. If your family wasn't personally touched, you knew someone's who was. *That* is where outrage comes from. Things hitting home.
General Sherman was right, "War is hell." Unfortunately a hell far far away in a country we can't find on a map isn't so bad. Besides, there are some cool sequals coming out this summer.
Good point Tom D. The North American majority is fairly dislocated from national as well as international issues until those issues have serious, inconvenient, or dire consequences. That's a bad way to live.
God bless America? oh yeah and you had better hope His pockets are full of gold coins to loan America...
( just a wee bit of cake for me and an espresso )
Let them Eat Cake indeed.
there's so much more to add, but Jon Daily Show roasted him a good one last night (as always).
I'm so embarassed.
I am, however, pleased to mouseover among commenters of such calibre. Keep it coming!
But that money isn't simply being lost: it's being recycled back into the American defense sector, the "military-industrial complex" as Eisenhower dubbed it, which is closely tied to the high-tech sector. And ultimately, assuming we do manage to wrangle Iraq into a client state, U.S.-based oil companies will be able to tightly control resources from Iraq while shutting out the Iraqi population from profit-sharing. That's the obvious goal, after all: economic colonialism.
Plus whoever's pockets are being lined in Iraq's new government, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and our other military/economic allies.
I think it's evil, but that's where the money is going. If you're part of any of those groups, you think the occupation is going great.
I agree, people in other countries wonder how Bush has managed to stay on for so long. Remember that the United States is a democracy and Bush was elected by the people, not once but twice...