The Cost of the War
 

Perhaps this should have been under "Cool Site of the Day" but those tend to be amusing and this one is not (or, at least, it's not supposed to be). The Cost of War site proports to display the running total of US dollars spent on our involvement in Iraq. I haven't read through their pages, but at least they tell you who they are and where they get their info. Their links page is interesting, too.

Personally, the two good things to come out of this war have been the public discussion of the appropriate US role in policing the rest of the world, and my otherwise non-involved mother's virulant anti-war stance and actions. Something about this war triggered a long-dormant activism that has been amazing to witness. She has transformed from "Vote? Oh I didn't have time . . ." to a one-woman crusade against this war. I wonder how many other ordinary, passive, middle age, middle class, middle Americans have been similarly affected? I guess we'll find out when we see some demographics on Dean supporters.

Good post 99. I found it most interesting to compare Bucks county with Philly.;)

How do her and Hubris get along? :)

Gingerly.

Clever. It makes an impression to see those digits roll by.
Its propaganda. Thats not the whole of costs. The real reason to engage or not should not be financial- there were (many types of) costs in not going to war too. Its way more complicated, but this site quantifies it for the home economist, particularly the recently down-sized one.

/Begin ramble/

I cannot trust, no matter how I try, that this administration knows best. With the past months of war angst, I have tried. I want to. It would be easier. But on the most basic level, the basic issues, my values conflict with that party line. I'm afraid of the precedent we've set. I don't see how it makes us stronger or safer. Now we are immersed in a guerrilla war. Would I like to see every evil dictator and misogynstic fundamentalist Islamic group wiped from the earth and replaced with freedom and peace? yes. Can or should that be accomplished solely by the US military or any military? no. We need some allied support and diplomacy. Y'all love to hate it, but we need a UN. Can a UN with teeth ever be built? Can there ever be functional international law? I need a drink.

Count me as a middle American liberal for Dean.

YAY!

Disclaimer: Not necessarily a Dean fan, just pleased that middle-American liberals still exist. Whether to better the world, or just to kick around on talk radio, I think we need 'em, and would hate to see them become extinct.

*cough!* *wheeze...* *hack!* (wipes nose, pushes up glasses, meekly smiles and waves to America)

*a single middle American waves back*

Today we hear that Bush's citing the now false Iraq and African uranium connection based on forged documents, was an honest intellegence error, not a manipulation of the truth to attempt to bolster wobbly justification. (there was plenty of other stuff, we really didnt even need to say that) OK.

And the President covering up a blowjob got everyone in a ruffle!?

The fact that it was about a blowjob isn't the point, as I'm guessing you well know. It's the difference between lying under oath, for which his attorney license was temporarily revoked, and drawing incorrect (although tenuous) subjective conclusions about intelligence information.

I would like some other folks' input on what the non-monetary costs of the Iraq war will be.
Some ideas:
-1a)decreased political clout in the world due to unilateral action (the Coalition of the Willing is a bunch of horseshit)
or
-1b)increased political clout because everyone is afraid of the US coming and jumping up and down on 'evil-doers' heads (again, unilaterally)
-2a)increased tension between the West and the Middle East as a result of us sticking our noses in where it isn't wanted
-2b)increased cooperation between the West and Middle East because the US is willing to stick our guns in someone else's nose

Just a couple of thoughts rattling around in the old brain that I'd like solidified a bit (even if it's only the arguments for each). Any ideas?

Another difference is that one is a BIG courtroom lie about a private sex act and the other is a teeny lie, or even a teeny oversite of known intellegence,..that supported a very public decision which has impacted the lives of BILLIONS of people.

Is Clinton stupid for not just saying "Yeah, Me and Mon, we got it on." Yes.

Is Bush stupid for not ensuring, checking at every level that the FACTS used in a State the Union Address to the American people, to JUSTIFY WAR were solid and the most recent knowlege? (he is ultimately in charge, right? This should have been given top priority, I mean I know he has a lot on his plate, but the fact checkers should be on the job, right?) Yes. And further, did the factual report of Iraq actively seeking uranium from Africa really matter to the case of war, really bolster the arguement for self defense and the need for preemptive measures, YES thats why it was included.

So although they are very different forms and content of Presidential misinformation, its interesting to guage the various levels of outrage or forgiveness from the public. So what I was saying was that factual mistakes in a State of the Union address designed to sway opinion strike me as a bigger deal. Strategery.

I think our political clout has not decreased. In fact, it seems that we now have the attention of Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia in that they are now actively persuing and arresting terrorist organizations and shutting down their funding. Iran isn't calling us the Great Satan, even though I'm sure they still believe we are. Syria has closed offices that actively collected monetary donations for Hamas. And the Saudi's are actually detaining extremists. Now as for the Coalition of the Willing, you obviosly have a strong opinion, and my opinion is contrary, and as they say, opinions are like assholes, but I will also opine that your's needs a wiping. Hee Hee. :p

I'm sure Hitler probably didn't want us to stick our noses where he didn't want. Doesn't mean it was unjustified or wrong. I sure it has strong influence now that we have batallions and battleships at their doorstep. It's kind of like the cops parking out front of a crack house. There will still be folks doing crack, they'll just be reeaall careful now, and more likely to bet busted. Are we over there to bust the extremists? Sure, to some degree. But I'm also real uneasy with the predicament we are in. But I also believe the price of inaction was far greater than the price of action. It was proven that said states have given monetary support to extemists, how long before they began giving arms, or bio/chem weapons? A question I'd rather not wait for an answer to.

My knowledge of this subject surpasses my ablility to reguritate it. But I can give my nickle's worth.


GBA

DNK

Now that I've done some reading on it, the Niger document nonsense is just that, a load of utter nonsense in one direction, and very intriguing in another.

Bush's SOTU statement:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

To the very point of Bush's statement, what do the Brits think? Well, they still insist that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, based on intelligence other than the infamous forged Niger document.

So did the President lie? Nope. Did Hussein seek uranium from Africa? I don't know. And neither does CNN.

Is it a reasonable suspicion? SURE. Hussein DID buy uranium from Niger in the 80s. Hussein DID have a nuclear weapons program that he WAS hoping to reconstitute after the heat was off.

Now follow this... this whole bit of news comes out of the White House! The Niger document was exposed months ago, before the war. Why did the White House bring the story back up - during a slow news period? They knew that the regular suspects would report it. They should have known the media would foam at the mouth, CBS would make it their lead and CNN would talk about it all day. Even Fox reported it ad infinitum. Is this all political maneuvering of some sort?

Bush wouldn't lead us all on to complain about his mistakes and then pull the rug out from under everyone, would he? It couldn't be, because Bush is dumb, right?

It's really hard to predict the future, and I want to take 'splice's open-ended question and run with it. Instead, I predict that ALL of the open-ended questions that exist right now will be miraculously solved by election season. WMDs will be found in abundance. The entire nuclear story will be clarified.

I could be wrong, who knows, but it's a fun game to play... the only thing at stake is all of history.

They timed and very carefully included the info to help get what they needed, taking that risk, that any fallout could be managed later. Sounds like Powell got a bit crossed in the middle of it.

I'll stay tuned to see Rove spike the next ball. I'm skeptical that it will be roses, I'm thinking the election tactic may run the other way. Bush will surely be reelected in the midst of a even heightened climate and campaign of crippling fear. Who would dare change? Who would dare question?