Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
OpEdNews Op Eds

$25 billion is 2 months in Iraq.

By       Message winston     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

The GOP had such righteous indignation when they were confronted with the truth that Cheney still received a salary from Halliburton at the time of the rollout of the Iraq War. They were happy for the extra money that the top 1% was getting when they deregulated the banking and finance industries. They gleefully shredded needed regulations from the subprime mortgages market. It was obvious that the borrowers had no chance of meeting these loans and when this scam for the top 1%'s gain ran rampant it was obvious that a crisis was in our future. Back in 2000 many sources were warning that Bush was planning on destroying the social welfare network and have huge deficits. Who could expect us to believe that the GOP ghouls never realized that in addition to that big bro 43 would destroy our economy by starting a war without raising taxes? No other US president has done so as US presidents have always asked the US citizens to share the pain of a war by raising taxes for the war in order that the price of the war does not cause deficits.


The Sadrists have the right idea. They hanged big bro 43 in effigy. Our dear apathetic red state common masses, God bless their souls, contributed to the 46% that McCain received against Obama. They voted against their own self interests because they were allured to the GOP whose racist, fear mongering propaganda has changed little throughout the ages. "Tricky Dick" had the domino theory. Big bro 43 had "GWOT". Teflon Ronnie ran up record deficits until the son of the man-bush 41, who derided Reagan's "Voodoo economics" dwarfed Ronnie's deficits and imperiled our-and also the world's economy.

Who, other than the top 1% could have voted against their own children-who are the IED fodder in Iraq and whose income and health care benefits have drastically eroded? These people you have to pity. They are being to their own demise and as are placid as those most apathetic sheep.

A September 11, 2003 BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW at

click here

had Paul Krugman, New York Times Columnist and Author of "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century" stating ""Well, a couple of things. The first is that a good part of the media are essentially part of the machine. If you work for any Murdoch publication or network, or if you work for the Rev. Moon's empire, you're really not a journalist in the way that we used to think. You're basically just part of a propaganda machine. And that's a pretty large segment of the media.
As for the rest, certainly being critical at the level I've been critical - basically saying that these guys are lying, even if it's staring you in the face - is a very unpleasant experience. You get a lot of heat from people who should be on your side, because they accuse you of being shrill, which is everybody's favorite word for me. And you become a personal target."
His book is, as the article continues "unforgiving in his exposure of the insidious financial incompetence and calculated deception of the current administration. Because of his academic background, he has the heft to back up his trenchant perspective with the "bonafides."

Paul Krugman, as well as other have been predicting that big bro 43 would ruin our economy almost from the very beginning of this lazy lout's term as the article continues "There is no economic policy. That's really important to say. The general modus operandi of the Bushies is that they don't make policies to deal with problems. They use problems to justify things they wanted to do anyway. So there is no policy to deal with the lack of jobs. There really isn't even a policy to deal with terrorism. It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do.
Now if you ask what do the people who keep pushing for one tax cut after another want to accomplish, the answer is they are basically aiming to create a fiscal crisis which will provide the environment in which they can basically eliminate the welfare state."

W's vile crew was intent on destroying the bottom 99% as the article continues "So there is a coalition, but there's no question that if you ask what do the core ideologues want, the answer is they want to roll it all back. If you looked at what the Heritage Foundation says, they use the terms "New Deal" and "Great Society" as essentially curse words. Everything Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson did to provide a little bit of a cushion for Americans having bad luck is a bad thing, from their point of view."

Krugman thinks that the US main stream media is culpable as the article continues "As for the media, I guess the point is that not very many people understand this stuff. And those who do - the idea of saying, "My god, these guys are looting the country" - that's uncool. It's not what you want to do. Right now there's a column in the latest Newsweek entitled, "The Brainteaser of Deficit Math," which basically confirms everything I've been saying all along, that this is wildly irresponsible and it's actually unsustainable. But the tone is kind of distant and cool. I don't know whether he actually doesn't feel any outrage, or just feels he shouldn't do that."

Reagan tried to destroy the social service network by reducing taxes and using a majority of the revenue raised by taxes on the military, but his tax cuts were rescinded. Remember 41 vowing "Read my lips-no more taxes" only to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. Well, only an empty-headed stooge such as W could consider having two wars without raising taxes.

The article continues "Other people in the party, and other people in the coalition, have deluded themselves into thinking that somehow this is all going to be painless, and we're going to grow our way out of the deficit. Other people really don't care about any of that and are viewing their alliance with these people as a way to achieve their social goals - basically roll back the revolution in social mores over the past few decades....
I think that with the looming disasters of the budget on foreign policy - and the things that really scare me, which I know we're not going to get into but let's just mention the erosion of civil liberties at home - I think that, in retrospect, this will be seen in terms of how did the country head over this cliff. I hope I'm wrong. If there's regime change in 2004, and the new man actually manages to steer us away from the disasters I see in front of us, then we'll probably be talking a lot about the long boom that was begun during the Clinton years, and how it was resilient, even to an episode of incredibly bad management.
But I don't think that's the way it's going to play out, to be honest. Whatever happens in the election, I think that we've done an extraordinary amount of damage in the last three years."
Krugman predicted that the economic impact of Iraq would increase as the article continues "Well, there are levels and levels. I think Iraq is going to cost us $100 billion a year for the indefinite future. Now at one level, you can say, well, that's only about 20 percent of our budget deficit, and it's only about 5 percent of the federal budget. But on the other hand, it's being added onto a very nasty situation."

In the recent election one of Obama's main points was when he was elected that the US would use money we have frittered away on Iraqi reconstruction-which had no audit trail and was therefore nothing other than a huge economic redistribution to W's top 1% chums in the Halliburtons and Blackwaters of the world, into reconstruction of the faltering US infrastructure. The sheer idiocy of building any project-all projects were blown up repeatedly by Iraqi sectarian violence, epitomizes W's incompetence.

How much did W funnel to non-military top 1% chums in Iraq?

The August 12, 2008 article "Report: Spending On Contracts In Iraq Nears $100B" at

click here


states "By the end of this year, the United States will have spent an estimated $100 billion on military contractors in Iraq since the war began in 2003, according to a government report released Tuesday.
The report also says the ratio of contractors to U.S. military personnel there
is higher than in any other conflict in American history."


Instead of throwing our money in Iraq by redistributing huge amounts of our less well off citizens to military and reconstruction cronies in Iraq Obama plans to help our middle and lower classes. He'll accomplish both stimulating the economy and rebuilding our infrastructure by helping the bottom 99% of the US populace. People need employment to have a future and any moron knows that--any dolt with a conscience, which excludes all of this current crew of GOP cretins from big bro 43 to Paulson, who only bailed out his blue-blooded chums in the banking and financing industries.

Remember SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt? He was the first of the foxes guarding the henhouse. He had to recuse himself from the Enron investigation because he was culpable for their crimes. A few years from now Paulson and 43 will be part of the investigation of throwing $290 billion for their top 1% cronies who failed in their banking and financing industries. They won't be able to recuse themselves from the investigations, but they will offer up subordinates to take the fall as Reagan did with Ollie North. Let's hope we don't allow them to get away with transparent dodge.


The November 22, 2008 article "Obama economic plan aims for 2.5M new jobs by 2011" at

click here




states "President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars.
Obama said "These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis. These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long.
We must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again.
There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better.
People are lying awake at night wondering if next week's paycheck will cover next month's bills," if their jobs will remain, if their retirement savings will disappear."

Just as Paul Krugman stated the big bro 43 has all been all half-truths, Orwellian doublespeak. Big bro 43 always has relied on what he originally labeled as "the everlasting war against terrorism"! I say initially because the label has changed frequently, which means that the names changed to protect the guilty.

We have to forget that al-queda wasn't in Iraq until after "Operation Iraqi Freedom"-which only freed ½ a trillion dollars from the US budget which is a drop in the bucket when you consider the lost US military personnel's lives as well as the innocent Iraqi collateral damage casualties. W said that Iraq was the central front in the fight against terrorism in order that he could fulfill his holy quest as defender of the US, but that hasn't been the case for years. Now we are still in the middle of sectarian violence.


W always chortled that the US would not leave Iraq until the situation on the ground warranted that action. He has gone back on this pledge also-of course without admitting it to our red staters.

The article "Bush Reversal on Iraq Deadline Gives Obama Breathing Room" at


click here

clearly describes the reversal of big bro 43 as "By agreeing to a fixed deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, President Bush contradicted years of promises that he would never agree to anything but a "conditions-based" plan for phasing out the American military role there. But he may also have given President-elect Barack Obama more flexibility in fulfilling his campaign promise to bring the troops home.
Obama pledged during the campaign to withdraw the remaining U.S. combat troops in 16 months, at roughly the rate of one combat brigade a month. The plan tentatively approved in Baghdad yesterday would essentially give Obama until the end of 2011 to pull out all U.S. forces, while also putting the imprimatur of the Bush administration on the idea that there needs to be an ironclad deadline for troop removal."

The big bro 43 propagandists are getting lazy as their stooge's term expires. Usually their double-talk is astonishingly discipline, but as the article continues "Bush administration officials acknowledged yesterday that the timetable laid out in the final agreement is not what the president wanted originally but said that they could go along with it because of a decline in violence in Iraq in the past year. "The security considerations on the ground have improved so much and the Iraqi security forces have improved so much that you can now set a date and be comfortable with it," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe."

That improvement of conditions in Iraq is illusory. When the US stops paying the Sunnis to stop killing the US and other Iraqis the deceptive, temporary lull of violence will end. Also, not all Shiites are happy either. The Shiites have since the Ottoman been openly warring against the Sunni and are a proud who therefore hate the US occupier. We can understand that. We hated the British occupier. If only are red staters could have learned something from their down-trodden, abused Iraqi brethren then McCain's Orwellian misinformation would have netted him solely the top 1% vote-the only chosen who benefit from GOP policies.


The article "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" at

click here

states "Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.
The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement."
If the Sadrists wanted to play up the irony angle even more they could have had a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind W's dummy they were torching. You know if they had someone as skilled as Herr Karl that would have been the case but, as the article continues "The Bush figure carried a cardboard briefcase bearing the slogan: "the pact of subservience and shame." Demonstrators knocked over the figure and burned it, a cloud of smoke rising over the tightly packed crowd as Iraqi soldiers and police watched attentively from rooftops and watchtowers."

Yes, W is loved for bringing democracy to the Middle East and soon we'll be victorious in the "1984" Eurasia and/or Eastasia or is it big bro 43's Iraq where we already have "Mission Accomplished".

The red staters have forgotten, but as the article continues "Sadr's Mahdi Army militia battled U.S. troops following the invasion, but over the last several months, its fighters have largely observed a unilateral cease-fire imposed by the cleric. He has threatened to reactivate the militia if the accord passes."

Remember how McCain railed about Obama appeasement with the terrorists? Big bro 43 has even gone back on the pledge to not negotiate with them as the article "Karzai Makes Offer to Taliban -- Afghan Promises To Protect Leader If He Negotiates" at

click here


states "As international pressure mounts for negotiations with insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that he would guarantee the security of Taliban chief Mohammad Omar if he decides to enter into talks.
Striking a defiant tone, Karzai said during a news conference in the Afghan capital that if the Taliban leader agreed to negotiate a peace settlement with Karzai's government, he would resist demands from the international community to hand over Omar to U.S. authorities.
"As for Mullah Omar and his associates, if I hear from him that he is willing to come to Afghanistan or to negotiate for peace and for liberty so that our children will not be killed anymore, I as the president of Afghanistan will go to any length to provide him security," Karzai said.
"If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices: Remove me or leave," he added."

Karzai is a US stooge echoing Rove's lies--Besides as the article continues "
With violence hitting new highs as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan enters its eighth year, U.S. and NATO officials have recently indicated increasing support for talks with Islamist insurgents as one way to rein in fighting across the country."

Petraeus has been mumbling we have to deal with moderates while cleaving out the irreconciables. The problem is that one man's irreconciables is another's terrorist and when Herr Karl will spin these facts into the reality he wants to shape once again. We've had enough of this as the takeover of the GOP owned oligarchy in the recent election indicates.

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.