digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Republicans call for withdrawal of 'hidden cost of wars' report

rawstory.com — Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KN) and Rep. James Saxon (R-NJ) are calling on Democrats to retract a staff report alleging the hidden costs of the Iraq war could total more than $1.5 trillion. The Republicans called the report "another thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as academic research."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • treehugger87, on 11/15/2007, -11/+185"another thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as academic research" or in plainer terms "facts."
    • rnwen2750, on 11/15/2007, -6/+95As we all know, facts have a well known liberal bias.
      • Bleue, on 11/15/2007, -4/+9Only because conservatives chose to ignore them. Conservatives and neo-cons have chosen fist pounding, emotional manipulation and grandstanding as the basis for their powerbase, liberals like to use logic and facts (selected facts of course, just because conservatives ignore them doesn't mean facts can't occasionally support them). I wouldn't call one way superior to the other, they just happen to be wildly different ways to convince people of your righteousness.

        But don't complain when facts and logic make fist pounding and emotional play seem silly, this is a natural side effect of pushing the game much too far, when the party itself buys it's own hubris, this is the grave the conservatives have dug for themselves and now they must lie in it.
        • TheHydrogens, on 11/15/2007, -18/+10Sorry, but I have to call *****. Liberals use just as much emotion in their BS. If you don't support their programs, apparently you hate sick/poor/young/black/mexican/old people. Conservatives on the other hand use fear. Take your pick of which evil you want, I'm voting for somebody else.
          • notque, on 11/15/2007, -2/+161. Democrats are not liberals.
            2. If you are for wage slavery, you are wrong, and the lower class suffers because of it. I don't care who you hate, you are certainly selfish though.
          • p0s3r, on 11/15/2007, -12/+3Conservatives use fear? Have you seen the global warming end of the earth hysteria the warm mongers drone on and on about?
          • williamdyer, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2You might have my sympathy re calling ***** - except for the track record of fearmongering by the administration on top of a war that is costing upwards of 20 times original estimates. Nevermind that it is an illegal war of aggression.

            Bush has wrecked the Republican party by his crimes and incompetence, to the point where a canard like "conservatives use emotion while liberals use facts" is actually true for all practical purposes.
        • myotive, on 11/15/2007, -0/+15I love how the US has become a pandemic of 'Liberal' this and 'Conservative' that; petty party jargon that never amounts to anything...
          • notque, on 11/15/2007, -2/+14Democrats are not Liberal, Republicans are not Conservative.

            They both take words of things they aren't to hide the fact they are a business party. It's propaganda, and continuing to use it perpetuates it.
          • spawnfree, on 11/15/2007, -2/+7its just good-cop bad-cop tactics.
            they both work for the same economic forces after all.
    • Klepto21, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1AMEN.
  • mightydavefish, on 11/15/2007, -12/+74WTF do the republicans use their heads for?
    We as a nation have already spent BILLIONS on gas. The price has doubled since the Iraq invasion. The rising petroleum costs drive up prices across the board.
    Figures the GOP would try to deny that. In right wing world 2+2=7.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/15/2007, -9/+3Its not really the price that is going up its the value of the dollar going down.
      • benvd, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5.... wow... you did your research eh(SARCASM) ?
        its both..... oil reaches record breaking prices every week..... and the American dollar is bellow parity with Canada...
        its sad you breathe
        • spyd3rweb, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1I never said the price didn't go up I said thats not all of it.
        • hydrodev, on 11/15/2007, -5/+2YES YOU DID YOU ***** RETARD! And i quote "Its not really the price that is going up its the value of the dollar going down."
          care to tell me again that you didnt say that?
          • Godlike, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3It's both and more.
          • notque, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7You need to step away from the computer, take a few deep breathes, and ask yourself why you are so angry.
          • wakananda, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3I'm not too cheerful about the decline of the dollar - I'm paid in that currency...
    • Tippis, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6Or, in this case, 2+2=2.5, tops! Honest!
      • kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1But only for very low values of 2.
    • DangerCollie, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3"WTF do the republicans use their heads for?"
      ROFL! Talk about a loaded question. And it would depend on whether you're talking about Larry Craig or Rush Limbaugh.
    • diggingaround, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3
      You didn't read the memo?

      The morons in the White House have send our troops in Iraq not to open the oil spigot but to close it down!

    • Identity4, on 11/15/2007, -1/+32+2= Whatever I say it is, damnit! And anybody who disagrees is a koolaid drinking liberal who just wants to make me look bad! MWaaaaaah
    • Felekar, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Republicans use their heads for all the hot air that comes out of their mouth whenever they open it of course!
  • fredjoe, on 11/15/2007, -11/+22Of course they want it withdrawn, it should how bad they are at counting money. Of course, Dems are just as bad.
    • sieteRevueltas, on 11/15/2007, -2/+0I wouldn't want to be an american tax payer right now - Anyone remember the cost projection for 2010 in a recent article? $8000 for every american as far as i remember.
    • localzuk, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4And just think - that money could have been spent teaching people the difference between words such as 'should' and 'showed'...
    • nphase, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1What happened to the gold old days where Republicans were misers?
    • prisoner24601, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1You're right that both sides are pathetic at basic math. A few weeks ago they ALL agreed (democrats, republicans, congress, the president, liberals, conservatives) to increase our federal debt from 8.9 trillion dollars to 9.8 trillion dollars.

      They increased our debt load by almost a full TRILLION dollars in just ONE act of congress (approved by the president) so I'm stunned at their absolute cluelessness over how they are rushing us to bankruptcy.
  • martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -49/+71.5 TRILLION? Raw story's tryin to shoot the moon again...
    • Bodhinature, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6Its not Raw Story that's getting that estimate. Its only the messenger.
      • hmunkey, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1You're right, but use "it's" since "it's" is a contraction.
  • dayalsoap, on 11/15/2007, -63/+8You liberals believe anything the liberal media tells you. If you read more conservative news, you'd probably 2nd guess half of the liberal garbage you believe. I see so much liberal babble on here, it's absurd.

    There's a certain level of moderation that people need, and to be honest, you guys are purely one sided.
    1 sidedness will ruin the country.

    Good job though, at being uneducated.
    • Bleue, on 11/15/2007, -2/+34hmm, let's see if this works too:

      ...You conservatives believe anything the conservative media tells you. If you read more liberal news, you'd probably 2nd guess half of the conservative garbage you believe. I see so much conservative babble on here, it's absurd.

      There's a certain level of moderation that people need, and to be honest, you guys are purely one sided.
      1 sidedness will ruin the country.

      Good job though, at being uneducated. ...

      Goly! That looks just as right! Now as a liberal I tend to think that conservative press is biased, unconcerned with truth and in love with their own hubris (viz fox news). But isn't that exactly how a two sided debate works? We are convinced of our righteousness, you of yours, we are immediately skeptical of opposing argument, as are you. An opposing view is not one sided simply because it opposes your view. This is probably the most infuriating position of all, and one which doesn't seem to die. This everyone should agree with me and those who don't are stupid philosophy is causing more eye injury (due to over rolling) than any other cause.
    • Godlike, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11"You liberals believe anything the liberal media tells you."

      Uh... that'd be the replitards... "They hate us because of our freedom" would be a prime example of that *****. At least this has some sort of factual basis even if the opinion is slightly skewed, and stands in stark contrast to the bold rhetoric the republican party spews with no factual basis.
    • azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8Another drone set for obfuscate with no reference to the actual elements of the story in his refute, what a surprise. Back to the cockslaps @ Protest warrior clown *****
    • licnyc, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8Forget it, whatever you think doesn't matter. People like you have been wrong for the last 7 years. Bush was a incompetent and the war turned into a total disaster exactly like what the liberals said. I am not reading whatever you are reading- its been totally wrong.
    • SolitaireRose, on 11/15/2007, -2/+21I've noticed that when Republicans have no facts, they blame the messenger.

      Fact - The Office that came up with that figure is equally staffed with Republicans and Democrats
      Fact - The Office used standard accounting principles
      Fact - The Office included interest payments as the money for the war is off budget and borrowed, so interest would have to be paid on that borrowed money
      Fact - The White House's spokesman Paul Wolfowitz said that the war would cost the US $1.5 billion at most

      Reality has a liberal bias. That's why conservatives must create their own.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -1/+8If you were TRYING to be hilarious, you succeded.
      In your appeal for moderation, you use the term "liberal" 4 times, and suggest that people listen to conservative sources. Guess what? Most people are MODERATE and if most people are against the war, and BUSH, then those are Moderates that you are white washing with the term liberal.
      But maybe you believed that the Moral Majority was both, when it was neither. If you believe in something enough, then it will be true for you. You might be ***** crazy, but it will be true for you...
    • anillop, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Well as they say "Reality has a liberal bias".
    • dayalsoap, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1The war isn't that bad right now. If you'd read some conservative news, you'd find tons of success stories. Notice how the number of deaths has decreased drastically, along with sectarian violence.

      Like I said: you can't expect to know the truth reading only 1 side.
      • vinny, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1I don't believe anyone has denied that violence is down in the last month or so. Of course, that has nothing to do with the story. You are using a common tactic of changing the argument. The story is about how much the war is costing, so what is your point? The reduction in violence has not decreased the cost has it? Regardless of your current opinion on the war, you certainly can't deny that the cost has far exceeded (both in lives and money) anything the administration wanted us to believe. Questioning of the government by its citizens is essential to a democracy. I assume you agree?
  • SeethisPass, on 11/15/2007, -8/+56Another thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as republican leadership
    • LukasSmith, on 11/15/2007, -3/+0Man these democrats are fanatics. Die hard to the end. Complaining about Republican leadership when Democrat leadership is a joke. The democrats nominees for president are even more of a joke. I mean seriously first it was Gore, then Kerry, and now Billary proving once again the democrat party is a failure. Not one of them is more quality then Bush and any democrat who believes otherwise is dilluded. But considering all they read is rawstory.com im not suprised. Rawstory.com is the Fox News of Democrats. How can I tell? Every article is surrounded by democrat ads. Damn I wonder if rawstory.com could be biased. hmmm.
  • jdevilz, on 11/15/2007, -6/+17i call it wasted money from my pockets
    • ncrep, on 11/15/2007, -11/+2guess what, its not the republicans trying to spend all that money. it is your great democratically controlled congress that was supposed to turn this country around just a year ago
    • bsmang, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9A lot more than just 'wasted'... If someone dumps a bag of sugar into your car's gas tank, do you suggest that they wasted sugar?
  • PeppermintPig, on 11/15/2007, -7/+31Whether these figures are true or not doesn't really matter to me given the outrageous VISIBLE costs of this war, from the hundreds of billions we KNOW have been spent, to the death and disfigurement of those caught up in it.

    If you really need MORE evidence to prove Bush is bad news, I don't know what to say to you. Maybe I'd care more if it weren't for the fact that it's business as usual in Washington. I mean, I care, but this isn't exactly news. The Democrats are still pussies and Bush is still a dick.
    • 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/15/2007, -3/+11The Democrats are still pussies and Bush is still a dick.

      But it's the people who get *****.
  • sciencefanatic, on 11/15/2007, -8/+45Have you ever noticed that when the facts just underscore the ineptitude of the Bush Administration, the true believers always call it "liberal bias"? Sad, really.
    • dan222555, on 11/15/2007, -13/+3How do you know what the facts are? Have you read the senators' report and totaled up the numbers? You're just assuming that what they say is fact because rawstory.com believes it's fact. Talk about ignorance.
    • dancallahan, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, "Facts have a well-known liberal bias."
      • p0s3r, on 11/15/2007, -5/+3Well, thats all the proof I needed. Cuz, if facts have a well-known liberal bias, then this story, which is full of liberal bias, must be factual! QED
    • LukasSmith, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1Have you ever noticed when a Republican questions something he is dugg down But when liberals democrats and libertarians question something they get like 1000 diggs? Id say digg.com is pretty biased mostly since republicans typically have better things to do then spend all thier time creating vast conspiracy theories on digg.com. Obviously Republicans are smart enough to realize digg.com isnt changing the world. Yes the truth hurts.
      • dan222555, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1That is true. I asked legitimate questions and got dugg down for no apparent reason.
  • DiggOrNotToDigg, on 11/15/2007, -6/+14Lets just hide the cost of war. People wouldn't find out
  • minox, on 11/15/2007, -16/+1They're really giving us a raw story!
  • Treoinmypocket, on 11/15/2007, -22/+10The Republicans have a point - not that the "costs" aren't real but, it isn't any different than any other war. There are lots of hidden costs - always.

    So honestly, what is the point of this. Pointing out the obvious? Trying to get an advantage on Repubs? Trying to swing public opinion towards "get out now!"?

    Just seems like politicians being politicians again.
    • niczar, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15How insightful of yours, pointing out that politicians do politics for political gain. You're so smart, you've gotta be a ***** republican.
      Anyway, this kind of report is exactly what Congress is supposed to do: provide oversight and accountability to the government.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15The point is that poor leadership by the Republicans has cost the nation more than a trillion dollars. Yes, it's political. That's not a bad thing.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 11/15/2007, -7/+2@ niczar & chicofaraby -

      My point is only that this isn't anything new and certainly not the exclusive province of a particular party. Are you really surprised by this info? Did you REALLY not know this already?

      Pick a war - any war and you'll find the same thing. WWII? WWI? Vietnam? Korea?

      Politicians are poor managers.
      • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11Sounds like a great argument for not starting fake wars that cost real money to me.

        Frankly, the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion of Iraq, so this is the Republicans war. This time it's their fault. Yes, that is political. But it's still accurate.
        • p0s3r, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Close.
          House votes broke down as 81 Yeas to 126 Nays.
          Senate votes broke down as 29 Yeas to 21 Nays.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3It is an undeniable fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against H. J. Res. 114. This illegal invasion was caused by the Republicans.
          • p0s3r, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2Sorry for the confusion. I posted the Democratic votes on the resolution.
            Only in the House was there a Dem majority against the authorization.
            In the Senate there was a clear Dem majority FOR the authorization.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Yep, 110 Democrats in Congress voted for the illegal invasion, 147 voted against it. Which proves my point that a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion. This is the Republican's fake war and it cost the USA over a trillion dollars.

            Thanks for posting the numbers that proved my point.
          • p0s3r, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2Nice spin, but wholly untruthful.
            A majority of Senate Democrats voted for the authorization. FACT.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2"wholly untruthful"

            I'm sorry, but YOU posted the numbers proving that I'm right.
          • Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

            p0s3r: Now you're just cherrypicking the boundaries even when they still will not support the implied "Democrats equally complicit" meme.

            I'd be curious to know the disposition of Senate Democrats who voted for/against the AUMF that have been replaced in intervening elections.

            Also, you may have fun reading the AUMF's requirements of the President, and how what he actually submitted, riddled with circular reasoning rather than evidence.
            http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ju0ksQmp-4kJ:w ...
        • Treoinmypocket, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2That still doesn't answer the question of what the purpose of this motion by the Democrats serves. Kennedy illegally invaded Cuba and started the Vietnam War. The costs of both were horrendous. FDR dragged the US into WWII and the cost was immense. Both Democrats.

          So what? It is obvious to anyone but a buffoon that wars have real costs - hidden or otherwise. What are the Democrats trying to accomplish by stating the obvious?

          It is mere election politics. Painting this or any other war with a partisan brush is a distraction from the important things and just makes you a pawn of one party or the other.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5The difference between what FDR and JFK did and the Republican debacle in Iraq is this; the Iraq disaster is current and on-going. It can be ended now. Vietnam and WW2 are history. They are done and gone.

            Yes this is politics. So what? The illegal invasion of Iraq was political. The fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the illegal invasion draws a clear, partisan line through the issue. It IS a political issue, though I completely understand why the right wing wants to take the politics out of it. No one blames the right wing for wanting this to be non-political. It's a political disaster for the party that caused it.
      • FatherVic, on 11/15/2007, -5/+2Apparrently, these numbskulls are too wrapped up in their "if you don't think like me then I hate you" world to see that you do agree with them and that the article has truth. What you did wrong was call all politicians corrupt and as we all know, Democrats are all just multiple re-incarnations of Jesus Christ. So, even though you agree with them on the crux of the article, they still hate you. Interesting...
    • Amnesia10, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Yes but the electorate still have a right to know. If this shows the Republican party to be inept at running a country then that really is self inflicted. Historians are already talking terms of is this the worst president ever! Only time will tell how bad his legacy to the US is. Whether it be environmental damage to the country or the fact that the US is now the most hated country in the world. Even your bridge players needed to disassociate themselves from your countries actions. Americans who travel are now describing themselves as Canadians when abroad to stop the abuse. The problem is that while the country is not reforming the economy to be society be more efficient then the problems left for future Americans will be even greater. While $100 a barrel hurts us in Europe and Japan it hurts Americans a whole lot more. Eventually all that debt that Bush has been piling up will need to be paid back and that is when the real pain for Americans starts. China already owns $1.5 Trillion of use debt. If they refused to accept that debt where do you think America will fund it?
    • bicyclethief, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Knowing the true cost of war (at least in terms of money-- forget the lives) helps us evaluate the war or future wars. That seems invaluable to me.

      Sure, the Dems are probably doing it for political reasons. But it doesn't make the truth any less valuable.
    • Scottamus, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2You don't think there's any point to knowing the war we are in is costing over a trillion dollars? A trillion dollars would be a lot more useful in building a better america than a bombed out iraq.
    • kreneskyp, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1ya because we wouldn't want the real costs told, just some other incomplete number that sounds better. Maybe we should start leaving out other costs out of the official number. With enough changes i bet we can get the cost of the war down to zero. Sure we'll then be paying for things like "desert rebeautification", "iraqi community building", and "Troop protection services" but those sound so much nicer than paying for a "war"

      standard republican bull. redefine and rename anything that doesn't support their views and goals.
    • vinny, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1You are mistaken, not all wars are poorly mismanaged and cost so much. Excusing this as just standard operating procedure is incredibly naive on your part. Just look at the last Gulf war (one I served in) and you will find that it was funded mostly by our allies. A strange concept these days I know.
  • RCourtney, on 11/15/2007, -1/+16"All wars involve costs, and the war on terror is no exception."

    Okay, now that I got the one upfront, unveiled, true thing that these two said out of the way...

    Questions that these jokers need to be asked include:
    "Are you saying it won't cost anything to provide healthcare to the wounded veterans over the long haul, or are you just trying to say that since it's a cost that will be taken on by another generation and not by you means it's not an issue of importance?"

    "Does this mean wounded veterans can expect no help from Republicans, in terms of healthcare, for the life which they partially sacraficed for this war of your's?"

    "If the answer to both of those is no, then wouldn't you consider trying to divert attention from the fact that it will actually add to the over all cost to be a more 'thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole' than actually planning for the real costs?"
  • ratherbeinvegas, on 11/15/2007, -1/+12Its not surprising. CYA is not just a corporate thing. If some people start doing the math and figuring ...
    Hmmm.. lets say instead we had spent that much additional money on schools. You could pay about a million teachers, at an average of 50k over 30 years. How would you like to explain that to your constituents? Just easier to block it and claim its not reliable.
  • synthpop, on 11/15/2007, -2/+30if only the Republicans fought the real terrorists the same way they fight the truth...
    • BrokenBokken, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3You mean by throwing hissy fits and breaking the law?
  • renkai, on 11/15/2007, -3/+20Why does anyone with half a brain still vote Republican
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9Actually, the GOP is the perfect party for people with only half a brain.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5Conservatism is great, but the GOP is NOT conservative by any means anymore.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Conservative has lost all meaning, as has liberal. Constitutional Conservative? Which means something totally different that Social Conservative, or Fiscal Conservative, or Status Quo Conservative.
    • computerfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3No, only people who care about the sanctity of life and their personal relationship with God vote republican. A half brain is just a requisite for such silly beliefs.
      • Chunken, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0And by sanctity of life you are talking about unborn American humans right? The Republicans sure don't care about Arab humans that are already born. They've killed what a million of them in the last 6 years? If I voted republican I wouldn't be feeling too good about my relationship with god right now.
    • 12Bo, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6Read history about the Republican ideology and you will know why some (very few) strong republican people still vote republican even though their beloved party is misrepresented and ass raped by the corrupt, selfish, money hungry, close minded ass hats that are currently exploiting it today.

      Wait for it........
      Wait for it........
      Wait for it........

      VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!
  • Bhatch514, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Just me reading this news related to the war is costing my company hundreds.
  • AaronS2000, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4The Republicans challenging this should do their own research and see what figures they will see as the total cost of the Iraq War. I'll assure them that it was much more than the measly 50 billion or less that was stated during the war pitch.
  • 5xSTUN, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14Or as Homer Simpson puts it, "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that even remotely true."
  • singlegirlgeek, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Is it Jan, 2009 yet? I'll be so happy when we can start making progress and get Bushler out of office.
    • dmsean, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1why? you gonna vote for the other puppet on the left rather then the puppet on the right?
  • stanleyford, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5I see some comments stating that the Republicans are trying to suppress "facts" or fight the "truth." My question: how do you know that what the Democrats are saying is factual and truthful, while what the Republicans are saying is non-factual or untruthful? I'm serious, so please don't just digg me down because you don't like what I'm asking. When you use the words "facts" and "truth," you make a strong assertion that you _know_ what you are saying is right. So my question to those who accuse the Republicans or suppressing "facts" or fighting "truth": how do you _know_ that the hidden cost of the Iraq war till total 1.5 trillion rather than some lesser number? I am willing to be convinced by any argument which shows me hard numbers which prove that the Democrats are telling the truth while the Republicans are lying; otherwise, I think you have to concede that both sides are just expressing their opinions, and neither has a monopoly on the truth.
    • Omega697, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10Well, given that we're _in_ this war in the first place, we can't really give the Republicans a whole lot of credit on the truth, now can we?
    • k8lvin, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4How do we know, common sense. THe hundreds of billions that have been allocated so far are only for current costs for the war. There will obviously be additional requests for funding in the future. Add to that and reasonable estimate for the cost of future medical care for all the injured troops and it's easy to see a trillion dollar plus cost.

      Does it really matter if it's 1 trillion or 1.5 trillion at this point? THe fact is that we've borrowed more than we can afford to fight an ill conceived war.
      • stanleyford, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3So where are the numbers? Saying that one side has the "facts" and is telling the "truth" is to make a strong statement about the correctness of that side's claims and must be backed up by correspondingly strong proof. I agree that what you say is common sense, but where I come from, common sense isn't proof enough to call those who disagree with you liars, which is what some comments have implied the Republicans are.

        Of course it's impossible to accurately gauge all future costs, so I'm willing to settle for an argument that shows that it is strongly statistically probable that the hidden costs of the war will meet or exceed 1.5 trillion, while showing that it is strongly statistically improbable that the hidden costs will be less than that amount. Once shown this evidence, I will agree that the Democrats have the facts and are telling the truth and will condemn the Republicans for suppressing the facts and denying the truth. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that both sides are merely expressing their opinions and will continue to assert that it is improper to claim a monopoly on the truth without proof to back it up.
    • OrigamiRonin, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3I don't trust either side and quite frankly I feel the whole left/right thing is ridiculous. I don't particularly "know" that either sides' argument can be taken as solid fact. They each have their positions that they are defending, and they will make estimates based on the way they want to see things. I think my answer at this point would be: When one of the two parties involved has such a track record of twisting or suppressing the truth in the last few years, why should I believe them THIS time?
    • dayalsoap, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1That's what I was trying to say in my post that got dugg down 50+ times.

      The reason they THINK THEY KNOW they're right is because they watch ONLY 1 side of the story. They think because their news source is pointing out the lies of the opposite side, that their side is better and more righteous. It's just not true.
    • vinny, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1The Democrats didn't write the report. You are implying that they did. The report is bipartisian. Not to mention that it is mostly common sense. This has been a common tactic the last 6 years, to shoot the messenger instead of debating the substance. I don't just accept everything I'm told, I question it, and you should to. I find this report credible. Why don't you?
  • ncrep, on 11/15/2007, -17/+2The Dems proposed a huge bill full of pork barrel spending, that was an astronomical price. The funny thing is that none of those cost were related to the war. They are looking out for number one and NOBODY else.

    Take that your liberal ***** suckers!! Quit trying to politically spin every bit of information,let people here the unbiased facts, and figure it out for themselves.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -3/+13So you would rather spend our money killing innocents in Iraq than repairing infrastucture in the USA? Well, we'll all get to vote on those priorities in November of 2008. Good luck.
      • ncrep, on 11/15/2007, -9/+2Have you every heard of the silent majority. If not you will know exactly what I am talking about by November of 08
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10Yeah, I was around for that liar Nixon who coined that silly-assed phrase. He was wrong, remember?
        • delafere, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6Is that how you lost congress in spite the the recent spike in voter irregularities? Or are you referring to Diebold v3.0?
      • stanleyford, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2"So you would rather spend our money killing innocents in Iraq than repairing infrastucture in the USA? " -- I'd rather the government did neither, and let us spend our own money as we choose.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2What we need is more Hippie Museums.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Let's face it... Dem's and Repubs BOTH suck ass and both sides waste billions of dollars of our money. That said, if the money is going to be spent, I would rather see it wasted here in the States instead of flushing it down to the toilet in Iraq. At least there is some potential for good results with it being spent here. Blowing it all on a pointless war that has solved nothing and has caused the deaths of countless people continues to get us nowhere.
    • millyuns, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Liberal ***** suckers? Oh please, go practice your conservative "wide stance".
    • Scottamus, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Hell, I'd rather ted stevens throw money away on a road to nowhere than have it wasted it on killing iraqis.
    • vinny, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1You do realize that every spending bill has to be signed by the President, right? You also realize that Republicans have had a majority the past six years, right? It's interesting how you can make spending the fault of the Democrats. Could you explain it? Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. At the very least you must blame both parties.
  • Obliviously, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1If the war makes a significant contribution to creating a safer world, as the Bush administration claims it will, then I think the cost is acceptable. If it accomplishes nothing of value, as the majority of Americans seem to believe, then it is a colossal waste of money.
  • COinOR, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4umm, bury me for being an ass, but AFAIK there's no such abbreviation as "KN" for american states. sam brownback is from Kansas...which is abbreviated as "KS". seems like a pretty sloppy mistake, imo
    • Godlike, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1What, you haven't ever heard of Kanadiansas?
  • computerfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Is that 1.5 trillion in 2007 dollars? Cuz, keep in mind, since 2001 the dollar has lost about 35% value, and considering real inflation (how things like gas and food have gotten more expensive) 1.5 trillion now is only like 1.1 trillion a few years ago. C'mon Democrats, this is clearly liberal bias masquerading as news, 1.5 trillion my ass, 'em dollars grow more worthless by the day!
    • RonBurgundy76, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Funding this war is one of the reasons that the dollar continues to dwindle.
  • dupswapdrop, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2I have decided not to pay my taxes till the war is over, come get me and put me in jail.
    • hydrodev, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1You already are. They come out of your pay check.They get it before you ever had it.
    • dupswapdrop, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2No I am self employed! The tax man only screws me once a year.
    • apollo168, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Don't you mean the tax man comes and screws you four times a year? The self-employed have to pay quarterly tax estimates...
    • dupswapdrop, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Yes but I claim 34 dependents so I get it all back. You should checkout that old movie "blue collar"
  • frobozz0, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6Another thinly veiled attempt by republicans to ignore the will of the people and continue a war without merit.

    I wonder which is worse?
  • jydesign, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Those taxpayer costs are actually business revenues for some, that's why it's called War Profiteering and not War Debt-building.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -7/+1Sounds like the Party Vested in Defeat is playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Sounds like another attempt to call names instead of admitting that the Republican's illegal invasion cost us trillions of dollars.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3You're a dumbass, sir.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1What I think is dumb is declaring the surge a failure before it has even started, then refusing to admit you were wrong once it does succeed.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Why do you believe that the "surge" was successful? 2007 has seen more Americans killed than any other year since the illegal invasion began. By what metrics has the latest escalation been successful?
        • Kythas, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2The "surge" is a success because al-Qaida has been rooted out of Baghdad, al Anbar province, the most deadly province to Coalition troops just 1 year ago, has been pacified and al-Qaida has been kicked out of there, and al-Qaida is on its heels and is being rooted out of almost all provinces in Iraq. Violence is down considerably since the summer.
          I even have a friend who is in Iraq and, when asked by his wife what he wanted for Christmas, said "Some insurgents to kill. There aren't any left". I'd say that's progress when a soldier who's there is seeing almost no combat. He's on his second tour, btw, and can see the difference between his first tour and now.
          As for the numbers of casualties, D-Day, June 6, 1944, was one of the deadliest days for Allied troops, but would you say it was a success? Iwo Jima was one of the deadliest battles in the Pacific, but was it a success?
          People who have worn the uniform know what the true cost of war is and it's not measured in dollars. So for all of you sitting safe in your chairs and criticizing the people who keep you safe in this world, I say pick up a gun and stand sentry or stand aside and keep quiet. Your opinion holds no value to me and my brothers.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Hey, Rambo, no one in Iraq is keeping America safe. Iraq never threatened the USA. Remember? You can't "defend" America from a country that never attacked America.

          BTW, WW2 was a real war.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071115/wl_mideast_af ...
          US says Iraq attacks down as Iran stems arms flow

          General James Simmons, a deputy corps commander, said that 1,560 IED (improvised explosive device) "events" had been recorded in October compared to 3,239 in March.

          "There has been a decrease every month during that time," Simmons told a press conference in Baghdad, adding that the October figure was the lowest since September 2005.
        • Kythas, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1So this isn't a real war? Wow, I had no idea. I guess the bullets and bombs are fake and the dead and wounded are made up in Hollywood.
          And I'm no Rambo. I served my country and did my job, no more, no less. I'm simply making the distinction that those of us who have been there and done that know a little bit more about it than those of you who only read about it on Daily Kos or see it on Jon Stewart.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7094285.s ...
          Baghdad voices: Improved security

          SAADI, DOCTOR, AL-YARMOUK HOSPITAL, BAGHDAD
          We used to receive about 10-15 injuries and five to 10 bodies overnight - caused by bombs or bullets. The numbers have dropped to about two or three injuries a night and maybe just one body - or none.

          SHIREEN, KHADRA DISTRICT, BAGHDAD
          Things have changed: There are fewer bombings and more shops are open.

          NOOR, KARRADA DISTRICT, BAGHDAD
          The situation is better: less bombing, better shopping and people are able to travel more safely. Some of the streets which were previously closed because of bombings and insecurity are open again.

          MURTADA, GREEN ZONE, BAGHDAD
          It has been getting better over the last three months, but for the past three weeks or more things have actually been quiet. So, the bomb came as a surprise.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are real. It's the pretext for the illegal invasion that was not real, as we all now know. WW2 didn't need fake WMD claims. It was a real war where the USA was actually attacked and was genuinely threatened. Again, Iraq never threatened the USA and never attacked the USA.

          And no, the fact that you went and sat around in a military base doesn't mean you are more qualified to judge the appropriateness of wasting trillions of our money. Sorry, but us Jon Stewart watchers are footing the bill so we get to voice our opinions.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Hmm, so according to the US military's spokespeople and some anecdotes in the media....

          OK. You can believe that if you want, no skin off my nose.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1I'll stick with my "anecdotes", you can keep your Rawstory.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Yeah, and the earth is 6000 years old.....
  • hydrodev, on 11/15/2007, -2/+10Everyone that thinks that there are only two types; liberals and conservatives, Who also spout off that only liberals and conservative could agree or disagree with their particular opinions, should be exiled. SHUT THE ***** UP , YOU ARE IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF HUMANITY, WITH YOUR ONE SIDED, NARROW VISION AND STUPIDITY. THINK FOR YOUR ***** SELF.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2I keep seeing this type of comment on Digg and I don't really understand it. Are you saying that if I consider myself to be "liberal" and I am opposed to ideas that I consider to be "conservative," my opinions are wrong and should be suppressed? Or are you saying that because I consider "liberal" and "conservative" to represent two opposite sides of the American political debate that I am wrong and should be suppressed? Or are you saying that by choosing a side I am excluding other people's views and THAT should be suppressed? Or are you simply tired of political debates in general?
      • hydrodev, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3no I'm tired of people immediately referring to someone who has a different perspective than they do, the opposite of what they think of themselves. I hate it when there is no reference to co conservative or liberal in any particular topic, and some jack ass immediately responding to something they do not agree with , with the default YOU LIBS THIS or YOU NEOCONS THAT. It is ignorant, childish and stinks of ***** one sided thinking, which has no place in a balanced political system. Like this guy below.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Well, I can see your point, but on the subject at hand, support of or opposition to the invasion of Iraq HAS generally fallen into the broadly defined political definition of "liberal" or "conservative," with liberals generally opposed and conservatives generally in favor. Sure there are exceptions and no rule is perfect on this, but come on, really this is a fairly sharply divided subject. Do bomb throwers take it too far? Yes, but that is the political climate of the USA since at least 1980. That said, I agree that we could change the bitterness of the debate by simply being more civil. I fully admit that I could try to be less mean in my comments. I probably won't, but I could.

          Thanks for the civil response to my sincere question about your comment.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1"I keep seeing this type of comment on Digg and I don't really understand it. Are you saying that if I consider myself to be "liberal" and I am opposed to ideas that I consider to be "conservative," my opinions are wrong and should be suppressed? WRONG Or are you saying that because I consider "liberal" and "conservative" to represent two opposite sides of the American political debate that I am wrong and should be suppressed? WRONG Or are you saying that by choosing a side I am excluding other people's views and THAT should be suppressed? WRONG Or are you simply tired of political debates in general?" WRONG

        We need to not be on "a team" that is fighting "the other team". That and most people are moderate anyway. We need to not be fooled by the false choice of left VS right when (to coin the phrase) they are both wings of the same bird.

        Both parties are supporting the system which is ultimately run by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve and those who support it, want people to have the illusion of choice. By paying a Federal Income Tax, we are truly slaves, but we are self-maintaining slaves. We live in servitude. And in case you didn't know, the Federal Income Tax does not go to pay for any services or benefits that you or I will ever see.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I don't think that the characterization of the Democrats as "left" or the Republicans as "right" is valid. They are four seperate things that occasionally intersect in various ways.

          And the anti tax thing is simply ridiculous. We have a government because we need a government. Our taxes pay for the government. It's not "slavery." You can leave the USA anytime you want.
  • gthrank, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7The war cost equates to $20,900 per U.S. family. Do YOU feel that your family has received $20,900 worth of "security" from Bush's wars?
    • RonBurgundy76, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Actually, a lot of us apparently feel less safe now. Since that is the case, perhaps we should all demand that Bush pays us back instead...
      I would accept his head on a pike on the White House lawn as acceptable, however.
      • Kythas, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Wow. What a peaceful solution that is.
        • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3It's called accountability. Our elected public servants will never do the will of the people if they feel untouchable and unaccountable.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4I have zero fear of a terrorist attack. I do, however, have fear of what our country has become in the name of fighting terrorism. Bastille Day is coming.
    • URnotheonly1, on 11/15/2007, -4/+120k ain't *****. If thats all it cost, then I'm in
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Then get out your check book and write the 20K check. The vast majority of US citizens cannot. That would be the point here.
        • URnotheonly1, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Write checks for that amount plus every year.
  • dank123, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5In other words, republicans don't want you to know how much of YOUR money they are wasting on genocide and imperialistic fascism. The amount that each family has been robbed of ($20,000+) becuase of these personal wars of aggression, could pay off my college loans. 1.5 trillion dollars could end world hunger and educate everyone for over a decade. maybe i should repeat that. THE AMOUNT WE SPEND ON WAR COULD FEED AND EDUCATE THOSE IN NEED FOR 10-20 years. way to go America... and you wonder why the rest of the world hates you?
  • bratpack8, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7Let me see, $5 Kazillion PLUS thousands of lives of American Soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians PLUS being hated more and more around the world MINUS $1.5 trillion brings us to what total?
  • URnotheonly1, on 11/15/2007, -4/+3I would like to thank the Democrats for nominating Hillary Clinton and bringing the country a candidate we can all rally behind. I appreciate you putting the country first.


    (Extreme Sarcasm)
    • wakananda, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Again, you are reducing a complex and profoundly consequential matter to the binary logic of a basketball game. Wipe off your face paint, put away your foam "We're Number One!" finger and try - please, just try - to be a United States citizen first, and a slogan-spewing party drone second.
    • anachronaut, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Wow, I didn't realize the nominations had already been done. I thought the Democratic candidates were all still out there campaigning for the nomination.
      I guess I should pay more attention to what's really going on in the world and then I wouldn't have such a ***** braindead, moronic opinion that I apparently pulled right out of my ass.

      Oh, wait...
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2***** Hillary, I am voting for Ron Paul. And I am a real, employed person not living with my parents nor in anyone's basement. I just happen to be a fan of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If that makes me radical or extreme, then we need to go ahead and admit that this is no longer the United States of America.
  • blewsdawg, on 11/15/2007, -3/+11) If the Republicans think this report is flawed, why not dispute the substance rather than the motivations.
    2) If you think this is an indicator that the Trotskyite Democrats are the antidote to the Hamiltonian Republicans, you are also deluded.
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2"Trotskyite Democrats" "Hamiltonian Republicans"

      That ruined your post. A shame, really, since your first point is dead on. But neither of those two comparisons is accurate.
  • URnotheonly1, on 11/15/2007, -3/+120k? Unless you are below the taxable income limit. Millions didn't even pay taxes
  • DangerCollie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4This coming from the party that told us the Iraq war would cost 2 billion and be over in 9 months.
  • colberrep, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Yet somehow they can't find any money for universal health care.
  • BrokenBokken, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4The republican party needs to split into 2 - Neocons (Conservative Party), and the rest (Republican Party).
  • jazzjeff, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Opps, its too late. We ALL know it probably more than that figure if you take into account the drop of the dollar and the ever rising price of oil.

    These assholes are really taking the piss by trying to cover it all up.
    TOO LATE ASSHOLES.
  • FearLess77, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2I tend to doubt stories such as these that arrive on digg from news sites I never heard of.
    Don't get me wrong, this is big news, but if so, why wouldn't other news networks cover it?
    It makes me question the legitimacy of the report and news source.

    Then again I could be completely wrong, and this is being covered and I simply missed it.
    Or even more so, I'm not thinking of it in a properly.
    Perhaps this dosn't make the "news" because its not what most Americans are interested in; a side effect of capitalistic news company's, they tell the people what they want to hear. (Which brings rise to bias news reporting)_
    • chicofaraby, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3"I tend to doubt stories such as these that arrive on digg from news sites I never heard of. "

      Did you read the article? You've never heard of the Washington Post?

      BTW, your point about getting "news" from corporations is absolutely correct.
  • unclefire, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0While some of the numbers may be a bit fuzzy or simply a swag, there ARE long-term indirect costs. It will costs us billions deal with 20k+ disabled/injured vets. It will cost us billions to replace all the equipment (intended to guard our homeland).

    Lastly, F the republicans. When they pull political ***** its ok. They just want to continue to pull their ***** and make US pay for it. They claim to be fiscal conservatives but think nothing of bankrupting this country with a war that wasn't necessary. Time for the party of personal accountability to ask the Iraqi's to stand up for themselves. If the surge has worked, as they say, time to bring them home.

    btw- session management on DIGG really sucks. I wish you guys would fix your stuff already.
  • OffPiste, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I don't agree at all. At the rate quoted in the article, any discernible difference is obviously potentially dangerous. It would be sheer madness to provide a palatable framework given the expenses noted in his main point. I can't see any alternatives at this point. What or why are the transparencies of timelines not taken to the their ultimate limit? Stupid politicians.
  • pdxchris, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Who cares if the costs are 1.5 trillion or 800 billion? Any money used to displace millions and kill tens and hundreds of thousands of innocent people is too much!
  • LoveableNerd, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1another thinly veiled exercise in political cover-up by these neocon dirtbags
  • skews13, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0these are the same people,who hide our dead soldiers coffins when they come home.kind of like their ashamed of them or something. a thinly veiled exercise in intestinal fortitude.
  • highplains66, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0I love the states but .. lol, you guys are so screwed.
  • FordSVT1, on 11/16/2007, -0/+2Remember Rummy in 2002-3 saying that Iraq oil would pay for the war and it would only cost the US taxpayer a few billion? There's "political hyperbole" for you!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.