As a matter of facts…

The Speaker's blog has got 'em again…

The Cost of Iraq War Broken Down

Second: $3,919
Minute: $235,160
Hour: $14.1 million
Day: $338.6 million
Week: $2.4 billion
Month: $10.3 billion
Year: $123.6 billion

[Congressional Research Service, 2/22/08]

The facts…

…via The Gavel.

For the $339 million we spend in Iraq every day:

· 2,060 more Border Patrol agents could be hired to protect our borders for a year.

· 18,000 more students could receive Pell Grants to help them attend college for a year.

· 48,000 homeless veterans could be provided with a place to live for a year.

· 317,000 more kids could receive every recommended vaccination for a year.

· 955,000 families could get help with their energy bills through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for a year.

· Nearly 480,000 women, infants and children could receive nutritional help with the WIC program for a year.

· 2.6 million Americans without adequate health insurance could have access to medical and dental care at community health centers for a year.

· More than 100 local communities could make improvements to their drinking water with help from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund for a year.

· 937 additional National Institutes of Health grants for research into diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes could be provided for a year.

The war in brief.

Nicholas Kristof…

The improvement in Iraq amounts to casualty rates that have decreased to the unacceptable levels of 2005, no exit plan for years and a bill accumulating at almost $5,000 per second.

As The Poet told us long ago, there's no success like failure.

He didn't ask me…

…but, well, since he asked. Steve Soto...

Is toppling Saddam so important that it warranted a trillion dollars of crippling debt, a busted military, thousands of dead innocents, a new haven for Al Qaeda, and the destruction of an occupied country?

Since you asked, no.

Five years.

3990 US fatalities.

40,229 US casualties

An untold (literally) number of Iraqis dead, tortured and maimed.

Hundreds of trillions of dollars pissed away on no bid contracts for inferior goods and shoddy services.

And the headline?

President Bush: Iraq War Must Go On
Until, I suppose, God does damn us.

Damn.

Find the cost of "freedom"…

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, via Alterman...

"Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion."

Finding freedom, of course, is another matter entirely.

Still crazy..

…after all these years. Via Dr. Streak...

Curry: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war, the spending on the war?

Bush: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs.

Curry: Oh, yeah?

Bush: Yeah, because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses (Curry: hmmmmm) and the economy is adjusting...

Hmmmmm.

Headlines.

Attorney general won't share destroyed tape info

Here we go again. John Kerry used to get a good response to his promise that he'd appoint an Attorney General whose name wasn't John Ashcroft. Turns out the problem isn't the name, it's the namer. Speaking of whom...

Roaming, thieving monkeys sought in roundup

No relation, I'm sure.

Congress authorizes war funds and sends bill to Bush

A drag, sure, but let's face it - he was going to keep his damn war going if it meant emptying the Pentagon and having a yard sale for the office furniture. The people who would get hurt in the short run aren't in Congress. In the long run the Bush program to dismantle the military establishment in favor of an all-mercenary force would be abetted. I don't like it, but I get it.

House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding

Thus making it illegal to act unlawfully. It's really come to this, hasn't it?

Men carry breast cancer genes, too

As usual, it's all about us. Can the baby-blue ribbons be far behind?

This?

This is a lie. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino...

Congress, as you know, is away for its two-week break. They did not approve funding for our troops.

This message brought to you by the Committee For Calling Lies Lies.

From the "Majorities matter" file.

One of the most important advantages of Congressional majorities is the opportunity to install Democratic committee chairs. Committee chairs like Rep. David Obey of the House Appropriations Committee…

“As chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,” Obey told reporters.

Obey has three requirements for moving a bill.

“I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

* “Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.”

* “Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.”

* “Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.”

Chairman Obey gets it.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

Good question…

…for Rahm.

If you hate the war so much, why are you paying for it?

$10,400,000,000.

That's the Washington State share of Iraq war costs to date, and they're asking us for another 3.5 billion.

That 10 billion bucks is more than our state has budgeted for higher education, corrections, transportation, pensions, bond retirement, natural resources and government operations combined. Lots more.

There's only one more way more money for the war can be justified - if it's the money we need to end the war.

It's simple.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

Article 1, Section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.

Proudly partisan, please.

Atrios has a draft of a proposed "Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate," and if the title alone doesn't say "sell out" loudly enough, the first clause should close the deal.

We agree that the U.S. Congress must end the political in-fighting over the conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue on the issues we are facing.

Who, exactly, is this "we," I wonder, and how do they propose to get around the diametrical opposition of the concerned parties on the subject of Iraq?

The Republican position, as stated by their leadership and demonstrated by their consistent pattern of votes, is in favor of a war that continues for something between a Friedman and forever.

The Democratic position, similarly established, is that it's time for the beginning of the end.

Every day we remain in Iraq, the Republicans prevail. That's not a bi-partisan solution. There's simply no such thing. The parties are opposed.

There is a way for Democrats to turn the tide, to restore majority rule in the Iraq debate. It's simple, stand as a proud, united partisan front and demand…

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

Heh™

Matt Stoller:

I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad.