by Kenneth J. Theisen
Hey Buddy! Can you spare a couple trillion dollars?
According to Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag in recent testimony before the House Budget Committee the “war on terrorism” outside the U.S. could cost U.S. taxpayers $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Of course his testimony does not even begin to measure the cost in lives of Afghans, Iraqis, and soon, Iranians, if the horrors of the Bush regime are not halted.
But let us look at the cost in dollars of this so-called “war on terrorism.” In his report to Congress Orszag bases his estimate on the deployment of only 75,000 troops for the years from 2013 to 2017. This would be a dramatic troop decrease. Currently there are approximately 210,000 troops deployed in the “war on terrorism.” This includes not only those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also those in nearby countries, those deployed at sea, and those at air bases supporting the war. His estimate also does not include the Pentagon’s regular spending, which this year is about $450 billion. But even accepting his low-ball figures, the cost amounts to approximately $21,500 per American household.
As if to confirm that the cost of the war will continue to be costly, Bush recently sent another request to Congress for $42 billion for the war. This is in addition to the $142 billion already requested, bringing the total for fiscal year 2007-08 to $184 billion. This is above and beyond the Department of War’s regular budget.
But do not worry as the Democrats in Congress now hold the checkbook for the “war on terrorism.” We all know how effective they have been in stopping the war by controlling war spending.
War Criminal testifies before Congress, while Protestors are Arrested
On October 24, 2007 Condoleeza Rice was welcomed by Code Pink demonstrators when she appeared to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The demonstrators shouted, “The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands.” War criminal Rice was allowed to testify before the Democrat-controlled committee, while 5 of the Code Pink demonstrators were arrested and taken away.
Tasering for free speech within Florida state guidelines
Remember last month when police Tasered a student who questioned Senator John Kerry on a Florida campus? Pretty outrageous and a violation of free speech, right?
Well not according to an investigation conducted by Jeb Bush’s Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The agency released a summary of its report on October 24, 2007 justifying the police attack. According to university President Bernie Machen, “In short, the FDLE determined that our officers acted well within state guidelines.”
There is still a criminal case pending against student Andrew Meyer. In reacting to the report, the University of Florida Police Chief Linda Stump stated, “Our purpose is, and has always been, to ensure a civil and safe environment where the many types of campus activities and open discourse can occur”
I know I feel confident that “open discourse can occur” at the University as long as being Tasered for asking questions is “well within state guidelines.”
Nominee for Department of Injustice may fail to get job because he can not recognize torture
Bush’s nominee to succeed former Attorney General Gonzales seems to be in trouble for his failure to recognize waterboarding as torture. Two Judiciary Committee members say their vote on his nomination depends on whether Judge Mukasey will say on the record that this “enhanced interrogation technique” is torture.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated, “It’s fair to say my vote would depend on him answering that question.” Senator Dick Durbin expressed a similar view. Unless Mukasey gets 10 votes from the committee, his nomination will not go to a full Senate vote.
Last week Mukasey attempted to evade this question. He was asked at his confirmation hearing whether waterboarding is torture and unconstitutional and he ducked the question by saying he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done. In a further evasion he then stated, “If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.” He was accused by one Senator of engaging in semantics.
For many this seemed to be a replay of similar testimony by Alberto Gonzales who seemed to have trouble giving straight answers to Congress. Of course this may be exactly why Mikasey was selected by Bush.