Fuck You, GW Bush and Dick Cheney!

The number of dollars is less than a trillion by some small margin. Maybe it makes no difference but lets use real dollars and not the ravings of a left wing, democratic, progressive, columnist for your proof. Up to six trillion you've heard....where did you hear that?

. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Did it cost 50 Billion JD? Are you wlling to pay more taxes to pay for this war? You and Sara Palin seem not to want to pay for your wars....



http://www.amazon.com/The-Three-Tril.../dp/B0052HKS0S

The true cost of the Iraq War is $3 trillion—and counting—rather than the $50 billion projected by the White House.
Apart from its tragic human toll, the Iraq War will be staggeringly expensive in financial terms. This sobering study by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes casts a spotlight on expense items that have been hidden from the U.S. taxpayer, including not only big-ticket items like replacing military equipment (being used up at six times the peacetime rate) but also the cost of caring for thousands of wounded veterans—for the rest of their lives. Shifting to a global focus, the authors investigate the cost in lives and economic damage within Iraq and the region. Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.

Well, I guess Shrub can mark Kuala Whatever off his bucket list of places to visit before he dies, eh?

You got caught again. You say 3 trillion and then add "or more" to come up with 6 trillion (a number you pulled out of your ass). It seems that your book has picked 3 trillion as the upper end of the cost of the war (meaning it is talking about 20 to 30 years in the future). So you just added 3 trillion dollars all by yourself. I have read an excerpt on the subject someone tries to say that the cost of vehicle replacement is accelerated but such was not the case. Yes, vehicles wear out or are destroyed at a greater rate but their numbers tried to say that zero vehicle replacement would have occurred. So it is pretty much a bogus number. Here is a link to a group (anti-war I might add) who say that we will pay an additional 1 trillion dollars (notice it is not 3 trillion dollars) for the injured veterans over the next 40 years. http://costsofwar.org/article/caring-us-veterans Here is another link from US News that says the cost of just the Iraq war was 800 billion dollars. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...than-you-think Starting to sound like my number of 1.2 trillion for both wars is pretty close. A lot closer than your number. The point of citing a source is to bolster your argument and not beat up on your argument. So what he have so far is that I say 1.2 trillion for both wars and another 1 trillion over 40 years (my cite) and you saying 3 trillion so far and 6 trillion after everything (your cite disagrees). You were wrong.

You know, BarleySwine, you make a statement, people refute it with facts and you deny it.

What are you trying to prove, other than that you're the most thick headed person on the board?

You eschew facts in favor of your own fantasy then furiously backpedal away from the lie you've just told, denying that you ever told it.

And now, you've stated your attraction to yet another poster's JUNK!

I think you need to move to Another Realm. You're not only a pathological liar, you're a creepy one too.

So (and I am not being facetious) you think George Bush AND Dick Cheney committed torture or you think that they SPECIFICALLY ordered someone to be tortured.

I did look up the US code number and it is dated to 2012. Do you have a link to the law in 2003? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hasn't changed at all. Even to this day. And they don't have to order a specific person to be waterboarded. Authorizing waterboarding generally is enough.

its a fact the Bush Cartel redefined the definition of "torture" to fit their own agenda ... regardless how the law (before 03) was worded, it changed. Originally Posted by CJ7

Wrong!! The Office of Legal Counsel didn't -- and can't -- change the law. They wrote a memo purporting to interpret the law. That memo was facially wrong and has since been repudiated.

The statues cited have remained in effect, unmodified, with one small exception since 2003. Since the statute includes acts only outside the U.S., the definition of "the United States" was amended a bit to included territory controlled by the US in 2004. (Inside the U.S., customary criminal law for assault governs torture cases.)

Wrong!! The Office of Legal Counsel didn't -- and can't -- change the law. They wrote a memo purporting to interpret the law. That memo was facially wrong and has since been repudiated.

The statues cited have remained in effect, unmodified, with one small exception since 2003. Since the statute includes acts only outside the U.S., the definition of "the United States" was amended a bit to included territory controlled by the US in 2004. (Inside the U.S., customary criminal law for assault governs torture cases.) Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Ok, fine. Youre correct, the law is the same. The definition of torture was changed. The newly defined "torture" fits within the statutes of said law

I stand by my statement. Put them on trial, and let them refute the evidence.

the Unaliar has spoken!

OK, he cut and pasted his opinion.

He hates Obama so much, he can't really talk about much else.

Hates America more.

You've proven it Whiny.

Hope you get that spot in the Damascus bus station...

I'm sorry COG but haven't you already said that Bush was brought to trial and found guilty in absentia? He either did or did not go to trial. Please tell us which it was.

JD, why are you so intent on defending GW Bush? Yes, a trial was held. They didn't show up. I'd like to show up to trial and defend themselves. They won't. But if you think being a Republican is more important than honesty and transparency, you are part of the problem.

this back and forth between Whiny and BarleySwine sounds like the narrative from an old WWF show...

I am not defending George Bush, I am defending the law.