Op Ed: 3 to 5 Trillion Dollars For Bush`s War Costs?

Congress is now told 'Totally Unsustainable' costs seen are impeachable in this maladministration.

(BEND, Ore.) - Congressional hearing testimony now on public record demonstrates totally unsustainable costs of Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq and its accompanying conflict in Afghanistan at THREE to FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS -- and counting.

One week’s documented disastrous expenditures now run at least $3,5 BILLION, That’s HALF A BILLION --$500 million dollars-- every day, week in, week, out -- and still counting.

Bush administration war-costs estimates ranged from $60 billion to $200 billion --and that last figure got Bush economic advisor Larry Lindsey fired, way back in 2002, for even suggesting something so ludicrous.

Given the low-estimate at the Congressional hearing --THREE TRILLION DOLLARS-- by Nobel-winner economist Joseph Stigiitz --the Bush cabal was "at least $2,940,000,000 off in its calculations” even using their low-estimate of "only $60 billion".

Both Stiglitz and Robert Hormats, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International, told the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, that "large opportunities were lost because of the money poured into the war."

"For a fraction of the cost of this war," Stiglitx testified, "we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more."

That Bush low-bid was armored and defended by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in Congressional testimony then, stating that much of the cost could be recovered from Iraqi oil revenues, "To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong", he assured Congress. The country was floating on "a sea of oil", he declared --obviously counting on getting some, somehow.

Continuing the testimony Thursday, Hormats cited Committee findings showing that daily war-costs would enable enrollment of any additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year or assist in covering costs of college for 160,000 low-income students or furnish nearly 11,000 border patrol officers or 14,000 police personnel.

"It’s for the troops", we are told over and over again by the Bush cabal as they seek rapidly-recurring "emergency appropriations" to continue both conflicts.

BUT probing examination and documented study by highly skilled, authoritative and award-winning economists and others now show, in Congressional testimony and widely-published other materials, that ONLY TEN PERCENT --$350 million per week-- actually "goes to pay and benefits for uniformed military personnel."

That’s ONE-FOURTH of the weekly $1,4 BILLION shelled out (no pun !) to war contractors covering every kind and type of materiel “from bullets to bombers”.

Then, too, there’s that extremely disturbing and desperate reflection of how stretched-and-thin our armed forces have really become: "...nearly $100 million per week going just to the armed cohort of private-contractor employees operating there."

We are not permitted to know precisely how many merciless mercenaries now make up our 'shadow army' provided by private contractors like Blackwater and Triple Canopy.

But many of those warriors --with activities uncomplicated by the same regulations and restrictions enforced on our own troops-- make much more in pay and benefits than do our GI’s in any force.

In materials now Internet-available, it is stated that "individuals employed by these private firms make up to TEN TIMES what many U.S. enlisted personnel make, or as much as $7,500 per week."

"If even one-tenth of the 5,000 to 6,000 armed contract employees in Iraq make that much, we are talking about at least $40 million per week."

The same report then states: "If the rest then make $1,000 per week --an extremely conservative estimate-- then we have nearly $100 million PER WEEK going just to the armed cohort of private-contract employees operating there."

But then comes the clincher: Where the other $3 billion per week goes, after these expenditures of about $650 million weekly are spent.

Surely you guessed, by now: To "goods and services, from tanks and fighter planes to fuel and food" -- supplied by "Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the former Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root." Halliburton was the longtime employer of Vice President Cheney.

Stiglitz pointed out that about 40 percent of 700,000 Gulf War troops have become eligible for benefits, for a war lasting only ONE MONTH. He stated that the obligation to provide health care and disability benefits for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would surely be devastatingly more costly since these conflicts have already run for FIVE YEARS --and all such costs are steadily rising.

"Imagine then", he said, "what a war --that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will more than six or seven years-- will cost. Already we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at V.A. hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability and large numbers with severe psychological problems."

Because the Bush administration had already committed huge federal budget deficits when we went to war, Stiglitz pointed out, and then slashed taxes --the ONLY time isuch action has ever been taken while the nation is at war-- these costs have in effect been entirely financed by deficits.

The U.S. national debt increased by around &2.5 TRILLION since the war began, Stiglitz pointed out, emphasizing that "almost $1 TRILLION is due directly to the war itself." By 2017, he estimated, the national debt will have increased because of the war to some $2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

This joint key Congressional committee hearing is now seen in Washington and across the nation as a strong and very threatening addition of basic information not available previously, perhaps leading to heavy further pressures for impeachment proceedings soon.

Key Congressional figures are known to be discussing public statements which may seek one or more charges against the President based on evidences of continuing maladministration seen as bordering on impeachment level, added to a long list already in readiness.

"Last summer, President Bush told the American people that ‘the American economy is the envy of the world. The fundamentals of our economy are strong ... Job creation is strong. Real after-tax wages are on the rise. Inflation is low’. None of this was exactly true then. It is certainly not true now."

What an unfortunate statement ! --all too reminiscent of another, from a fallen corporate tycoon now deceased: "The underlying fundamentals of our business are very strong." That was Enron founder Ken Lay, six weeks before bankruptcy.

Reader’s Note: Quotes are shortened or summarized from the original; verbatim statements and identification of sources available on request. Internet-published and on-file materials documenting all points here include: 1. "The $2 Trillion Nightmare"; Bob Herbert; nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html...

The links are for your convenient "see with your own eyes" exploration for your own evaluation and comparison with how I read these major sources in this report.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Ty Cello March 11, 2008 8:53 am (Pacific time)

Henry you are quite correct congress has the legal authority to review most presidential records and interview his staff with regards to certain topics, but executive privilge, like legislative privilige, are topical area's I have very little expertise in. It appears that there will always be disagreements, and my background has only been carrying out policy, so I assume there will always be those who want to have all information at all times. Our Founding Fathers must have extrapolated that scenario as per Mr. John Jay: "The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest." John Jay 1788 - Federalist No. 64

Henry Ruark March 9, 2008 7:26 pm (Pacific time)

Ty-C et al: You wrote: "One final word about intelligence, there are laws passed by congress that allows for it to be classified (when needed) and withheld from public consumption. You do not have a constitutional right to look at certain intelligence unless you not only have the essential clearance level, but also the need to know. There is no conspiracy behind this process, it is a matter of national security. Just because one is an elected offical does not automatically allow them to view any intelligence, and be thankful for that process." Nobody claims Constitutional right to see properly classified intelligence, but on historic record it is the right of Congress to question what the President and his agencies do, and to subpoena records when determined need is substantiated, for full and probing examination. Surely you do not contend the President is more powerful than Congress --OR do you ? Re everyone saw, and then agreed, on intelligence prior to Iraq invasion; partially true but "intelligence" was contrived for specific purpose of selling "preemptive war", as now recognized universally, even admitted by members of cabal. SO "interpretation" again rears ugly head here --and you supply no links to documenting and authoritative sources for your view. Would you have us believe now that government has never deluded the people for the purposes of those powerful enough to get away with it ? If so, I invite you to pursue full tilt history on backstory for Iran-Contra and Reagan role, misled into breaking law set by Congress for specific protective purposes, bypassed by North et al. Exceptionally revealing pages in DUTCH, Reagan's own authorized biography. Have you read this one ? Since it is by his chosen biographer, fully documented by diaries kept by him at the time, it should be among most acceptable to real history. "See with own eyes" and check out how President is manipulated at some times. He was fortunate to evade surely possible impeachment.

Hank Ruark March 9, 2008 3:49 pm (Pacific time)

TY-C: Can accept most of your points as matter of fact, but nowhere do you state any reason for uncompleted federal probe, which remains big question mark until Congress finally does act. Then we must still question since many there in Congress, both sides of aisle, surely now seen by millions as under the domination, dollar-wise or otherwise, of special interest groups and Bush cabal. That's fact, too, per many documenting publications in the open media channels. IF you have incontrovertible documentation killing off completely the conspiracy rumors, why not set it into form for Congressional probe ? While at that, how about ID self to editor with something other than single-name ? OR perhaps do your own Op Ed with 1,000-word full detail and open source documentation on request ? That surely builds your badly needed credibility via known responsibility and accountability, which surely beats out just another single name source unknown to readers here. We welcome dialog and rational dissent, but given ongoing attacks on open, honest, democratic channels like ours we try to provide readers with reassurance by seeking ID for continued comment, which surely makes reasonable sense in the proven circumstances here. Note that other open channels are also suffering from same attacks, presumably as continuance of known GOP Noise Machine of last 30 years still operational.

Ty Cello March 9, 2008 11:25 am (Pacific time)

Received an email the other day to check out this site and I have been rather surprised when I see some pretty intelligent comments then Bam! It appears many of you think the attack on 9/11 was an inside job. That's really pretty shocking when all the evidence easily dismantles this conspiracy idea. The poster who made the comment that as a country we are often drawn into conflicts is correct. Unless we remain totally an "isolationist country", we will always enter into agreements/treaties, and, mainly out of our own self-interest. These agreements, take SEATO for example, drew us into Vietnam, along with other rather shady behaviors by LBJ. The current conflict in both Afghanistan and Iraq was via a joint agreement by both the executive and legislative, simply look at the voting records of your representatives. These current conflicts were brought on by attacks against us, there were what, 17 UN resolutions beggining with Bush, then Clinton, then the 9/11 attack before we took action. This was a bi-partisan military operation. All people involved saw the same intelligence, and as a former military intelligence specialist, the majority felt it was in our national interest to act. As far as the "inside job", I think even that Rosie O'Donnel even came around and started to look at the illogic reasoning around those who thought the 9/11 attack was an inside job. Those who have an agenda will always distort facts when they can, but you're really swimming upstream when you try to push a conspiracy of this magnitude. As far as someone writing an OP Ed piece about this attack, why? One final word about intelligence, there are laws passed by congress that allows for it to be classified (when needed) and withheld from public consumption. You do not have a constitutional right to look at certain intelligence unless you not only have the essential clearance level, but also the need to know. There is no conspiracy behind this process, it is a matter of national security. Just because one is an elected offical does not automatically allow them to view any intelligence, and be thankful for that process.

Henry Ruark March 9, 2008 7:39 am (Pacific time)

Sawyer: Many historians question your choice of "draw", friend; many others flatly state, now, that we initiated most such struggles, consequences now coming home. No question re "premptive" applying to Iraq --and sold by flat-out manipulation, too. Re attack"evidence" you cite, much probably true; why then suppress rest of it ? Do you really trust those making that choice ? AND their "reasons" ? If so, then you will buy that "unitary exec" theory in full, damn the Constitution and all else. How, re "unitary..." ? Do you believe President should be Commander of entire nation ,especially in "premptive war" situation ? Proof-here mentioned on Sept. 11 ? Complete probe and report to Congress. "Signing statement" letters by Bush show complete contempt of Congress. Re S/A policies, when elected I might answer, given all the secrets you suggest; until then I only report, from best sources I can find. "National interest" lies behind each of your points, determined by cabal, not our Congress, elected by us; now under-paid,cundermined, under-staffed, undercut; and over-bought by others than "the people". Ours here reflects strongly opposing interpretations of historical events. Only possible solution is facts of the time; that's historian job and as years, decades pass the truth surfaces, as it is now doing worldwide on much of what we have allowed to happen in our "democratic country". That's "informed opinion" for which I hold huge, strong evidence as I write...where's yours via links and historians cited and published ? "See with own eyes" is the proper evidence-now, for make up your own mind-which is why we offer precisely that here. IF you wish, do own OpEd for editor, eager for ID and your copy. That's honest, open way here, without catch-questions from either of us... We await your Op Eds, friend Sawyer, in all good feeling and full and open opportunity. That's why Founders gave us the First, 14th and other such Amendments, reflecting their own "radical", "UN-British" views-of-their own times...

Sawyer Johnson March 8, 2008 6:11 pm (Pacific time)

Henry our nation has been drawn into many wars and conflicts, but I would not consider us to be out to control the world. What I inquired from you below was do you think we should pull out of central and South America? Or do you think there is a national security issue(s) that calls for us to remain? Henry did you know that the flight controller radar (both civilian and military ) tracked the airliner crash into the Pentagon? Probably military satelite(s) also have footage, but keeps under wraps for security purposes, who knows? How about the phone conversations of the passengers describing the geography up to the point of impact? The Twin Towers in New York had excellent internal security that had been ramped up after the 1993 attack, so can you imagine the amount of people who would have to be involved in a cover-up if explosives had been planted, not to mention coordinating two airliners impacting them?. I certainly try to maintain an open mind in a lot of different issues, but the terrorists acts of 9/11/2001 happened as we watched, organized by an enemy that is determined to wipe us out. They will lose.

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

G-Chaos: Note your continuing lack of anything except your usual belly-button stuff built on your obvious adverse stance. IF one removes your awkward trial-run sarcasms, one has only empty-words left. We are not by any means the only ones who question those incidents on some of the same details you try to cite, under examination in the stalled probe mentioned. Do you wish to go on and deny involvement of CIA in the back-stories cited ? Why not take a run at that one re our Dulles-driven facilitation of Wuentin Roosevelt undermining of Iraq Premier ? Did you check out any one of the links-sent ? Should be simple for you --just seek fact and proof from some of those Gods.

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 1:13 pm (Pacific time)

Sawyer: Will venture this for your own cogitation: Time for us to stop acting as if we own the world. We don't, never will, and that attitude is quite literally and very broadly killing-consequential. There are other legitimate national interests than ours alone. Empire-building ever since early days has cost us dearly, won little, killed millions, left desolation widespread, NOT really in U.S. national interests as much as those of wellknown, "elite" dollar driven cabals...as Gen. Smedley Butler, U.S. Marines, famously declared. He it was who refused to become dictator when sought by group of leading wealthy families,forming one such cabal, turned them in for trial rather than accede to their wishes. Harry Truman refused to do British bidding early on for Iraq coup upsetting their then-established government, but later Eisenhower/Dulles administration allowed CIA agent to act unseating top man,thus initiating unforeseen consequences still happening. Wasting wars are bankrupting us while devastating any way we can do what we must do, right here at home. See next Op Ed for details.

Sawyer Johnson March 8, 2008 11:46 am (Pacific time)

Henry, then do you think we should pull all our forces out of central and South America at this time? Then let some future administration decide if we have a national security interest to be in this area?

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 11:19 am (Pacific time)

Sawyer: NOT unaware of history you set forth, but here using only current materials for their documentary value. DO thank you for rational, reasonable dialog and for your sharing of own knowledge and experience --we need more of same on all issues. DO also agree at least 95% on what you state, friend. Let's get on with job of extremely difficult, demanding clean-up now facing us, and then perhaps we can shape foreign policy as it must be in 21st Century,in any way demanded for civilized progress beyond corrupt state we find ourselves in now. We have little choice since eventually SOMEbody is gonna miniaturize The Big One and SOMEbody is gonna throw it from whatever transport it may need then...

Sawyer Johnson March 8, 2008 10:38 am (Pacific time)

Henry the U.S. military has been in central and South America for long before Bush or North or any current far right or far left individuals were probably even out of grade school (outside of Fidel and Raul Castro). In my opinion we are there because we have a vested national security interest to interdict drug exportation to America. If terrorists are also involved in making money to help fund their attacks against us, that would also be a logical reason. If the governments down there tell us to leave, then of course that's what we should do (then we would probably set-up a naval blockade, like JFK did around Cuba), but until that time we should help stabalize the region, though like I said earlier, it is similar to the mid-east and probably the only thing we can do is try to minimize the the regions seemingly innate problems. Henry regarding the bombing of Iran, I get up each morning looking at the paper and am surprised it has not happened yet. I sure hope it doesn't, but I believe that even though from a logistic perspective, Israel will be pulling the trigger before we do. I just cannot see it not happening. With oil prices skyrocketing, and more and more conflicts rising on a global level, something is going to happen. Hopefully not. Israel has the missle capability to hit Iran, then follow up with light aircraft bombing and get their aircraft back. I don't see them bringing in troops, but they may end up drawing us in. Things could escalate very quickly, and who could turn it off?

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 9:49 am (Pacific time)

(Regret incomplete comment. Here's rest of aother "back-story") "THE UPSIDE DOWN WORLD OF BUSH AND URIBE, By Garry Leech Saturday, 08 March 2008 "President George W. Bush yesterday declared, “America fully supports Colombia’s democracy. We firmly oppose any acts of aggression that could destabilize the region.” He then made clear that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s deployment of troops to the border with Colombia, which Bush labeled as “provocative maneuvers,” were the acts of aggression that the United States opposed. "These statements represent a denial of reality that is extreme for even the Bush administration." From Caroly Baker website, will deploy link a bit later since lose continuity here in getting it for you.

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 9:33 am (Pacific time)

Sawyer et al: Good questions,friend Sawyer, so let's "continue the back-story" till we get the whole thing properly framed...as my esteemed UPI boss Hank Minott insisted. "See with own eyes" this one at: www.informationclearinghouse.inof./article9479.htm It's titled: "1953 CIA Coup in Iran and Roots of Middle East Terror" --and it ties directly into your interest in South American "unintended consequences", starting with Iran/Contra, Reagan/Oliver North, CIA and now the Reyes assassination, et al, et al. "This is the way the world works", we are told; but that ain't necessarily so, and it is up to us who truly believe in democracy for all to see that it does NOT so continue. Will we bomb Iran ? Could be since that might end Bush II debacle with real flourish from incompetent and perhaps irrational cabal still in power and capable of nearly anything in desperation now obvious.

Sawyer Johnson March 8, 2008 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Henry outside of oil exports, what's the primary source of revenue for this part of the world? How long do you think the U.S. military has been running drug interdiction operations in both central and South America. I personally have known people who were down there going back to the JFK administration. Do you think muslim terrorists are operating here and throughout central and South America? I personally do not know, because the people I know who know the answer to these questions are not talking. Hugo Chavez is essentially a symptom, which has been festering in this highly unstable region that predates Fidel Castro. Like the middle east conflicts, there will always be instability. Do you think it's a national security issue for us to interdict the huge drug production going on down there, especially when the various government leaders request our assistance?

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 8:04 am (Pacific time)

To all and James: Here's another reliable and independent source on political assassination in the S.American area. I send it to offset inevitable charge the first source is "socialist", or even "commie-backed", or otherwise unbelievable. Happens both are widely recognized as top-line on Internet. Here's story: AlterNet For FARC's Sake: Colombia's U.S.-Sponsored Aggression Destabilizing Andean Region By Richard Gott, AlterNet Posted on March 8, 2008, http://www.alternet.org/story/78986/ "The deaths of Raúl Reyes and Julián Conrado, two senior figures in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), are clearly a serious blow to the guerrilla organization. It will now call a halt to the release of hostages held by the FARC in the jungle over many years, a process that had been proceeding slowly under the auspices of the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez. Freedom in the short term for the former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, in which the French president Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a personal interest, now seems unlikely, and many people believe that she is dying. Hopes of the imminent release of three U.S. defense contractors have also been dashed. "By all accounts, the midnight attack on the camp of the FARC leaders, a mile inside Ecuadorean territory in the jungle region south of the Putumayo River, was a political decision taken by the Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, to end the peace process orchestrated by Chávez. Four Colombian politicians, held as hostages by the FARC for the past six years, were released last week and given a royal welcome in Caracas. Reyes had been among those who organized their freedom. Killed at the age of 59, Reyes had long been more of a diplomat than a guerrilla commander, though he was often photographed in military fatigues and carrying a gun. "According to the Ecuadorean president, Rafael Correa, the bodies of the FARC commanders and 13 guerrillas were recovered in their pajamas after being bombed while sleeping in a tent on the Ecuadorean side of the frontier. The Colombian air force, Correa claimed, had used advanced technology "with the collaboration of foreign powers" to locate the camp and "to massacre" its occupants. Uribe's government is a close ally of the United States and Israel, whereas Correa belongs to the radical camp led by Chávez. Subsequent to the bombing, Colombian troops crossed the frontier into Ecuador to recover the bodies." Please note the other source clearly states that no South American state has the needed capabilities to use the kind of bombs and planes for this sortie. Since few of us will ever get to cover something like this ourselves, there is no choice but to seek out solid source information --and we then share it here, with links so you can evaluate with own mind.

Godsofchaos March 8, 2008 7:24 am (Pacific time)

"Even the alleged suicide death of Hunter S. Thompson is under suspicion, it is a fact that he had claimed to have `hard evidence" of the tower implosions and was studying it at the time of his death. More on Thompson`s death can be found at InfoWars.net:"Tim King Yeah because obviously having a plane slam into an building has no effect.Then the American military attack itself on a gamble the Tomahawk missile would hit the Pentagon and cause minor damage. Then they blew up a random section of forest because they felt like it. Really all the people on the four planes are still alive and were paid off big money.Forget the videos showing the planes smash into the building. Forget the wreckage found at the scene. Forget the reports of those who escaped the Twin Towers. Forget the people who called their love ones with their cellphones during the hijacking. Obviously it was an inside job if you forgo this evidence. While were at it lets claim the Holocaust was done by Americans and we framed the Germans.

Henry Ruark March 8, 2008 7:15 am (Pacific time)

To all and James: Since you question my only-natural and continuing curiousities on the Sept. 11 catastrophe, here's solid documentation re the South American political assassination I mentioned: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19475.htm That's Information Clearing House, source I use constantly and open to YOU, too, for "see with own eyes" and THEN THINK with own mind, instead of passively repeating demeaning charge such as on Berger and Cohen...obviously from the GOP "Noise machine". You now have the link, and so do all others reading-here. Where else do reporters thus share their own sources with readership ?? !! No reason you cannot seek out same kind and level of sources and THEN share here, which is what this open, honest and democratic channel seeks to do, serving the community as any daily newspaper surely should do. SO we await your links to document what you stated publicly re Cohen and Berger. OR, if you prefer, why not do Op Ed via ID to Editor, which assures your credibility via declaration of responsible and accountable ID. Welcome to dialog, but any unwarranted statement here stands open to challenge, including mine own... !!

Tim King March 7, 2008 10:51 pm (Pacific time)

James, pay just minuscule attention to the 911 events and there is shady business around each and every corner. It is indeed the most sinister possibility on God's green earth and while we are patriotic and love our country, we don't deal in nationalism around these parts, we deal in facts. I assume you have never watched Loose Change? I think everyone should and then they can make up their own minds, our government certainly has had its time to tell its side of the story, Loose Change tells the other.

Then there are all the problems with the Pentagon crash, and it goes on and on. I have written about this and I am not ashamed to say so in the slightest way. I will only say that I hope and pray always that somehow I am completely wrong in my suspicions. Anyone who is curious should read one or more of the following article links.

Even the alleged suicide death of Hunter S. Thompson is under suspicion, it is a fact that he had claimed to have `hard evidence" of the tower implosions and was studying it at the time of his death. More on Thompson`s death can be found at InfoWars.net: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hunter_s_thompson_suicided_for_911_story.htm

What Really Hit The Pentagon?

Huge Contradictions in Official Theories on 9/11 Crash at Pentagon

History Channel Program Examines Emerging New Information on 9/11

Op-Ed: Blowing Smoke Across An American Tragedy

U.S. Air Force Hackers Caught in Their Tracks by Salem-News.com

Here is the link to the Loose Change homepage: loosechange911.com/

James March 7, 2008 9:51 pm (Pacific time)

Henry do you think the 9/11/2001 attack was not fully organized by enemies from outside of America? Making this inquiry of you re: your 3/7 6:16 pm post that according to you we do not know for sure because of stalled federal investigation. Possibly I've missed something Henry, I thought we knew who the terrorists were and who they took their orders from. Is there more information we, the American public do not know? I realize that there is a small minority of people out there who feel that it was an inside job. Having myself been involved in planning very small operations (a surprise birthday party earlier today, and I had to deal with many "intelligence" leaks), it would be quite a herculean task to pull something like that off and not have leaks. Though I imagine for the fertile imaginations out there, they probably also feel the entire LA Police Department colluded to set up OJ, risking everything. There are always weak links out there Henry, and after 6 and 1/2 years, I believe we would know. Of course if this was an inside job, and the planning began when? Mid to late 90's? Did the 911 commission interview Sec. of Defense Cohen? What was Sandy Berger really stuffing in those pants?

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 8:09 pm (Pacific time)

To all: My egregious error, just noticed: Reagan-authorized biography is DUTCH, NOT BUTCH...Dutch being his longtime nickname from early on as lifeguard...with 76 recovered swimmers, for whom he cut notch in log each time... !!

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

James et al: You mentioned the Sept. 11 catastrophe as if for sure it was attack from "outside". But we do NOT know that for sure, with federal-level investigation stalled and incomplete, and with many open questions surely relevant but far from answered, either in full or, for many astute Americans,even partially. Is it possible it might be part of ongoing internal act ? Until and unless final-end to stalled probe, we simply do not KNOW --and from history, unfortunately, we do KNOW it is possible put-up as cover or cause for some very serious following events. One internal/external one proving up possibilities is the known manipulation of our "intelligence" (!) resources re WMD-items long said to be proliferating in Iraq... Re "histrionics", that might be just a bit better than the downright many manipulative misstatements (read flat-lies) to which we have now obviously been subjected, for a long time, by some of the same ones setting out such stuff from the Reagan-times/before...and that IS historic-fact !! On the record, from then, for Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz and others, as historians now have shown in full, documented detail --which is also well reflected in Reagan-authorized biography BUTCH, which I am just now reviewing-again...

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 5:55 pm (Pacific time)

James et al: Of course, always "opinions" and "interpretations" --but that is NOT historic fact right out there on public record, if we but have common sense enough to find it and then use it. Like "liberty" you gotta know it when you find it, then appreciate it so you can use it well and wisely. "Opinion" can't cut it when only built on feeling, even if intense-political kind; nor can "interpretation" take you anywhere you really wish to get, if it is distorted or perverted. Most adults soon learn to stake out ways to find the truth, like really knowing the source; and open, honest dialog on democratic channel is fine method, if the process is used in good faith and most carefully. That is why we use "see with own eyes", leaving the final, evaluative interpretation up to "your brain", NOT our persuasive effort --best possible and most honest method open to any media outlet. What you get that way is what you deserve, varying in depth and diversity of truth from many sources with what you put into effort for any learning.

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 4:21 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Learned at UPI no reporter ever gets fired for "surrounding story"...so here's another piece, today, for your "big picture" from USTODAY site minutes ago: "This week's declines in the three major stock indexes to their lowest settlements since 2006 came despite the Federal Reserve's announcement that it would take steps to aid the credit markets. "The Labor Department's report that employers cut jobs by 63,000 last month— most since March 2003 — unnerved investors who are worried about the health of the economy and who had been expecting a 25,000 gain in jobs. While the unemployment rate fell to 4.8%, the decline reflects people leaving the labor force. "The payroll numbers arrived minutes after the Federal Reserve announced it would take fresh steps to ease credit troubles, including boosting the amount of money it will auction to banks. "The central bank said it will increase the size of its March 10 and 24 auctions to banks to $50 billion each. The auctions had been slated for $30 billion apiece and Fed officials said subsequent auctions could be bigger if need be. The Fed also said that it would begin a series of repurchase transactions expected to reach $100 billion. "Craig Peckham, an equity trading strategist at Jefferies and Co., said besides the weak job figures, investors were worried about an apparent lack of effectiveness of the Fed's campaign. "There is a growing sense that the Fed is trying to pull out all the stops and use all the tools they have but with little net effect," he said. "It just doesn't appear to be the quick-fix that investors had been hoping for. What we've seen is people continuing to press very bearish bets." NOW, anyone want to argue re recession-here, OR about real seriousness of the current situation, can do so direct with USTODAY as opponent. Reality is reality, and surely should control our approach to understanding what it IS NOW and what we CAN and MUST DO about it in the near future.

James March 7, 2008 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

No doubt Henry there are a vast array of opinions and interpretations out there. The one fact that cannot be overlooked though is that we have not had another major domestic attack since 9/11/2001. If you would have been asked on 9/12/2001 if there would be another attack within 6 and 1/2 years I imagine the majority of Americans certainly would have thought so. Bottom line is our people have been protecting the homeland and I imagine we will never know how many attacks have been stopped, for obvious reasons. Also did not the senate have a bi-partisan agreement to renew the wiretap law? I believe so. As far as members of any party during an election cycle they will always try to spin, even distort info to their advantage. I'm pretty sure for the next 8 months we will be getting an abundance of political histrionics from all political sides. Nancy Pelosi should bring the matter up for a public vote, don't you think? Stand by your convictions publically, that's why we put them in office.

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Oliver North led forces for Reagan's Iran-Contra defiance of Congressional decision made into law. Some neocons here call him a hero. He's now lushly-paid tv pundit due to notorieties from Iran-Contra. Here's his latest debacle lifted from AlterNet for you: Fox’s Oliver North Blames Times Square Bombing on Pelosi and House Democrats By Satyam Khanna March 7, 2008 ("See with own eyes" at http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.thinkprogress.org//79004/) Yesterday, a “shadowy figure on a bicycle” planted a small bomb that shattered the glass facade of the military recruiting station in Times Square in New York City. An investigation into the incident has begun. Fox News’ Ollie North, however, has found his scapegoat. This morning, he said the incident may have been prevented had the House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) granted a renewal of the Protect America Act: Last month, of course, the U.S. House of Representatives under the direction of Nancy Pelosi went on vacation rather than voting on the Protect America Act, which provided for wiretapping of terrorists making phone calls into and out of the United States to foreign places. And I note that it would have been a lot easier, perhaps, to find out who did this, or even to know that they were planning it, had we been able to intercept those communications. North’s comments are a sad attempt to politicize a tragic bombing. In reality, surveillance that began under the law will be able to continue, and intelligence officials can initiate new surveillance against suspected terrorists by simply getting a warrant through the FISA court. The warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun. North, however, conveniently failed to mention this. Conservatives have stalled Congress from negotiating on the PAA. Last week, Senate GOP leaders blocked another extension of the PAA. In fact, the Politico reported this week that some Republicans are boycotting the negotation meetings. North’s statements echo CNN’s Glenn Beck, who said recently, “Nancy Pelosi will end up killing Americans.”

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 12:56 pm (Pacific time)

James et al: Presidents bear precisely the responsibilities you mention; some listen and learn on the job from those well qualified to advise. They know that's the price for the Presidency, and they swear to uphold the Constitution and to work for the commonweal --not private interests nor corporate payoff whatever the form and delivery date. Given informed guidance, as mentioned, despite ongoing trends and economic forces always at work, major adjustments can be made --and have been, as Lincoln did re slavery; as FDR did, advised by Keynes et al; as Eisenhower did, after world's worst war till then. But there are those others who see only outmoded, failed, irrational and irresponsible actions, often urged by those with malign intent driven by their own private interests. Reagan-era "leaders" now are historically seen at deepest fault for most of what is now occurring, with desperate consequences for everyone.(Can cite historians in depth, if you ID-self to editor !) You pays your taxes and then takes your choice: stand for what you get or kick the damn rascals out...as we've done in the distant and recent past. IF they rascally enough, you impeach the hell out of them as lesson for others coming to same responsibilities to the nation and its citizens. Nixon quit when he knew he was found out, for actions now repeated by Bush II (U.S. Attorney firings as retaliation, among others.) IF we do not learn from our own history, we sure as h... in a bad way for next-steps into 21st Century demanding more wisdom, strength and all other ways we can work for the commonweal. How else do you suggest we proceed for progressivity now obviously demanded ??

James March 7, 2008 9:49 am (Pacific time)

If presidents knew how to stop inflation and maintain low unemployment rates I believe they would do that. I have seen such seething anger directed at literally all presidents during my lifetime, but the hatred I see directed at both Reagan and Clinton pales to what BushII receives. Since all of these presidents also have significant numbers of supporters, it seems that most of the dislike is based on partisan ideology. Bush will soon be out of office, Reagan has been gone for 20 years, Carter is simply impotent , and Bill Clinton, unless his wife is elected (doubtful) is waning quickly. Chill!

Henry Ruark March 7, 2008 6:59 am (Pacific time)

G-W Vet: Stiglitz didn't win Nobel for missing relevant fact. He's well aware of past wasting wars --and their astronomical costs-- but simple fact of historic numbers start him from record budget-surplus from Clinton to Bush, now overtaken by the deficit records set by Bush --largely due to "premptive" war he chose to pursue, with intelligence manipulation to misinform the American public. Historic fact is historic fact, not changeable by any personal political choice. We DID fight in the Gulf, it DID cost billions and lives and tragedy for those surviving. But Clinton DID leave truly remarkable longtime economic record --AND huge budget surplus. If you doubt these facts, cite "see with own eyes" link beyond VA-record, questionably relevant now, here, so others can check, too. That's dialog on basis of truth, open to all to evaluate "with own mind."

Gulf War Vet March 6, 2008 8:27 pm (Pacific time)

Nobel-winner economist Joseph Stigiitz ought to do some simple reading from a public VA Benefits guide. "Gulf War: Aug. 2, 1990, through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation." http://www1.va.gov/opa/vadocs/fedben.pdf Perhaps that economist is blind to the billions spent during the Clinton/Gore administration fighting the Gulf War. The Southwest Asia Service Medal from the Gulf War was awarded through November of 1995.

$Two Dollar March 6, 2008 6:11 pm (Pacific time)

Excuse me! I did not mean to ruffle any feathers people. I just am hoping we do not have a recession as per the definition of what one is that I discussed below about two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Also that it is my prayer that Iraq's economy starts developing so they can start helping to offset the war costs, maybe even reimburse us (yeah a pipe dream on the latter). I think we all want the same thing folks, a healthy economy. But to recall the late 70's and early 80's as per the Department of Labor the inflation rate for 1979 was 11.3%, 1980 @13.5%, 1981 @10.3%, 1982 @6.2% and 1983 @ 3.2%. So getting inflation under control was certainly a plus. When Reagan took office the national unemployment rate was at 7.2% and spiked to 10.8% during his second year. Then for the next six years it settled at around 5.3%. Ronald Reagan came to power as the double-digit inflation of the Jimmy Carter era was still raging. Mr. Reagan's recession of 1981-1982 may have been more or less inevitable rather than a result of a calculated decision to take a recession early. The Federal Reserve chief, Paul A. Volcker, was determined to subdue inflation, and there may not have been much for Mr. Reagan to do but grin and bear the consequences. But the timing of that monetary clamping down, along with tumbling oil prices, could scarcely have been better. Six years of uninterrupted recovery followed, a peacetime record.

Glen March 6, 2008 4:57 pm (Pacific time)

$Two Dollars: inflation was the issue with Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter -- not unemployment. After Reagan took office, for example, unemployment was 17% in Lansing, Michigan where I lived at the time. That was far better than Detroit's 24%. People were laid off and if they could find jobs at all could only find work at much lower wages--all part of Reagan's plan to squeeze out the middle class.

Henry Ruark March 6, 2008 4:44 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Two Dollar is selling same line of gunk and lies as some others we've met here. Purpose is to spread lying protective misinformation and to absorb attention and dialog time on open honest democratic channel offering NOT oversimplified version of fact and history unanswerable with short factual materials, but to leave those calculated misinterpretations of history and reality in minds of those who may not realize how false and misleading his s...(stuff) really is. We welcome dissent but it needs to be documented and we need to know from whence it cometh --without the cowardly protection of still another alias. IF he wishes to discuss the Reagan debacle, leading to the concentrated disaster of Bush II, aided and abetted by Vp Cheney from Reagan-time, let him do Op Ed here, as invited many times...then we can do complete disembowel on him via "see with own eyes" references freely available already. SO $2-cheap/shot, put up or shut up: ID self to Editor for direct-to-me, or for Op Ed, your choice.

$Two Dollars March 6, 2008 1:59 pm (Pacific time)

I heard the definition of a recession is when you have two consecutive quarters of negative growth. If memory serves, the last quarter only registered 6/10's of 1%growth, but still not negative. I sure hope we can avoid a recession, I just cannot imagine anyone wanting one because of the absolute misery it causes for so many, especially our middle-class, but there are those out there who want to see it happen, I guess they want a different type of government or something? The Reagan recession, was that not going on before he took office? Things were pretty bad back in the late 70's and early 80's. Isn't that why President Carter lost? Well if we end up with the unemployment rate going up, then those who are here illegaly working with fraudulent ID will be self-deporting. If not, then what? Unemployed Americans will not stand for illegals keeping them from the work they need to feed their family. No we do not want a recession of any long duration. I hope the Iraqi's can start picking up more of the tab, so seeing that their revenue generating parts of their economy develop will also benefit the American taxpayer. Let's face facts people, we will not be leaving Iraq for a long time, no matter who wins this November.

Glen March 6, 2008 12:23 pm (Pacific time)

I fear that this in combination with other factors will drag us through a recession/depression which will make Reagan's recession Of the early 80's pale in comparison. Goodbye middle class.

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 3 to 5 Trillion Dollars For Bush`s War Costs?

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News