$75 billion for first month of war

[MarijuanaClock]

$75 billion for first month of war
Last Updated Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:40:12
WASHINGTON - An anxious White House is trying to change expectations for an easy and quick war just as U.S. President George W. Bush made his first formal request to Congress for the funds to fight it.

INDEPTH: Iraq

Bush is expected to ask for at least $75 billion US. And that may be just the beginning.

George W. Bush
Bush's bigger problem, though, may be in shaping public opinion.

Many Americans had thought the war would end in a matter of days. But as the fighting intensifies, Bush and his officials are having to readjust their own message and prepare Americans for a rising casualty toll.

Bush has been barely visible in recent days, leaving it to his military commanders to do most of the talking. But the fighting is serious and difficult. Casualties are rising, PoWs are in enemy hands and Saddam Hussein's regime, instead of falling apart, is hanging tough.

Many Americans believed the war would be over in days, though White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was careful to point out that Bush had never left that impression.

The president will make major public appearances both Tuesday and Wednesday.

"Regardless of what happens with casualties, or the pace of casualties, the president knows that it is always an important part of his job to communicate with the American people and that is why he will continue to do it," Fleischer told reporters.

It's expected Bush will also talk about the financial cost of the war.

Twelve years ago, during the first Gulf War, Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia paid just about all the bills. This time around it will be U.S. taxpayers.

More than $60 billion of the $75 billion Bush is seeking will go directly towards paying for the war. The request assumes it will take 30 days of combat to oust the Iraqi regime.

For months the president has been dodging complaints that he'd gone out of his way to hide the costs of the war. Fleischer has suggested that other nations will be helping.

"There is a commitment from nations to help in the humanitarian aspects of helping the Iraqi people with the reconstruction costs. So there will be some effort, but clearly this is something the U.S. has to take the lead in."

The White House and Pentagon continue to be confident about the war. But they're also watching public opinion polls very carefully.

In recent years Americans have been used to seeing their armed forces fight long-distance sterile air wars, with few if any casualties.

The invasion of Iraq is turning out to be a different kind of war.

[thenark]

While 75 Billion may be quite alot for a war by todays standards, just wait till Bush wins this one and goes on a Napoleonic style imperialistic purge of all countries that he dislikes. Your just lucky you have such a large GDP to finance murder.

[Jimsween]

Grrr.... why do you talk if you're just going to rant and rave. Try backing up what you say with some facts because it get really annoying to listen to your imprudent views.

[thenark]

Well, I suppose from a historical standpoint, this could turn out like the Viet Nam war did, where the states will have to pack up and leave, but you wouldnt know anything about that would you?

But honestly, what is to stop him? the US government has been toppling dictators for years, what makes you think bush will after saddam is vanquished?

[Dagodevas]

At 3/25/03 10:30 PM, thenark wrote: While 75 Billion may be quite alot for a war by todays standards, just wait till Bush wins this one and goes on a Napoleonic style imperialistic purge of all countries that he dislikes. Your just lucky you have such a large GDP to finance murder.

Quit thinking so unrealisticly and childish. That would never happen. I'm sure that Congress would impeach him if he even considered it. Besides, we all know come election time Bush is going to get beat out by whoever the lucky Democratic opponent will be.

Kazou Kiriyama

[Jimsween]

Do you have any idea how the U.S. government works, we have elections for senate every year and president every 4 years. At the end of this year we vote for president and senate. The president needs permission from the senate to declare war and if he went on a rampage it would be doubtfull anybody would vote for him, much less the senators that gave him permission. That is what is stopping him.

[thenark]

Yes, interesting trend that, republicans classically start wars, democrats try to stick to peace keeping. (with the exception of operation desert fox which was clintons attemt to cover up his extra-marital felatio)

[AbstractVagabond]

I wonder if Bush buys two months, does he get the third month free?

[Disguy-youknow]

At 3/25/03 10:50 PM, jimsween wrote: Do you have any idea how the U.S. government works, we have elections for senate every year and president every 4 years. At the end of this year we vote for president and senate. The president needs permission from the senate to declare war and if he went on a rampage it would be doubtfull anybody would vote for him, much less the senators that gave him permission. That is what is stopping him.

Actually you have elections for senators for every SIX years. Furthmore the President can use troops w/o Congressional approval for 60 days as per the War Powers Act (which I find wrong).

But, nevertheless, Bush will not go on a rampage. Especially with 2004 elections looming.

[Evanauto]

Wait we have only been at actual war for 6 DAYS

and for just housing soldiers in the middle east for the days leading up to the war was 3.2 Billion a day

[Ted-Easton]

It's also to pay for 6 months of occupation, though it's expected the US troops will remain long past that.

[JMHX]

With a majority Republican congress, most of the citizens supporting military action in Iraq (since most of them don't know the half of it and are content to just watch Lester Holt search Mosul for his lost upper lip), and enough of an ability to buy votes against a historically un-amazing democratic slew of quasi-candidates, I don't see what would really stop him from doing what he wanted.

Hell, we'd support him if he said we were going after Korea, because they're more of a threat than Iraq. Then we'd go after Syria or Jordan because they may be housing terrorists. Yeah, we don't like terrorists. New America: Middle East is growing with every passing year and every hint of opposition to U.S. policy. "With us or against us" is hardly the way to go about doing things.

[JIN2]

9-11 is forgotten the people that say the war should be stopped have forgot this cowardly act of terrorism and should be shone again and again what happened on September 11th tell they feel sorry for what they have done. September 11th, 17 days away from my 12th birthday I remember waking up and seeing the first plane crash in to that tower. Then the last plane hit and both towers came crashing down killing 3,000+ people and now people that are against the war. The same people that help the terrorist get in this country like Saddam and Ben Laden those are the true enemies.

[thenark]

Oh my god, more mention of 9/11, no one has forgotten about it, the media hasnt allowed us to, they shove it down our throats at least weekly, and it was daily until just after christmas. It was sad, but you only think its an atrocity because it happened to the states. No one here mentions the napalm drops on children in viet nam being sad, nor the nuclear bombs on hiroshima or nagasaki. No one has forgotten 9/11, just some of us have stopped caring because of all the whining the US has consistently done that. 3000 people is a fraction of the number of people who die every day in other countries around the world. Get over yourselves