So? When Mama's Boy goes home after the 20th? Send him the bill.

Net 30, too.

It's been years and years since any neocon Republican conceded a war could cost money. That they live in a world of their own was never a subject adequately addressed.

In terms of Bush the strangeness is easy enough to account for. His existence was always one where the money kept coming regardless.

I wonder how much Obama's war in Pakistan and Afghanistan is going to cost, and whether the libs will feign outrage over it?

I'm not feigning outrage. It has always ticked me Bush and his running dogs never gave evidence of perceiving spending huge amounts of money for a war is a way to lose one.

You should get what you pay for.

But....I thought the oil would pay for the war.

This is the first war in American history no one has been asked to sacrifice except the soldiers Bush placed in harms way.

I wonder how much Obama's war in Pakistan and Afghanistan is going to cost, and whether the libs will feign outrage over it?

~Riiiiiiiight

The Military Industrial Media Complex owns politicians on both sides of the aisles and have fer decades.

America is a country perpetually at war and always claiming to be defending while attacking.

That's fact alone's worth criticising no matter who is in power.

"Ka-Ching" go the cash registers over at General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumann, United Technologies etc, etc, etc as bombs get dropped and go "Ka-Boom".

Usually on someone who the US used to support but who is now a "legitimate target" due to rationalisations dreamed up in some corporate think tank.

That's the bigger, longer term picture.

In the shorter term?

The War in Afghanistan can never be "won" in the traditional sense of the word. The only possible way out of that place now is by direct negotiation with the Taliban and the Afghanis in the south who've never really been brought into the process.

The war against the remnants of the AQ in Pakistan will continue until someone shows up with Bin Laden or at least his head on a stick.

In terms of whether or not Libs will "feign outrage" over Obama cleaning up Bush's mess the answer is no.

"Feigned Outrage" is a copyrighted tool of the right and yer welcome to it.

Spud deals in actual outrage and in truth and if you don't think Spud is standing by and ready to criticise Obama's blunders (and there's sure to be some) then you aint hardly been paying attention at all.

Be Well.

The war on terrorism looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion... -- Posted by reinheitsgebot

...and the bailout. I quit counting a month or so ago, when the cost was at $2 trillion spent by the Fed without authorization or any form of accountability, and the $700B Paulson scammed with Congress's help.

So, gosh, give Bush the credit he deserves!

This is the first war in American history no one has been asked to sacrifice except the soldiers Bush placed in harms way. -- #7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

No worries. Our kids and grandkids are picking up the tab.

I wonder how much Obama's war in Pakistan and Afghanistan is going to cost, and whether the libs will feign outrage over it?

#4 | Posted by rightisright at 2008-12-27 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag

You fail to understand that it isn't the man, it is the action. No one hated Bush---they hated Bushs actions. Same with Obama. I see no reason to spend a nickel in either Afghanistan or Iraq, no matter who is President. The entire concept of fighting a military war with no opposing army is ridiculous. It's like trying to fight CRIME with a battleship and aircraft carriers--it won't work. Bin Laden isn't worth a trillion dollars. To get bin Laden, simply infiltrate his inner circle through bribery, murder, blackmail, threats, whatever it takes, and then send in kill teams. But to fight terror with battleships is beyond stupid---no matter who is President.

Obama needs to bring the troops home---all the troops. And cut the hell out of the military budget. People wouldn't want to blow us up if we'd quit killing their families and generally fucking with their lives.

Bush is a huge failure. Close this case and move on.

We'll need all those soldiers to put down the great food riots of 2011.

So we can keep count of the trillion plus that Obama spends and then notice the silence...

So we can keep count of the trillion plus that Obama spends and then notice the silence...

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-12-27 02:22 PM | Reply

i wonder if it will sound like you for the last eight years?

Obama wouldn't HAVE to spend stimulus money if Bush (your hero) hadn't broken the bank.

BUSH JUST PARDONED HIMSELF. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...

bush will look like a piker by the time the liberal bems. get done.

Impossible.

It will be Bush's war. It is up to Obama to end it. Preferably NOW. herm

Only 1 trillion dollars, 3000 dead American civilians, 4000 dead American soldiers and how does Bush fell about all of it?

I guess he thinks it's pretty funny:

As part of a light-hearted comedy skit at the annual Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush showed a series of "dorky-looking pictures of himself," according to the Washington Post. "A recurring joke involved photos of the president in awkward positions bent over as if he's looking under a table, leaning to look out a window accompanied by remarks such as 'Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!' and 'Nope, no weapons over there!' and 'Maybe under here?'"

...and what does Bush think of the man who killed 3000 American civilians in one day?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

I guess it only takes a mere 6 months to go from the worlds most wanted terrorist to being forgotten about by the Decider.

bush will look like a piker by the time the liberal bems. get done.

#18 | Posted by semtex111 at 2008-12-27 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Limey gibberish.

In Shrub'sown words, "Every day has been a joy".

Nowe cannotmove on until all the US criminals are prosecuted.

1 trillion. Imagine how many jobs that would create.

One trillion spent on the Iraq war will look like peanuts compared to what Barry will waste supposedly "fixin the economy."

EIGHT trillion - imagine how many jobs that would create. That's what Bush has blown or borrowed in EIGHT years.

OMG, that is almost as much as Bear Stearns got.

"EIGHT trillion - imagine how many jobs that would create. That's what Bush has blown or borrowed in EIGHT years." #26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Obama will spend that in months. He already has plans for seven trillion.

"Ka-Ching" go the cash registers over at General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumann, United Technologies etc, etc, etc as bombs get dropped and go "Ka-Boom".

#8 | Posted by dethspud

These are all US companies with US citizen employees, aren't they?

"These are all US companies with US citizens...."

My God. That's right. Let's have another war.

KBM

In case no one's told you you're a stupid idiot today ....

you're a stupid idiot

You 25%-ers are out of your minds.

Democrats controlled congress the last 2 years. They are the ones who passed the spending for this war during those 2 years.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Some of you leftards here can't seem to get around those pesky facts.

Once again, the standard right-shit response to a proven truth which shows their boy in a bad light is... fortune telling. "When Obama does this" Or "When the dems really take the country down the shithole".

Sure signs of a people without even a balsa wood peg leg to stand on. Oh, well, their march into the dustbin of failure and ultimate irrelevancy continues heartily. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

Buzzkiller, brainkiller, so the dems are your heroes, yes? approving the spending, yes? Keeping our men and women alive while they deal with the avoidable clusterfuck the rights pos elitist, never did an honest days work in his life, entitled pollywog named W caused, yes?

They got us in, knowing we couldn't just pull out (no innuendo, yes?)
and saddled it onto the backs and wallets of a pushover nation still desperately hanging on to some John Wayne mythos of what America never was and never will be. A pox on all'a ya asswipes.

Nuts

Nuts

...and what does Bush think of the man who killed 3000 American civilians in one day?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

I guess it only takes a mere 6 months to go from the worlds most wanted terrorist to being forgotten about by the Decider.

#21 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2008-12-27 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Thanks for reminding us one more time that the US gov't was hijacked by an imbecile...

I noticed no one wanted to respond... Hmmmmmm

The nation wasn't hijacked by an imbecile, but by a hubris infected
dead-end ideology that deluded itself into thinking it represented "real America". The damage done and its after taste will last longer than tootsie roll stuck in the molars -- though obviously heaps more detrimental to our overall health. Sadly, there are still those that the R
in front of a scum-bags name and a few token nods towards "values",
"free-enterprise" and the demonizing of liberals makes a worthy candidate. Anyway, its a new year. A tough one. But at least the tribles have been momentarily neutered. Time for the grown ups to get to work.

"Democrats controlled congress the last 2 years. They are the ones who passed the spending for this war during those 2 years.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Some of you leftards here can't seem to get around those pesky facts."
--buzkiller

Who fucking requested the spending?

What is everyone told to do in a time of war? Follow the commander in chief. You assholes reviling Obama NOW, before he even takes office, are just a remarkable pack of idiots. I can't understand how so many people can be so willfully stupid. Or so beholden to the political indoctrination they received as a child.

No ones arguing that our entire government is a waste, though that's probably the most accurate assessment of the leaders we've shackled onto ourselves.

Bush spent money expanding government. No Child Left Behind, when he should have closed the Department of Education. The big prescription drug bill, when he should have reformed Medicare to get the government out of the business of health care. A Department of Homeland Security, when he should have fired half the dumbasses and downsized CIA, FBI, ATF, INS, and the alphabet soup of government agencies responsible for the most comprehensive intelligence failure in history, rather than rewarding them. An enormous bailout of Wall Street and Detroit, rather than allowing profitable firms with strong management teams to take over the failed ones.

I'll know Obama is serious when he talks about reversing the things Bush has done. Until then, he's just a different cover on the Wheaties box.

"Hmmmm! New Wheaties! Wait a minute . . . momma! They look just like the other ones!"

"Bush breaks the bank". and we have been safe in the US for seven years. Lets see how FLOP EARS does!

Bush didn't break anything, congress broke everything.

Bush only gets a signature authority, congress makes the rules.

Just keep repeating that there hasn't been a single terrorist attack since 9-11 and our TV nation will believe it. The string of solo suicide attacks aren't supposed to count, at least until a Democrat is in charge. Not Mohamad & Mulva, not the machine gun attack on the ElAl ticket Counter in LA not the armed Serbian Muslim youth attack on Trolley square in SLC.....not hundreds of escalating attacks on foriegn soil... wipe that partial list from your short little memory hole.

"Bush breaks the bank". and we have been safe in the US for seven years. Lets see how FLOP EARS does!

#41 | POSTED BY OZZIEOSWALD /

A true shame he couldn't keep us safe for 8 years.

Bush didn't break anything, congress broke everything.
#42 | POSTED BY ROMAN

Yup it's all Congress fault, starting when they declared war on Iraq!

Yup it's all Congress fault, starting when they declared war on Iraq!

Yeah baby, congress never gave Bush the approval did they.

What a moron.

Come on, tell me one thing the president does that doesn't have congress's approval. Just one.

Yeah baby, congress never gave Bush the approval did they.

Yes indeed the Constitution clearly states it will give 'approval' for war!

"Bush breaks the bank". and we have been safe in the US for seven years... Ozzieoswald

Would you care to define "safe" ?

And consider how many years we were "safe" before 2001?

It would be interesting to know.

Come on, tell me one thing the president does that doesn't have congress's approval. Just one.

#47 | Posted by roman

How about 161 things?

"Come on, tell me one thing the president does that doesn't have congress's approval. Just one."

In addition to SA's signing statements, how about Executive Orders?

Congress can stop an executive order anytime they want, man, who makes the damn laws.

Actually, if you check it out you'll find that one of the main criticisms about Executive Orders (which are not mentioned in the Constitution)is that presidents have in effect been able to make law through them without the approval of Congress.

Well if congress actually cared and did their jobs and enforced laws those executive orders wouldn't be there.

abdication from inforcement is silently approving. Don't like what the president signs, tell congress for they are the ones who allow and send the laws.

GEO W BUSH: "To bad he couldn't keep us safe for eight years"

The eigth year? You need to talk to your buddy Clinton!

"Well if congress actually cared and did their jobs and enforced laws ..."

Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

Hans

The eigth year? You need to talk to your buddy Clinton!

#55 | Posted by ozzieoswald

That's right! It was Clinton who got that August PDB, but decided there was just too much brush to cut down in Crawford to be bothered with reading.

Congress can stop an executive order anytime they want, man, who makes the damn laws.

#52 | Posted by roman

Really? And how about those signing statements. How does Congress stop those?

"You need to talk to your buddy Clinton!"

The perps responsible for the 1993 attack on the WTC are rotting in jail.

Where's Osama bin Laden?

Hans

#54 | Posted by roman

SANOBAMA: Good to see your back with your inaccurate statements. I thought I warned you about reading the New York Slime.

Really? And how about those signing statements. How does Congress stop those?

Duh, write a law to make it unlawful.

Enforce the laws the signing statement breaks, presidents don't make laws, CONGRESS does.

Congress can't do it....whine cry moan that bad man president is making laws and congress can't stop him whaaaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaaa what are we to do.

LOL!

"Good to see your back..."

How can someone here see another person's back?

Did Rogers implement some kind of video blogging?

Hans

The eigth year? You need to talk to your buddy Clinton!

#55 | POSTED BY OZZIEOSWALD

Dang, Clinton was President on 9/11/01.

Now that is news!

"Duh, write a law to make it unlawful."

And if that law isn't signed (a pocket veto)? And if there aren't enough votes to overturn an actual veto?

"Enforce the laws the signing statement breaks, presidents don't make laws, CONGRESS does."

Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

Hans

The perps responsible for the 1993 attack on the WTC are rotting in jail.
Where's Osama bin Laden?
~Hans

Now that just not fair Hans after all he didn't spend all that much time looking for bin laden...

Doc,

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the ratification of treaties.

Thanks, maybe you should ask a teacher what this means, particularly in bold.

GEO W BUSH: "Now that is news". What is news is your to stupid to realize the lack of info, I mean good info that was past from Slick Willy to the Bush Adm.

Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

Although your post is somewhat correct, hmmmmm, clinton? Nixon?

Again, whaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaa congress can't do it, whaaaaaaa whaaaaaa that mean ole bad president can do anything BECAUSE CONGRESS DOESN'T ENFORCE LAWS.

LOL!

Thanks, maybe you should ask a teacher what this means, particularly in bold.

declaring war

~Roman

Yes indeed I clearly remember Congress Declaring War

"Although your post is somewhat correct..."

Nothing "somewhat" about my post.

Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

"BECAUSE CONGRESS DOESN'T ENFORCE LAWS."

That's correct. Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

Hans

Hans,

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers....

and making all laws necessary for executing these powers...

I might not understand how you understand this but it is pretty clear I think. Not some laws, not except signing statements but ALL LAWS.

Wow! I wonder what ALL LAWS means, I know, let's go ask the president!

"What is news is your (sic) to (sic) stupid to realize the lack of info..."

Self-retorting retort times two.

Hans

I mean good info that was past from Slick Willy to the Bush Adm.

#68 | POSTED BY OZZIEOSWALD

And Ignored

GEO W BUSH: "Now that is news". What is news is your to stupid to realize the lack of info, I mean good info that was past from Slick Willy to the Bush Adm.

#68 | Posted by ozzieoswald

Sure Oozie, sure. I'm sure you have some sort of proof to back up your contention.

#72 | Posted by roman

The thick is very strong in this one, Hans.

Yes indeed I clearly remember Congress Declaring War

LOL!

Poor congress, we make laws but what are we to do if the president won't agree, we have no power no power at all whaaaaaaaaaa we can't impeach him because he is the enforcer, the president just won't enforce the impeachment whaaaaaaaaa.

LOL!

Never heard such whining about how congress has no power. I guess we really just live in a presidencial dictatorship and it's by the presidents' good graces that he decides to follow congress's laws.

The thick is very strong in this one

It's like pulling taffy

making all laws necessary for executing these powers

I wonder what this means, could it possibly mean if the president doesn't follow the laws that congress can write a law giving them authority of law enforcement........Nope, they can't make ALL laws because it states they are supposed to MAKE ALL laws.

Thick maybe, but comprehension of who has law making isn't up your alley.

Thick maybe, but comprehension of who has law making isn't up your alley.

#79 | Posted by roman

At least I comprehend who MAKES laws and who ENFORCES them.

Or does the Justice Department report to Congress in your world?

#79 | Posted by roman

. . . as a brick.

The thick is very strong in this one

Thick, is that code for nonsensical?

It's like pulling taffy

#78 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm beginning to think that Roman is the sibling who finished slightly ahead of Oozie in the homeschooling fiasco.

"...and making all laws necessary for executing these powers..." by the... now hold on...by the Executive branch.

It is pretty clear I think.

Congress doesn't enforce laws. That's the job of the Executive branch. "Executive," as in execute (and enforce) the laws.

It is pretty clear I think.

Hans

"I'm beginning to think that Roman is the sibling who finished slightly ahead of Oozie in the homeschooling fiasco."

No doubt he graduated in the top 99.99% of his class.

Hans

Think what you want, but the problem here is YOU ALL know I am correct but just don't like it.

CONGRESS MAKES THE LAWS, ALL THE LAWS and have the ability to make ALL THE LAWS to execute them.

Go figure!

Talk about crying and moaning, everything bush has done congress has the ability to stop it. Tell me I am wrong.

Someone forgot those executive orders which have the force of Laws or was that guy Roman not in mental attendance during that discussion at school??

Larry

Talk about crying and moaning, everything bush has done congress has the ability to stop it. Tell me I am wrong.

#86 | Posted by roman

You're wrong. And have been shown why multiple times. Congress does not have the authority to override or invalidate signing statements.

The only way that can be done is through the judicial system.

"Tell me I am wrong."

Okay, you're wrong.

(or, as you were most likely taught, allow me to translate into your language: "your wrong")

Hans

No doubt he graduated in the top 99.99% of his class.

It appears that my class has taught me a better reading comprehension and understanding than your class.

You keep calling me thick but have not yet given anything about how congress doesn't make all the laws........oops, did you think I would leave that important aspect out.

Yep, I am thick, but I am also right no matter how many names you call me.

Prove me wrong, congress holds all the real power.

Bush breaks the bank". and we have been safe in the US for seven years... Ozzieoswald

Would you care to define "safe" ?

And consider how many years we were "safe" before 2001?

It would be interesting to know.

#49 | Posted by sitdown at 2008-12-29 08:59 AM | Reply |

Ozzieoswald calls somebody "flop-ears" but his own ears/eyes seem to be closed.

"...or was that guy Roman not in mental attendance during that discussion at school??"

Nail on the head, Larry.

Hans

You keep calling me thick but have not yet given anything about how congress doesn't make all the laws........oops, did you think I would leave that important aspect out.

#90 | Posted by roman

Executive orders carry the weight of law without Congress doing anything to approve or disapprove of them. Signing statements also carry the weight of law unless overturned in the courts.

Therefore, the President has the ability to do an end-around the Congress. All of them do it. Bush has enacted 161 signing statements effectively altering 1100 laws as enacted by Congress.

Clear?

The only way that can be done is through the judicial system.

You mean congress can't write a law outlawing signing statements? Is that what you are saying?

You mean to tell me that can't be done.

Talk about thick, what do you not understand about "all laws to execute"?

"CONGRESS MAKES THE LAWS, ALL THE LAWS and have the ability to make ALL THE LAWS to execute them."

Execute......ummmm DO ummmmmmm PERFORM....something

Talk about thick...
#94 | Posted by roman

Keep talking.

Oh, Doc, so tell me......if the executive branch decides not to listen to congress by your understanding nothing could be done.

President executes the laws so therefore congress just hopes the president will obey and follow what laws they make....OK....yeah sure.....yu betcha!

I like it though, impeach bush, and all he has to do is look at congress and say, I don't think I want to be impeached today I control the enforcers so I am going to tell them congress doesn't make those laws.

Cutting the baby in half here, I think that maybe congress does have the legal authority to something in these cases to stop the president (making signing statements illegal, power of the purse type stuff). That, of course, does not mean that they have the political power to do so.

to do something....

Roman, if you ever actually come ashore into the reality-based world of American politics send up a flare.

Roman, Roman, Roman....when you find yourself in a hole, for Pete's sake stop digging.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Wonder where this came from.........

Digging.....What? No answer.

I have shown that congress has all the ability and what have you shown......

You are wrong.

Well, you certainly have convinced me with those so so powerful words of persuasion.

You proof of "YOU ARE WRONG" is so strong, I need your kung fu!

"Roman, Roman, Roman....when you find yourself in a hole, for Pete's sake stop digging."

#102 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-12-29 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag: OUCH

When someone who's ostensibly from the same side of the aisle says "for Pete's sake stop digging," you know you're in deep.

Hans

"I have shown that congress has all the ability and what have you shown......"

That you are wrong.

You're welcome.

Hans

"This is the first war in American history no one has been asked to sacrifice except the soldiers Bush placed in harms way"

Since the 60's, the liberals have made sure America doesn't know the meaning of the word sacrifice because its "mean" and the sense of entitlement that comes with a generation that sold "fairness & equality" at the cost of competition and this idea that everything is a "tie". No winners, no losers, everyone gets a ribbon. With all the progress made in America, there are drawbacks to all our happiness & enlightenment. There is no sacrifice without risk & we're so safe & spoiled, at least we think so, that we've completely lost sight of what that is. I appreciate the sacrifice of the troops & their families but the American people as a whole are not about sacrifice in any way. The sad part is that our enemies know this and it makes us more vunerable. Vietnam is thrown up a lot talking about Iraq but the most important lesson is lost on those who'd rather play politics & crucify Bush.

Damn right it's about sacrifice.
I mean, I gave up golf.
What more than that could my nation demand?
~GWB

"who'd rather play politics & crucify Bush"

On the subject of sacrifice?
Here's George Bush on sacrifice in a speech he gave on September 27, 2001 when he said, referring to the actions of the 9/11 hijacker-murderers:

Come on, tell me one thing the president does that doesn't have congress's approval. Just one.

#47 | Posted by roman

Well--congress recently voted NO on the loan bailouts to the automakers.

Bush went right on and said he'll use the TARP money to loan them billions.

EIGHT trillion - imagine how many jobs that would create. That's what Bush has blown or borrowed in EIGHT years.

#26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

That is nothing compared to what Obama will spend and it won't create any jobs except for the unions.

The gov't is a consumer--not a job creator.

For every dollar they spend they took from the taxpayer--who is the creator of jobs.

That is nothing compared to what Obama will spend and it won't create any jobs except for the unions.- Murphy

If, for example, there is a national plan to spend huge sums of public money on fixing our ailing infrastructure, a good idea, would you want this to be done without people who are members of trade unions, Murphy?

You really don't think much, do you, but you use cliches like "won't create jobs except for the unions" as if union jobs are to nobody's benefit but the unions. It's not like that in the real world. Conservative cliches are so dumb.

The Citizens of the good old USA have failed for many years in electing someone who is worthy of being a US President or getting the best politician for office. This bi-partisan bickering has led us down the road to where we are now. One side screaming to the other they are right and fighting each other within the courts.

The result is outrageous costs to the tax paying citizen and elected officials with their hand out to the Corporations. Obama may try to be different but he will face huge barriers like many of the past Presidents. This is reality today where decisions are not made by common sense but PAC groups or Lobbists from huge Corporations with free money for election campaigns. And lets not even start on the Press, they are not worthy of the label.

These costs for the war were brought on by huge stupid mistakes in government policy from both sides of the fence. Until we unite and Order our Elected Officials to behave responsibly this will continue until the USA goes broke. The way things are going it will occur in the next decade.