Friday, February 03, 2006

Your Tax Dollars Pissed Down the Drain   Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute By Mark Mazzetti and Joel Havemann Los Angeles Times Friday, February 3, 2006 - 12:00 AM WASHINGTON — The White House said Thursday that it plans to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two countries to $120 billion this year, the highest ever. Most of the new money would pay for the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. The additional spending, along with other war funding the Bush administration will seek separately in its regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War. The cost of military operations in 2006 is $35 billion higher than what Congress had estimated a few months ago that the Defense Department would need this year. The higher costs are occurring even as the Pentagon is planning to reduce troop levels in Iraq in coming months, reflecting the continuing wear and damage to military equipment in desert combat, the need to upgrade protection for U.S. troops and the effort to train and equip Iraqi forces. No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said. Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute. Current spending in Afghanistan is about $800 million a month, or about $18,000 per minute. The rising costs contrast with projections before the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey predicted in late 2002 that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, drawing administration ire for offering such high estimates and eventually resigning his post. In spring 2003, top administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq's vast oil reserves would help defray the costs of an extended U.S. stay. Nearly three years later, oil revenues are far below expectations and the Iraqi government is able to pay for only a fraction of its reconstruction. The White House also told Congress on Thursday that it will ask for $18 billion in supplemental funds for Hurricane Katrina relief, bringing to $105 billion the amount the administration plans to spend on relief and rebuilding efforts along the Gulf Coast. Donald Powell, federal coordinator for Katrina recovery, did not specify how the money would be spent. Aides said they will release details in the next few weeks. Democrats were quick to question how the money would be allocated. "We certainly welcome additional federal assistance," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "But I am highly concerned that the administration's proposal, which lacks details, will put more money into dysfunctional federal bureaucracies like FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and won't adequately address urgent needs such as housing, levees and flood protection." The war-spending plans were detailed in a conference call with reporters held by Joel Kaplan, a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Kaplan said the war-budget request would pay for military operations, training soldiers and policemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, repairing and replacing equipment, and running U.S. embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kaplan said the money also would go toward buying new equipment to help protect U.S. troops from roadside bombs, the deadliest weapon of insurgents. The $70 billion the administration plans to seek would be added to $50 billion approved by Congress in December as an advance on 2006 expenses, making this year the most expensive yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the $70 billion for the remainder of 2006, Kaplan estimated an "emergency allowance" of $50 billion would be required as a "bridge fund" for war expenses anticipated in 2007. Asked whether he believes that number is too low, given the $120 billion required for 2006, Kaplan said it was simply a "plug number" not intended to approximate the final need. Congress has approved five emergency-spending measures since Sept. 11, 2001, and other federal money has been moved into the effort to wage battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, more than $400 billion will have been set aside or spent by the end of this year. The administration plans to seek the additional $70 billion as special "supplemental" funding, an emergency procedure outside the regular budget process that has stirred controversy on Capitol Hill. Critics point out that the costs of the war, which enters its fourth year next month, have grown more predictable and say that the money should be requested in the regular budget rather than as supplemental funding. In its regular budget, which will be released Monday, the administration will request a nearly 5 percent increase in funding for the Pentagon for fiscal 2007, to $439.3 billion, said a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Despite the size of the supplemental budget request announced Thursday, analysts predicted it would likely pass Congress easily. Brian Riedl, a budget specialist with the Heritage Foundation, summed it up: "Nobody wants to vote against the troops." Material from the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The Associated Press is included in this report. Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company 5:55:18 PM     comment []

Quote(s) of the Day  "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing." Condoleezza Rice, January 29, 2006 "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002   Condi '08 Because Dammit, We're Still Not Clueless Enough 1:21:22 PM     comment []

Dick Cheney is a Liar. . .Again Once again, the Big Dick lies by omission. But the Washington Post still has enough of a pulse to cut through the "two hijacker" bullshit. . .   Cheney Cites Justifications For Domestic Eavesdropping Secret Monitoring May Have Averted 9/11, He Says By Jim VandeHei and Dan Eggen January 5, 2006 Washington Post Staff Writers Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks might have been prevented if the Bush administration had had the power to secretly monitor conversations involving two of the hijackers without court orders. As part of an effort to sell Americans on the administration's recently disclosed program to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant, Cheney told a small group of conservatives at the Heritage Foundation that instead of being able to "pick up" on the terrorist plot "we didn't know they were here plotting until it was too late." But Cheney did not mention that the government had compiled significant information on the two suspects before the attacks and that bureaucratic problems -- not a lack of information -- were primary reasons for the security breakdown, according to congressional investigators and the Sept. 11 commission. Moreover, the administration had the power to eavesdrop on their calls and e-mails, as long as it sought permission from a secret court that oversees clandestine surveillance in the United States. The bigger problem was that the FBI and other agencies did not know where the two suspects -- Cheney's office confirmed that he was referring to Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- were living in the United States and had missed numerous opportunities to track them down in the 20 months before the attacks, according to the Sept. 11 commission and other sources. In his speech, scheduled as part of a White House offensive to defend the recently disclosed surveillance program, Cheney painted an ominous portrait of U.S. security without the controversial practice. Critics said the surveillance has been unconstitutional, carried out without explicit congressional approval or court oversight. The administration said it gained broad powers from a congressional resolution after Sept. 11. Cheney said the National Security Agency program, combined with the expanded surveillance powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, has saved lives -- and thwarted terrorist attacks. "No one can guarantee that we won't be hit again, but neither should anyone say that the relative safety of the last four years came as an accident," Cheney said. "America has been protected not by luck but by sensible policy decisions." Under a secret order signed by President Bush after Sept. 11, the NSA was freed from its normal restraints and allowed to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. citizens and residents. Bush and other administration officials have said the spying has been limited to cases involving suspected al Qaeda associates here or overseas. "This wartime measure is limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists," Cheney said. A few hours earlier, Bush met with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top officials at the Pentagon and offered an optimistic appraisal of progress in Iraq and the broader terrorism fight. Bush highlighted the recent decision to slightly reduce troop levels in Iraq and suggested that additional withdrawals could come this year. "Later this year, if Iraqis continue to make progress on the security and political sides that we expect, we can discuss further possible adjustments with the leaders of a new government in Iraq," Bush said. The White House is planning speeches in the next few weeks to highlight progress in Iraq and defend the spying program, which has come under heavy criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. The program is expected to be scrutinized in hearings later this month. Cheney said if the administration had the power "before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon." Even without the warrantless domestic spying program, however, the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies had important clues about the Sept. 11 plot and the hijackers before the attacks, according to media reports and findings by Congress and the commission. For example, the NSA intercepted two electronic messages on Sept. 10, 2001, that warned of the attacks -- but the agency failed to translate them until Sept. 12. The Arabic-language messages said "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour," intelligence officials said. U.S. intelligence sources have said that NSA analysts were unsure who was speaking on the intercepts but that they were considered a high enough priority for translation within two days. Cheney's apparent reference to Alhazmi and Almihdhar is also incomplete, leaving out the fact that several government agencies had compiled significant information about the duo but had bungled efforts to track them. According to the Sept. 11 commission's report, released in 2004, the NSA first identified Alhazmi and Almihdhar in December 1999, passing the information to the CIA but conducting no further research. In 2000, the CIA failed to place Alhazmi and Almihdhar on a watch list despite their ties to a terrorist summit in Malaysia. The CIA also mishandled efforts to follow them after the summit and failed to share information about them with the FBI, including the crucial fact that both men had U.S. visas, the commission found. By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were. Hoffman also said Cheney's comments ignore the breadth of the government failures before the attacks, which were due to structural problems rather than a single missed lead. "It's not that legislation was lacking; it was a systemic failure," he said. © 2006 The Washington Post Company 10:17:38 AM     comment []

© Copyright 2006 Michael D. Zungolo. Last update: 3/1/2006; 10:12:50 AM.