This the point of the article that hit home to me. I said I can't believe these guys have to give their lives to these poorly conceived and executed wars. I did not notice the date, as in my mind both sides are to blame. Then ak comes a long and tries to blame Bush. Well when you read it more closely... you know who is responsible. -- "Larry Bailey II is an example. After tripping a rooftop bomb in Afghanistan last June, the 26-year-old Marine remembers flying into the air, then fellow troops attending to him. "I pretty much knew that my legs were gone. My left hand, from what I remember I still had three fingers on it," although they didn't seem right, Bailey said. "I looked a few times but then they told me to stop looking." Bailey, who is from Zion, Ill., north of Chicago, ended up a triple amputee and expects to get a hand transplant this summer. He is still transitioning from active duty and is not yet a veteran. Just over half of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans eligible for VA care have used it so far."
Well Bush did start the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and increased Clinton's 300 billion defense budget to 700 billion
http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...nd-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments Iraq war ends with a $4 trillion IOU Veteransâ health care costs to rise sharply over the next 40 years December 15, 2011|Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) â The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion. Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually. Although that only represents about 1% of nationâs gross domestic product, itâs more than half of the national budget deficit. Itâs also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year. Near the start of the war, the U.S. Defense Department estimated it would cost $50 billion to $80 billion. White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was dismissed in 2002 after suggesting the price of invading and occupying Iraq could reach $200 billion. âThe direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you canât easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,â said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces. Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July. Other experts said that was too conservative and anticipate twice that amount. The advance in medical technology has helped more soldiers survive battlefield injuries, but followup care can often last a lifetime and be costly. More than 32,000 soldiers were wounded in Iraq, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Add in Afghanistan and that number jumps to 47,000. Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq, said Neta Crawford, a political science professor at Brown University. Her numbers, which are backed by similar studies at Columbia and Harvard universities, estimate the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veteransâ disabilities. The annual budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled since 2003 to a requested $132.2 billion for fiscal 2012. That amount is expected to rise sharply over the next four decades as lingering health problems for veterans become more serious as they grow older. Costs for Vietnam veterans did not peak until 30 or 40 years after the end of the war, according to Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. âWe will have a vast overhang in domestic costs for caring for the wounded and covering retirement expenditure of the war fighters,â said Loren Thompson, a policy expert with the Lexington Institute. âThe U.S. will continue to incur major costs for decades to come.â
Bush started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars , increased Clinton's 300 billion defense budget to 700 billion and the wars cost will be over 4 trillion...thanks bush
Holy fuck he's doing again! LOL You know, not all of your posts need to start with a capital letter "B".
The country was attacked when Bush was in office so he did increase military spending massively. I'd like to know your answers to the following questions if you are inclined. Do you think he (GWB) should have responded to 9/11 by reducing military spending? Do you think Bill Clinton was effective in countering terrorism and defending the United States? Do you think Obama has fulfilled his campaign promise(s) regarding the wars and Guantanamo? Do you think there is any legitimate reason for us to still be in Afghanistan? Do you think that there is justification for keeping Guantanamo open? Do you think that George Bush is responsible for the guys getting injured over the last couple of years?
1.He could have increased spending but not by 400 billion,not even close to 400 billion.The budget of 300 billion was probably enough to target out Al Quada and Taliban leaders without regime change,occupying, and nation building 2.Yes 3.Mostly.He promised to end Iraq,he did.He promised to increase troops to Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden and Al Quada and he did.He didn't close Gitmo but that is not a problem for me.You wont find one post where I criticize Bush for keeping terrorist in Gitmo 4.No 5.Yes 6.partly