Reply #5: If it were "only" 87 billion [View All]

http://www.costofwar.com

And the Great Deceiver is at it again. Here's your boy, freepers.

From the NYT this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/international/middleeast/10military.html?th

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Congress released statistics Thursday documenting stark shortages in armor for the military transport trucks that ferry food, fuel and ammunition along dangerous routes in Iraq, while President Bush and his defense secretary both spoke out to defuse public criticism.

...

"The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Mr. Bush said. "And I have told many families I met with, we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important."

...

"Last year, we began to see an increase in improvised explosive device attacks against our forces, primarily against convoys that were moving throughout Iraq," said Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of coalition ground forces in the Middle East. "And they began having an impact on our soldiers, a deadly impact, as we all know."

...

LAST YEAR?? LAST YEAR?? Why didn't the shrub use some of the $143 billion in corporate welfare he shelled out so very fucking quietly shortly before the election to take care of our military?