Once again proving chief Nazi "information officer" Dr. Joseph P. Goebbles right,  the Washington D.C. prevaricators  continue to mislead us fools and dupes --- this time, as to what that $87 billion -- you know, for "Iraqi reconstruction" -- will actually go for.
This week, the $87 billion in "reconstruction" money was prominently resurrected in the U.S. Presidential race. G.W. Bush's handlers dug into the records and found that Democratic Presidential front-runner -- and Bush's fellow Bonesman  John Kerry in his capacity as U.S. Senator, opposed the "Iraq Reconstruction Bill" and "reconstruction" money -- until recently. The Bush attack contains a current clue as to the $87 billion prevarication -- which is to this day maintained by both halves of the Demo-publican Axis: The Bush camp claimed Kerry's votes against the "reconstruction" money would have deprived American soldiers of body armor and other needed military supplies.
Here's the second clue that the D.C. Prevaracator Corps is not quite telling the truth (if you really need a clue other than that their keyboards are clacking and their lips are moving):
WASHINGTON -- The White House acknowledged Monday that it substantially underestimated the cost of rebuilding Iraq, and that even the additional $87 billion it is seeking from a wary Congress will fall far short of what is needed for postwar reconstruction. ...
And here's a more detailed break down:
"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert. ... That $3.3 billion [for military "reset"] is a small part of the $65.5 billion that would go to the Defense Department; the other $21.1 billion would go for reconstruction. Almost half of the defense money, $32.3 billion, would be used for fuel, food and other costs of combat and occupation, while $18.5 billion is being requested for reserve and National Guard salaries and other personnel costs. Iraq war costs escalate sharply, By Jonathan Weisman and Renae Merle, THE WASHINGTON POST, Sep. 13, 2003 [now in paid archives. Bolding emphasis added -lrw]
That is, only $21.1 billion of the unprecedented $87 billion claimed to be for "reconstruction" will actually be spent to do reconstruction. The rest -- more than three times as much -- will be spent to keep our troops in the Iraqi shooting gallery. So the next time someone brings up that $87 billion for "reconstruction," ask them how many highways, water systems, schools, churches, bridges, electric systems, etc. will be "reconstructed" with the $32.3 billion going for "food and other costs of combat and occupation," and how much "infrastructure" will be replaced with the $18.5 billion "requested for reserve and National Guard salaries and other personnel costs." Etc.
Ask them if the "$20 billion earmarked for nonmilitary reconstruction" is adaquate to make up for the $50 billion or so in damage self-admittedly caused by Bush Jr's bombing of the people of Iraq and their towns and villages -- not Saddam as the military-industrial-government-media-complex  constantly parroted.
And here's that $87 billion question: Where will the $87 billion -- no matter what it's spent for -- come from? Will it come from the bipartisan D.C. prevaricators  that foisted this on both the Iraqi people and the American people? These are the same folks that, we've just discovered, have racked up a $44.2 trillion unfunded liability  they've been promising to future Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Not likely - - - it will come, as usual, from taxpayers, and not even just us and our kids and grand kids - - - a large amount of it will come from the yet unborn -- if we don't all secede first.
And here's the punch line:
United States and allied troops  will have to remain in Iraq for at least "a couple more years", ... the American commander [Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez] of those forces said in an interview in Baghdad on Saturday. ... General Sanchez's comments suggest that American forces will have to work with the new government, whatever its final form ...until the end of 2005. U.S. Troops Are Expected to Remain in Iraq at Least a 'Couple More Years,' Commander Says, By ROGER COHEN, NYtimes.com, December 16, 2003
So when Democratic House Appropriations Committee staffer Scott Lilly said, "This $87 billion is really just a down payment," he wasn't just whistl'n Dixie.
 "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. ...for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -Chief Nazi "Information Officer" Dr. Joseph P. Goebbels return
Remarkably, for women [Psychologist] Carrie [Keating of Colgate U.] has found no relationship between deception and leadership. ... But with adult males, as with children, Carrie has found an unmistakable connection. PBS - Scientific American Frontiers:Previous Shows:Transcripts:Show 301, The Power of Persuasion
"President Clinton is so successful because he's an unusually good liar." -US Senator Bob Kerry D- Nebraska
Frankly, I don't trust the president. I don't trust his motives or his judgment. After WWII, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, I've become very skeptical of what our leaders tell the American people, critical of their intellect, honesty and motives, and disillusioned by the way they make decisions when it comes to war. ... Bush the latest wartime president we can't trust, JUAN ANDRADE, Chicago suntimes.com, January 17, 2003
When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war. The Oval Office Liars' Club: To Make War, Presidents Lie, by Robert Higgs, San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 2002
Addressing assemblies of journalism students, a respected Sage of Journalism, I.F. Stone admonished his charges: "Only two words you should know if you really want to be an honest journalist, two words: Governments Lie." -Historian Howard Zinn, Tufts University, 2002
"I completely distrust the government -- and everybody should. They've told lie after lie, so the average American has become so cynical. Today, the first assumption is that what the government is telling you is a lie." -popular talk-show host Art Bell, WASHINGTON DC, NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY, May 6, 1998, Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222, E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com return
 Skull and Bones is a secret society, centered at Yale University, which initiates only about 15 new members per year and is ridiculously over-represented, especially in the Bush Administration. See Skull & Bones (Part I) and Conspiracy Too Monstrous To Conceive, By Henry Makow Ph.D., June 08, 2003 return
 The phrase "militaryindustrial complex" was made famous by President Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell address. I sometimes take liberties and expand his original idea to match the modern situation. return
 Bush lies about Iraq. Regularly. He lied thru the teeth -- about Iraq's nukes or WMD of any kind (but he may be "correcting" that mistake as you read), its connections to alQaeda, and certainly the non-existent Iraq involvement in the 9-11 attacks -- "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation. Bush Distances from Cheney on Saddam-9/11 Link, Reuters, Wed September 17, 2003 06:08 PM ET, By Steve Holland . And just about everyone is catching on: WARSAW (AFP) - In a first sign of official criticism in Poland of the US-led invasion of Iraq, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that his country had been "taken for a ride" about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the strife-torn country. ... "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," Kwasniewski said Thursday. return
 $44.2 trillion is all goods and services produced by U.S. citizens and businesses for about four years. We'd all have to work without pay -- or food, clothing, housing, or anything at all -- for that long to pay it off! return
 General Sanchez said he was "very happy" with the current level of allied forces in Iraq - 120,000 Americans and 15,000 troops from other countries [89% Americans -lrw] ... No further troop contributions from other countries, other than perhaps a small contingent from Japan, are expected. U.S. Troops Are Expected to Remain in Iraq The Dutch have 1300 troops in Iraq. -Andrea Mitchell, CNBC, March 17, 2004, 20:11:03 The Spanish also have approximately 1300 troops in Iraq -- but are now expected to withdraw them. return