Take Me To Post Comment Form I think this next story perfectly illustrates the problems with decision-making in our country when it comes to questions of war.

To date, the war in Iraq has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, over 30,000 dead and wounded Americans, and uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqis killed or wounded.

All of this blood and treasure has been invested in a war for weapons that did not exist and to bring democracy to a nation whose people identify more closely with Iran than they do with us.

Where were the voices of fiscal restraint when this war was proposed? Why is it that tax dollars for wars that do not make us safer, are not debated in terms of cost, but a tiny fraction of that amount to pay for care for veterans is scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb?

President Eisenhower warned about the rise of the military-industrial complex. War is profitable and there is no shortage of people who benefit from those profits. Providing lifetime care to the veterans of those wars is not profitable and consequently the discussion about policy becomes amoral.

When it comes to sending people off to die, and lining the pockets of corporate defense contractors, money is no object. But when the time comes to pay the piper and provide support for the very real toll that war takes on American veterans and their families, suddenly fiscal responsibility is all the rage.

My suggestion is if you are not going to question the cost when sending our men and women half way around the world to kill or be killed, then have the decency to not question spending one percent of that cost in order to help put back together the shattered bodies and psyches of those who wore the uniform.

Supporting the troops entails a bit more than waving a flag and slapping a bumper sticker on your car. It also requires us to look long and hard at any plans for war and ask ourselves who benefits from the war other than the corporations who sell services and material to the government.

I would like to see some real fiscal responsibility in Washington DC. I would like to see a politican show some guts by standing up in opposition to war based on the cost. Imagine if someone had the courage in 2003 to stand up in Congress and say, Saddam simply does not pose enough of a threat to warrant spending a trillion dollars on a war to find weapons the inspectors are telling us, do not exist. I have no doubt such a person would have joined the Dixie Chicks in the right wing hall of infamy.

In the overall scheme of things, $3.7 billion is not a lot of money. Especially when compared to the amount of money that has been pocketed by defense contractors. But for some reason, Senator Tom Coburn R-OK draws this line in the sand and questions spending an amount that is equivalent to about two weeks worth of war funding for the effort in Iraq.

According to a Washington Post story, Blackwater alone has pocketed almost a trillion dollars in Iraq since 2004. That would be the same Blackwater whose five employees are about to stand trial for manslaughter of as many as 14 Iraqis. That would be the same Blackwater that continues to live off the taxpayer dime while Congress was busy cutting off ACORN due to their hypothetical involvement in non-existent criminal activity.

This is what passes for logic in Congress. ACORN'S potential involvement in imaginary crimes, disqualifies them from receiving one red cent of taxpayer money. Actual involvement in the very real crime of killing people hardly even jeopardizes Blackwater's preferred vendor status.

Some people said that the Iraq war was about oil. I think oil was only a marginal consideration. Anyone familiar with the geopolitics of the region would know that Iran would be the first in line to reap any benefits from Iraq's oil resources and infrastructure. That is exactly what is happening.

No I think the war was not about oil, but it was about corporate profits. Blackwater and other defense contractors have done quite well, yet some would question the paltry sum being set aside for veterans' benefits. That is simply obscene.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_coburnhold_veteransbill_110409w/

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is using Senate rules to block a vote on S 1963, a major veterans bill, unless he has the chance to offer amendments to pay for the new benefits it creates, especially stipends, health benefits, counseling and other programs aimed at family caregivers of seriously wounded combat veterans.