Report: Libya To Cost $750 Million in 2011

While Congress and the White House are rolling back on environmental protections and social programs, it will spend an estimated $750 million in 2011 on Libya.

The figures were obtained by the Financial Times though Secretary of Defense Gates will only give the figures as “somewhere in the ball park of $750 million.” Notably, the Obama Administration has not only chosen not to seek authority for the war from Congress but has yet to ask for approval of such spending. There is so much uncommitted money in the Defense budget that the President can prosecute a war without a single appropriation from Congress. It would be a perfect nightmare for the Framers.

Source: FT

32 thoughts on “Report: Libya To Cost $750 Million in 2011”

  1. It Be Me,

    “Get More With Les” was my campaign slogan when I ran for Vice-President of the Student Council in 5th grade.

    I won by a landslide and thus my political education began.

  2. When Democrats abd Republicans passed laws making it much more difficult for independent candidates to run, they knew then that many people would then be forced to vote for one of the two parties. They knew people would say, “Well, I hate what they’re doing, but the only other choice is worse.”

    So, by voting for Democrats who do evil things because Republicans would do more evil things (or evil things that are more likely to affect you), you’re making sure that future generations are stuck with the same limited choices that we are. And, it must be said, you’re supporting people who do evil things.

  3. “My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.” – Lupe Fiasco

  4. blouise, Since as a female I was denied the right to vote in the USA until 1920, I do not listen to anyone’s arguments about not voting.

  5. You are right about the teabaggers, Blouise. Sometimes not voting only aids the teabaggers . Last fall the teabaggers rode to victory on this very thing, and the consequences for american women and public employees have been grave.

  6. I, personally, prefer Buddha’s arguments as to why one should carefully consider voting … lots of facts … nothing specious … no hidden political agenda.

  7. SwM,

    Are you familiar with the term “a specious argument”? … don’t waste your energy and find yourself involved in an argument that basically runs like this:

    “The absence of photos of a murder taking place are evidence that the murder didn’t take place.”

    The statement is fraudulent because the reasoning is specious.

    So … Don’t vote for democrats because you are supporting war; don’t vote for republicans because you are supporting war … guess who wins … teabaggers!

Comments are closed.