Olbermann: Is Bush "surging" 21,500 or as many as 48,000?

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 — more than double the number the President initially said. According to the study, the costs for the "surge" would also be dramatically different than the President has said. The White House estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding for the rest of fiscal year 2007. Of that, about $3.2 billion was supposed to go to the Army and Marines for their escalated activity. But that figure appears to have been grossly underestimated. The CBO now believes "that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• keith
• olbermann
• msnbc
• fox
• news
• bias
• george
• bush
• republicans
• conservative
• liberal
• democrat

[firejack007]

Who cares. Whatever it takes. It's up to the Commander-in-Chief. Would you have denied Roosevelt what  he sent to Europe or the Pacific?

[Chip53]

Bite the bag Olbermann!

[wiskawind]

If you support Bush an Cheney, then you support the torture of other human beings. If you support Bush an Cheney, then you support corruption, lies and a dictatorship! If you support Bush an Cheney you too have the blood of our American kids who are fighting in Iraq on your hands! If you support Bush/Cheney you agree with what they did to the Tillman family! a link to find a march in your town impeach07 then a dot and org! April 28th march now!

[wiskawind]

Bush and the Bush family have lied and used the American people for their own gains! April 28th Impeach Bush/Cheney for war crimes against the American people and against humanity!

[talktal]

this was broadcasted in February 01, 2007? I guess he was right.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

Alizee111, from who/what/where did you qoute that? It's insightful and shit. ||||WHOPEEE||||

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

pxlfoo, Wrong again. america was NEVER involved in Iraq for a free Iraq. But for these reasons:

OIL. NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. 100 YEAR WAR.

DENYING IRAQI'S [own] INFRASTRUCTURE TO ASCERTAIN CONTROL ON RECOURCES. EGO'S THE SIZE OF PLANETS. BEING GIANT DOUCHEBAGS.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

was it ever pretty in the world since the US became a superpower. And when narcist, narrowminded, oiladdicted government worlkdwide ran rampant?

which was since the beginning of mankind? Hunker down, like you always did. BTW, Mullahs don't start wars. Energy-interests and money (territory hunger does.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

pxlfoo, 'we' wouldn't have lost blood and treasure if 'we' hadn't invaded Iraq under false pretences. which was a mostly republican idea. but what do i know. my country doesn't police the world.

btw, the US is NOT a country. just a loose band of fuck-ups, pasted together by accident and some d00d wearing a wig. fuck. you. all.

[Alizee111]

"Winning" a war is only entertaining a fantasy. It is only common men enacting an elite's agenda.