here is a famous qoute that defiantely states "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything." With millions of internet websites and television newscasts dedicated to covering every inch of the War on Terror, how is it that political, diplomatic, and even media spin has convinced America to follow through with invading Iraq and Iran? Like Julia Roberts screamed in Erin Brockovich, "why is it that people tend to complicate situations that shouldn't be complicated?" I, in Katie Couric or Anderson Cooper fashion, have searched what seems like millions of internet articles and viewed hundreds of videos that express opinions about the war, personal beliefs on congressional agendas, and why Bush really is or really isn't to blame, looking for answers. A world of suggestive and thought provoking articles, statements and speeches, reasons and reasonings, are available to us nowadays that can lead us to our answers. The problem is, who can we really trust to tell us why this war has costed more than $450 billion dollars+ ? We all want to stand for something more, but we end up falling for anything less. The only way to figure out where all this money is going is to add it up ourselves. So let's do the math.

n January of 2005, a scandalous inspector general's report surfaced that said the United States-led administration that ran Iraq up until June of 2004, had lost track of $9 billion dollars in Iraq War funds. The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004. The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN that the provisional authority was operating under "extraordinary conditions" and relied on Iraqi ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them, which in lesser words, basically blames Iraq itself for misplacing nearly $9 billion dollars. Staffing shortages and turnover also resulted in inadequate oversight of budget execution by Iraqi ministries. But didn't allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program should raise concerns about the Iraqi government's ability to manage the reconstruction funds? Again, who knows? What we do know is that we are $9,000,000,000 in the hole.

ccording to warresisters.org, the federal budget for the War on Terror will reach $727 billion by the end of 2008. Already, the US is overspending its current budget and we could reach a tremendous $1,000,000,000,000 (that's $1 TRILLION!) by the end of 2009. But as of now, here is how the budget really breaks down: Military Personnel costs $136 billion, Research and Development costs $70 billion, Construction costs $10 billion, Family Housing costs $4 billion, Retired pay and benefits costs $52 billion, International Security costs $10 billion, and Homeland Security (military) costs $31 billion. Matched with the $9 billion that was mismanaged and unaccounted for, that equals a total of nearly $312,000,000,000. Estimations aside, this leaves a ridiculous $138 billion in the dark! Where does all this money go you ask? Below is a chart that visualizes money distribution throughout five different categories:

"Past Military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest of War debt. This is expected to rise an estimated 10% by early summer 2008. To break that down into simplified terms: what costs $52 billion right now, will cost $61 billion next summer. After this increase, it could very well rise 15% which would make $61 billion turn into $70 billion. Now, let's review our math: We have a total cost of $312 billion that is completely accounted for. NASA reportedly claims $9 billion, the Executive Office of the President reportedly claims $1.1 billion, the Department of Defense has reportedly said it uses $6 billion for miscellaneous items, and the military reportedly stakes claim over about $1 billion in "uncategorized" dollars. Those reports equals up to roughly $18 billion and when added to our accounted for total, it equals up to about $332,000,000,000 overall, still leaving $118 billion in the dark. The more questions we ask, the less answers we get. The more answers we search for, the more congress sets out to spin the story. The chart above breaks down the spending of our Iraq War budget pretty evenly and comes with sources for spending information. The chart below is a government view of the budget, a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (such as Social Security), and the expenses of part military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending:

And there you have it. $332 billion barely accounted for and $118.7 billion unaccounted for. With a new Presidential election coming next year, will the spending for the war and the war itself slow down? Hillary Clinton has promised to end the war by 2009 if she were to win, but can Clinton recover our financial losses?

Join me in discovering how we can recover nearly $120 billion dollars. Join me in my conversation on how we can recover America's huge financial loss. Leave your views and reviews and let's get talking!

hat a terrible shame that the administration never lavished as much attention on significant matter of state - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Katrina aftermath, and on and on - as it did on the president's stage-managed public appearances. Back in the day, when President Bush still made his micro-engineered photo-op cameos in front of carefully screened regular folks, little was left to chance. But that was before the public - even the carefully screened regular folks - went sour on him, on his devastating war, and on his imperial presidency. Now the only place the commander in chief feels comfortable walking among the little people is in Albania, where his recent visit was described by many American commentators as beling like a "rock star's." You don't need dive-bombing popularity ratings to tell you that this president is finished - the fact that he feels safer in Albania than he does in Albany speaks volumes. The president got so involved with the crowd in the village of Fushe Kruje that bloggers were sure his wristwatch had been snatched, until NBC News showed film indicating that he had actually removed it and put it in his pocket. In this respect the poor fellow should feel safer on his home turf. These days, most Americans would prefer President Bush's head to his watch.

an Bartlett, a man considered closer to the president than Karl Rove, was there from the start: first as a 22-year-old consultant to George W. Bush's campaign for Texas governor, then as his policy adviser, then a rapid-response director for his presidential bid, and finally as the Bush administration's wunderkind communications strategist and the aide closest to the president's ear. Now, the president's most trusted aid, who has been a true believer ever since he signed on to George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign back in 1993, is jumping ship, going the way of other longtime Bush loyalists such as Karen Hughes, Scott McClellan, and Harriet Miers. In June of 2007, soon after Bush announced Ed Gillespie as the new counselor to the president, Vanity Fair magazine sat down with Bartlett to reflect on those times when the administration's communications shop hasn't exactly done a heckuva job. When asked about the war and when he felt communications went up in smoke, Bartlett said "there was never a more benign incident that turned into a bigger messaging problem than 'Mission Accomplished.' It set the wrong tone for what became a protracted, difficult mission. If there was ever a do-over, that would be it."

"Mission Accomplished" refers to George W. Bush's presidential address on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, 2003, where a banner that read "Mission Accomplished" was placed on the ship behind President Bush as he made his speech. In his speech, Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion - and the sign - became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition and Iraq combatants, and from Iraqi civilians, have occured after the speech.

But the whole "Mission Accomplished" debacle isn't the only problem that has plagued Bush's presidency and affected his ratings. In order to really recap what caused the fall of one of the most well-liked presidents of our time, we need to start from the beginning.

o sum it all up clearly and leave out the non-important, boring parts, Bush first won the presidency in 200 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest, in which he lost the nationwide popular vote, but won the electoral vote. As president, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act. In October of 2001, after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, Bush announced a global War on Terrorism, and ordered an invansion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda, and to capture Osama bin Laden. In March of 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and that the war was necessary for the protection of the United States. Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq War, Bush was re-elected to office on November 2nd, 2004, where his presidential campaign against Senator John Kerry was successful despite controvery over Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror and other domestic issues.

After his re-election, Bush recieved increasingly heated criticism. According to The Gallup Organication, his domestic approval has declined from 90 percent, one of the hightest presidential ratings ever, immediately after the 9/11 attacks to a low of 26 percent (as suggested in a poll taken by Newsweek in June of 2007), the lowest level for any sitting president in the past 35 years.

With a nation at his will and a world at his throat, do you blame president Bush for the mistakes that have led this administration down a dark path and the cost of nearly $500 billion dollars for the War on Terror? Leave your reviews below, broadcast your comments, spread the word, and get this conversation going!