I think you'll find those people get paid whether they actually fly/provide security or not. Thus the concept of fixed cost versus variable cost, most of the costs involved in this trip were already fixed in doing the business of the country.

I'm sure you understand the terms fixed cost and variable cost since you're such a crackerjack smart-guy analyst.

For comparison there was recently an itemized list of 750 people that followed Bush to London. On this trip the security consisted mostly of ball caps and it seems like they got more done.

Q.E. fuckin' D., my man.

Because you love getting 0nz0r3d!!!! F00l!

Right, and everything is fixed rate. You've never heard the term 'combat pay' either I suppose. I mean, all those soldiers get paid the same for sitting on their collective asses in the good old US of A as they do shooting people in other countries.

Oh, wait, that's entirely wrong. They do get different pay for combat.

But I'm sure nothing in the world is like that. Only soldiers...

Quzah.

We were discussing the costs of Bush's Thanksgiving visit, weren't we? Isn't that a marginally separate issue than the troops in Iraq?

Are you intentionally stupid? The statement was made that all costs were fixed. I pointed one example where cost is not and suggested it is quite possible that this is not the only case that exists. What's the confusion?

Quzah.

You're pretty stupid for assuming I'm stupid. In fact, I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

About the same as the cost for Hillary's morale-lowering tour where she went to Afghanistan and Iraq and bitched about the war to the 100 troops that were duct-taped to their chairs for two hours. :D

Ok, educate me so that I can get up to speed. Where was the statement you refer to made?

The closest I can find is this:But he didn't say ALL costs were fixed, and in any case he specifically refers to Bush's trip.

Well Said! I was thinking back to that day, and I recall wondering why they were breaking into programming for this. I pretty much shrugged the whole thing off and I thought, "Isn't this something he's SUPPOSED to do anyway?" (of course, I KNOW that it's not, but it just felt like he should).

So, I wasn't impressed. *shrugs* ;)

My local paper ran pictures of twin imbeciles Bush and Hillary burning up my tax dollars for their political gain. "We care a lot."

Yes. In that context he said costs are fixed. He implied that the only thing that was paid for was the fuel. I suggest otherwise.

Quzah.

OK the link said that followed by;
How is this apparent? He told them you can run the country while we remain in control or you can not run the country while we remain in control. Bottom line is we're staying whether you play ball or not. So this is some breakthough diplomacy? Horseshit, he told them what they've been told from the gitgo.
Like I said, he could meet with the Iraquis we already own.

Resonable request.

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.............

Q, why didn't you just tell us what the costs are instead of all that nonsense?

Amusing article
 

Washington Post
"Accurately dramatize", eh?

What I see is that he said <i>most</i> of the costs involved in the trip were fixed. He didn't say, "All costs everywhere, including those not involved with Bush's recent trip, are fixed".