No, Bloomberg, we didn't spend $2 trillion combatting OBL.

Most of that money was spent in Iraq, and that war had nothing to do with OBL or terrorism.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/bin-laden-s-death-won-t-end-toll-on-taxpayers.html

Even in death, Osama bin Laden will be taking revenge on American taxpayers for years to come.

The U.S. government spent $2 trillion combating bin Laden over the past decade, more than 20 percent of the nation’s $9.68 trillion public debt. That money paid for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as additional military, intelligence and homeland security spending above pre-Sept. 11 trends, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

This year alone, taxpayers are spending more than $45 billion in interest on the money borrowed to battle al-Qaeda, the analysis shows.

The financial bleeding won’t stop with bin Laden’s demise. One of every four dollars in red ink the U.S. expects to incur in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 will result from $285 billion in annual spending triggered by the terrorist scion of a wealthy Saudi family.

SNIP

Early on, I heard (or read) something that was perfectly put, to wit;

If a country that had a worldwide reputation for its love of french fries, potato chips and all things spud related, invaded and occupied Oregon and Idaho but SWORE up and down it wasn't there because of the potatoes, but rather to free the Oregonians and Idahoans from the tyranny they were under, would we believe them?

We invaded Iraq because it has the second largest known reserves of oil in the world and the previous owner basically was saying "fuck you" to us when we put him in there in the first place. That shit just don't fly.

THAT'S why we invaded Iraq.

K&R