Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War
Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War
The Democratic leadership in Congress is set to pass a host of domestic funding bills that would exceed Bush’s request by $22 billion. The extra funding would help go towards veterans health care, infrastructure improvements, education, and other domestic priorities.
Speaking to business leaders at a White House event this morning, Bush railed against the relatively modest increase in spending, arguing that $22 billion is “a lot of money”:
Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies. The $22 billion is only for the first year. With every passing year the number gets bigger and bigger, and so over the next five years the increase in federal spending would add up to $205 billion.
Watch it:
Bush warned that spending increases, which could add up to over $200 billion over five years, would be “taking money out of the pocket” of Americans who need to “pay their mortgages or pay for their children going to college.” Unfortunately, Bush failed to appreciate the irony in his remarks.
While complaining of modest spending increases on much-needed domestic funding priorities, Bush is far less concerned about the impact of spending $200 billion in the next year alone on a disastrous war in Iraq:
President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure — totaling nearly $200 billion — to fund the war through next year, Pentagon officials said.
It shouldn’t take a “CEO President” to figure out that $200 billion is greater than $22 billion.
Transcript:
BUSH: Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in Congress has chosen a different path. The plan they have put forward includes an increase in discretionary spending that is nearly $22 billion more than my budget request.
Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies.
And the $22 billion is only for the first year. With every passing year the number gets bigger and bigger, and so over the next five years the increase in federal spending would add up to $205 billion.
And the only way to pay for such a large spending increase is to raise taxes on the American people. So, it’s no surprise that the same members of Congress who are planning the big increase in federal spending are also planning the largest tax increase in American history. At a time when families are working hard to pay their mortgages or pay for their children going to college, now is not the time to be taking money out of their pocket.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
99 Responses to “Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Seriously, nobody is as stupid as Bush acts, are they?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWell then, it seems that the Democrats have their talking point.
Sorry, Mr. President, we can’t give you that extra $200 billion. That’s a lot of money, as I’m sure you realize. Perhaps we’ll be able to work with you, but you’ll probably have to come up with a way to pay for it as you go. Perhaps you’ll even have to plan for it. I mean, if he really is a conservative, then all of this deficit spending should be a concern to him. Especially when the money is coming from China (aren’t they communist or something?)
September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pmBush considers money wasted on Iraq as profits for his crony pals.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pmSUPPORT OUT TROOPS — unless we have to raise taxes to do it.
No taxes first - if we can, then support the troops.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pmRepairing bridges and rebuilding New Orleans are far more important than billions flushed down the rat hole in Iraq.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pmWe don’t even have 4 million to keep open a radio observatory in Puerto Rico, and now people want 22 billion more for domestic funding?
Man, you guys are greedy.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pmWhen this man spends $500,000 per minute on the Iraq War without batting an eyelash, it’s clear that he doesn’t give a damn about the welfare of the people and, instead, is feathering his nest with war profiteering.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIt’s time to dump this guy (impeachment) before he succeeds in wreaking more damage and destruction on this country, it’s infrastructure, and it’s people. 500 days can translate into heap big damage. Just look at his track record with his failed businesses (every last one of them tanked to the ground by him) and you don’t need a ouija board or a crystal ball to foretell OUR future under him.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:21 pmWhat’s still so asinine is the fact the $200 billion more he wants still isn’t part of the annual budget.
At some point, the bill for the billions we’ve put on the country’s credit card to pay for Iraq will come due. And thanks to Bush’s idiotic tax cuts and willingness to play war with other peoples’ children, he’ll be the one to blame.
Too bad he won’t be one to actually pay for it.
**bangs head on desk**
September 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm#7 Margaret: As far as the money goes, we ‘never had it’ in the first place - ergo, this skyrocketing national debt. But now he’s crying poor mouth? Of course, if the money would go to this country and our people, he doesn’t have it and thinks $22 billion is a lot of money.
Clearly, it’s time to cut his purse strings on this war - and the Dems, if they’re savvy enough, can use this argument directly against him when the funding comes up again.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm#11 Fiscal accountability and personal responsibility are not in Bush’s nature - never have been and never will be. He’s had a history of capricious behavior and the inability to balance the budgets of any business he owned. It’s like expecting blood from a rock or some form of personal responsibility from a crim.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThere will be no draft under my watch: Sure, Bushitco - no draft just pay through the nose and outsource our military to the tune of 180,000 mercenaries…..how clever! NOT!
September 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI’m not sure what that raise taxes remark is about, margaret. Unless Bush is talking about our children and grandchildren’s Congresses, which will have to raise taxes eventually to pay for his war.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThats out economy 101 B C- student (p)Resident at work there…….
September 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pmre #3
unfortunetly, the dems won’t use the gift georgie gave them. No, they may write a letter asking for clarification on his position, after they give him the money to piss dhown the iraq hole, but they won’t stand up and do what’s right. I’m voting green from now on.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThe “Decider-in-Chef” has placed a tool on the menu of the Democrats now. If they have a clue, they can use his direct quotations here about not having money for these necessities and foist it right back in his grimacing little face. No money for infrastructure/no money to throw down the toilet in Iraq!!
September 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHow about just stopping the current tax cut to the top 5% of the country?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pmBobwurst: Although I fear that you may be right in your assertion that the Dems aren’t smart enough to use it back on Bush, perhaps with a little pressure from the people (calls, letters, email, demonstrations), they will get the message.
No money for us/No more money for the war profiteers in this administration and in Congress. ‘nuf said.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pmHellinabucket: Now that would be far too logical for a pea brain like his to figure out, wouldn’t it?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThis P.O.S. needs to be impeached after dickless cheney, and then both need to be imprisoned. And with large, mean, horny cellmates.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe amount needed for SCHIP is ~ 30 million, right? And the Iraq occupation is costing us-$6-BILLION a month?
And, 40% goes to CONTRACTORS?
It will never stop because it’s all about profit. The elitist make far more off of an overseas war than domestic spending. They control who’s in office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
September 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pmIt’s simple if you can get into the Bush frame of mind.
$22B is too much to spend on ourselves.
$200B is the right amount to spend on Iraq.
You may have to repeat this over and over to yourself a bit, but it eventually works.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBush wants $200 billion to keep getting soldiers killed/maimed, but can’t spend pocket change to care for them if/when they get back. That’s really supporting the troops, alright.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBobwurst; I’m with you.
Voting GOP = voting for Nazis
Democrats = profiles in cowardice
Go Green!!!
September 24th, 2007 at 2:37 pmComment by Veritas — September 24, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Yes but it’s not too big for the members of congress to wrap their heads around. Bush has to be forced to reckon with the cost of the conflict in Iraq. If his direction on the matter can’t be changed at least his acceptance of the bill can be forced upon him.
Congress needs to demand a long term budget with Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. There needs to be accountability on his actions.
Maybe congress should just tack on the 22 billion to the latest request for money for Iraq. Let the republicans vote down a spending bill for “Bushs’ War”.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pmWhat’s still so asinine is the fact the $200 billion more he wants still isn’t part of the annual budget.
At some point, the bill for the billions we’ve put on the country’s credit card to pay for Iraq will come due. And thanks to Bush’s idiotic tax cuts and willingness to play war with other peoples’ children, he’ll be the one to blame.
Comment by MarkD — September 24, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
In my exchanges with various “conservative” war supporters over the last couple of years, I’ve never gotten this to sink in with them. Most are actually in a complete state of denial on the subject and maintain that “we’re all making sacrifices” for the war.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:41 pmWhy don’t we invoice the RNC for the war. That should give us money for more important things like healthcare for the kids and repaying the national debt.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pmComment by ron — September 24, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
And I’m sure you have the same stand on all of the staged campaign speeches Bush gave that didn’t allow free speech.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:43 pmHe knows the irony in his comments. Our leaders simply believe that we don’t. They think we are stupid. They think we can’t see what happens on the world stage. They think that just because they speak, we believe them. When will someday understand that PEACE will NEVER be achieved through WAR?
September 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pmThat’s because anyone who still supports action in Iraq is a lost cause — if everything that’s come out since it started hasn’t been enough to convince them of how stupid it’s all been, then trying to explain to them the fiscal reality won’t do much good, either.
As far as them “making sacrifices,” do what I did to a co-worker who said the same thing:
I asked her what she’s rationing (food, fuel, etc.).
Her response? “Um … nothing.”
I asked if she’d be switching jobs to build more tanks, humvees, etc.
Her response? “Um … no.”
I asked if she was signing up to go fight.
Her response? “No!”
I just looked at her and said, “Then you’re a liar and a coward who’s unwilling to actually do what it takes to support the war you seem to love. Either put up, or shut the f*** up.”
She doesn’t talk to me much any more … thank god.
:-)
September 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe real problem with our government (republican, democrat, doesn’t matter), is that IT IS ENTIRELY CONTROLLED by one company.
The Federal Reserve. Or the people behind it.
There isn’t even gold in Fort Knox anymore, they just generate money with no real value out of their asses, and lend it to countries, who have to pay a tax, end up in debt to this company, and then end up taxing the citizens.
The Federal Reserve is NOT A GOVERNMENT OWNED business, it is a bunch of private banks.
The reason we are in Iraq is because it is costing the U.S. billions, in which we borrow from the federal reserve, who taxes it. We are basically talking about slavery not money at this point, the people who run this shit are not interested in money anymore. They know more than anyone it really has no value.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm“As business leaders, you might think it foolish to piss half a trillion dollars away on a losing venture overseas. I know better.”
September 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pmSeriously, nobody is as stupid as Bush acts, are they?
Comment by Shayne — September 24, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
The majority of Americans? Especially the ones who put him in office in the first place.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThere seems to be a lack of economics knowledge between Bush and Giuliani. Both needs to go back to school and take basic econ courses.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pmThe Iraq war costs the U.S. $500,000/minute. Stat is from the American Friends Service Committee (the Quakers) on a sight well worth viewing:
http://www.afsc.org/cost/
September 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pms’eH tog sih seitiroirp sdrawkcaB !!
September 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pmAlso, what’s this about Congress planning “the largest tax increase in American history�
“And the only way to pay for such a large spending increase is to raise taxes on the American people. So, it’s no surprise that the same members of Congress who are planning the big increase in federal spending are also planning the largest tax increase in American historyâ€
Comment by margaret — September 24, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
That’s GWB conceding defeat of the Reps in 2008. He knows that a tax increase is required, someone has to pay his bills. And he knows it won’t happen while he’s in power. So he’s acknowledging that the Dems will take power in ‘08 and will be forced to increase taxes.
It’s funny the way he puts it though… like a future tax increase is somehow a slap in the face to the American people by the Dems. He spends the money while in power and makes the next admin recoup the money and somehow he thinks he’s the good guy. The man is completely psycho.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThey didn’t put him in office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
September 24th, 2007 at 3:08 pmRepublicans have never been fiscally responsible in my lifetime (going back to Nixon), and I don’t expect them to start now that they have this war to profit from. It’s the Rs that keep breaking national debt records, and yet people continue to believe their bs about ‘tax and spend’ Democrats. When you cut taxes in a time of war, it just puts off paying for it. It’s interesting that they use the ‘fiscally responsible’ card when it comes to domestic spending at the same time they have no control over foriegn spending. Their priorities are not with ‘we the people’; it’s I, me, mine.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe number one duty of the Roman Emperor is the s]physical safety of the Empire of Rome.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:12 pmRegardless of how these barbarians got to our gates, we must win in Judea, Hispania, Breton and all our imperial outposts, leaving them stable and peaceful.
The cost in mere lire for the continued security of Rome is negligible…
What>? We don’t have any more lire?
What’s that noise? Who’s breaking down what gate???
And that is why the CEO President-in-chief still believes that 2 + 2 = 5. A comment from a man who had 3 failed business and has his daddy bail him out.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe absurdity of this is so painfully obvious that it resembles a Dilbert cartoon instead of reality.
Not only is it ludicrous that Bush squeals about 22 billion dollars for domestic matters while asking for 200 billion to continue fighting his failed war — he completely misses the irony that if the Repub congress had done their job for the past few years, we wouldn’t be having to ask for $22 billion to shore up crumbling infrastructure and fixing health care facilities for veterans now.
And I won’t even get into Bush pretending to be a business expert with his business track record.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pmbush: We’re spending over there, so we don’t have to spend over here.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pmYes, it’s through the looking glass time, folks.
42: Your premise is baseless. How does iraq have anything to do with our safety here?
September 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pmDriven over any bridges in Minnesota, recently?
The cost in mere dollars for the continued security of the United States is negligable.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
And not accounted for. Whether you are right or wrong about it being negligable, a prudent leader would also look past the current conflict and determine how we would pay for it.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:24 pmAHH, that’s what they teach at Yale…TWO SETS OF BOOKS!!!
BUT, they never told this bozo the books eventually had to balance! Ooops..I forgot…he got a “C” in Econ 101…. Does that mean that he wasn’t paying attention or SOME ONE ELSE was taking the class for him and he got a “C” so it wouldn’t draw attention??
WHAT AN IDIOT!
September 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#51 ~ Balancing the books, to the chymp, is some sort of frat trick about putting four textbooks on your head and running down the dorm hallway.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pmShameless piece of garbage ,and one look at his face these days and it’s obvious , he knows who and what he is .
September 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pmA war criminal !
500,000 a minute for alternative energy and mass transit would protect us far better than an illegal war run by oil corporation executives who hate the constitution and see human life as expendable in their pursuit of endless record profits for the worst corruption in our collective histories .
Ride a bicycle, take the bus ,boycot Exxon ,IMPEACH and try bush and cheney !
WORST
FAILURE
EVER.
WHAT? ME? PREZIDENTCY?
September 24th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt is your lack of premise that is baseless. Ever hear of Al-Qaida? Ever hear of 9/11? Ever hear of terrorists bent on our destruction? If not, you need to get off of ThinkProgress and start reading some news.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
It would be nice if we concentrated on Al Qaeda. You know, the fellows in Afghanistan and Pakistan that actually attacked the US? The ones not in Iraq?
You’re in no position to lecture anyone on ignorance.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pmSasquatch - Watch the new WWII documentary, then come back here and cite concrete examples to support your conjecture that radical islamic militant groups are = to Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:37 pm“The cost in mere dollars for the continued security of the United States is negligable.”
trillions of dollars [of debt] = ‘mere’ and ‘negligable’? the chinese government thanks you for your encouraging words. and the saudis thank you for looking the other way.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pmIt is your lack of premise that is baseless. Ever hear of Al-Qaida? Ever hear of 9/11? Ever hear of terrorists bent on our destruction? If not, you need to get off of ThinkProgress and start reading some news.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
9/11 was caused by Bush’s incompetence and stubbornness. Al Qaeda is a construct of Bush. Terrorists bent on destruction are led by Bush, the world’s biggest terrorist. You need to get your head out of your ass and start reading some news, before sending your wife’s kids into the desert to die for oil.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pmBigfoot ,
September 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pmcomparing Saddam a toothless dictator ,whose regime fell in a few days against a volunteer army and Adolf Hitler is laughable at best . A better comparrison would be Hitlers diatribes against the Jews and Bushes against Muslims .
The war is about oil and no one with a brain continues to believe otherwise . The reasons given for conducting this war were ALL discredited long ago and the obvious fact is that conducting a war for control of another countries resources , is an unambiquos WAR CRIME !
GOT MORALS ?
You people keep comparing apples and oranges. The money spent to take care of veterans, to ekkp our elderly well, to keep our society healthy and functional is discretional money. We can choose to spend it for those specific benefits, or not. The $200 bazillion for Iraq is not discretionary, it’s the cost for Bush’s leagcy. It’s a part of what it will cost to get us to the end gme, which is a date in January of 2009 when Bush can strut off the stage without “losing” Iraq.
The others costs, in lives and blood and limbs….. well, that too is absolutely manadatory to keep Bush from admitting he is a total failure and a disgustingly small man.
Come on America, pony up! Life is full of tough choices. Bush’s ego on one hand, what’s right for America on the other.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmEver figure we should have “forgiven†Pearl Harbor? And perhaps just let Adolph Hitler remain in power, simply because Roosevelt figured we couldn’t afford it? After all, there was that depression going on and all…we really couldn’t pay for a world war….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Iraq never attacked us. You are a traitor and should be in prison before you cause more damage to the USA.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by SP Biloxi — September 24, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
And let’s not forget their kissing on the lips, hand holding buddies
September 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pmthe Saudis - wasn’t it Bin-Lauden’s family that bailed him out of
Harken Oil?
Bush is, in verifiable, unarguable FACT - a terrorist kisser.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pmSorry, Bin Laden
September 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBig O, the tractionless retread. Draw those enemies out, bring it on! Such loud words from such chickensh*t people.
We are creating more enemies than we kill. It’s like killing bees, you swat one and they emit a pheremone that attracts others to come to their defense. The more you kill, the more will be on your ass.
But if your goal is to kill bees, carry on. I am sure it fills some sick hole in your ego to have other men kill in your name.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pmSure I am. I believe in the United States of America.
And I thought all you libs kept saying that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until the U.S. military got there? That would seem to indicate that they are there now. And since they are, we might as well fight them there, rather than on several other fronts. Draw them out and bring them to us, rather than having to search them out all across the sand.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
I believe in the United States of America, as well. The one defined by its Constitution.
“Al Qaeda in Iraq” is a construct. It is an entirely different organization with only minimal ties to Al Qaeda and exists entirely as a response to the occupying force. No occupiers, no need for AQII and the other Sunnis will quickly dispatch them.
You act as though there was some finite number of anti-US terrorists, rather than a relatively endless supply fueled by the very actions you want taken against them.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pmWe have nothing to fear but fear itself ! FDR
September 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pmFear everything … George Bush
Bigfoot you obviously can’t see the forest for the tree’s .
Don’t need to watch any documentary. All I need to do is rerun the footage from 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
You’re hopeless, still stuck in this foolish belief that there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, that “Al Qaeda In Iraq” is synonymous with bin Laden . . . hopeless.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pmapparently, understanding cause and effect is even more difficult for a righty than telling “M”’s and “W”’s apart.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHmm. I totally understand this. It’s the NEW MATH.
We can’t spend 22 Billion on America, we need to put 200 billion in my crony friends pockets.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pmMr. Bigfoot, I’m not debating you on the moral grounds for invading Iraq. I’m demanding that our leaders find a way to pay for what they are pushing. It is the height of ignorance to assume that the money will be there later.
You use WWII references in the great causes of our history but neglect to acknowledge rationing, tax hikes, shortages, war bonds and a united goal. None of which Bush has discussed when spreading the fear of our lifetime.
You want it all but can’t come to grips with what it takes to do what you want. If you are going to take a stand then accept the costs (both in blood and treasure). Bush has done neither. You may see the cost in blood but are blind when it comes to what it takes to feed the machine.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:58 pmRemove foot from mouth ,your incoherent ,
September 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pmwe were attacked on bushes watch .We attacked a country which had no connection what so ever with 911 while enduring messages from a Saudi 6 years later ,whose entire family was flown out of the country within 24 hours after 911 ,at tax payer expense without being interviewed by the FBI and who bush says he no longer even thinks about !
1/3 of the American public believes that 911 was a put up job by the very oil corp exec’s who are supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq while destroying our own at home with fanatical delight !
Your posts are not worth responding to .
I think this is great timing. He is going to scream and yell about 22 billion to help our country while DEMANDING another 200 billion to occupy Iraq. I don’t think the irony of that is going to be lost on many. The 28%ers won’t get it, but the rest of us will.
Someone needs to be confronting Bush on the billions per month we are BORROWING. Does he somehow think it doesn’t have to be paid back? Does he really think that money is not coming out of the pockets of taxpayers?
This man is a moron.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pmGeorge bush enjoys the lowest popularity rating of any president in our lifetimes .He is quilty of treason and war crimes !
September 24th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIt is your lack of premise that is baseless. Ever hear of Al-Qaida? Ever hear of 9/11? Ever hear of terrorists bent on our destruction? If not, you need to get off of ThinkProgress and start reading some news.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Yes O BigFootInMouth, we have heard about all those things. Problem is that they are not connected to Iraq. Not that you will ever admit it. If you were to use some critical thinking skills (not likely) to look realistically at what is going on in Iraq and see how it has nothing to do with 911, terrorists or Osama bin Laden, your head would probably explode…… Sounds good to me.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pmEver figure we should have “forgiven†Pearl Harbor? And perhaps just let Adolph Hitler remain in power, simply because Roosevelt figured we couldn’t afford it? After all, there was that depression going on and all…we really couldn’t pay for a world war….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
The only proper comparison to Hitler would be to compare your He-row Codpiece Commander to Hitler since both invaded sovereign nations.
Take that BushCo ool-aid out of your arse and rejoin reality.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pmAnd I thought all you libs kept saying that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until the U.S. military got there?
No, O Big FootInMouth, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until our government started calling insurgents al Qaeda. They are fine with being considered to be al Qaeda, it makes them seem to be more threatening than they really are. So what are you going to do when Bush is no longer in office and all his lies (including calling insurgents “al Qaeda”) are exposed for the world to see? You may have to commit suicide. Think about it.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pmMr. Bigfoot, don’t be so careless with our money.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pmComment by bilbobaggins — September 24, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Well said.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pmdon’t feed the trolls , atleast not the ones whose arguments are this inept.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAll I can say is: Don’t give up on your dreams! No matter how far-fetched and baseless.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Yes, O Big FootInMouth, don’t give up on your dreams. It doesn’t matter how many people have to die a useless death as long as you have your dreams. You are evil through and through. And there is a place in hell waiting for you. Hopefully you will be there soon.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pmObviously putting money into domestic programs and infrastructure doesn’t yield profits for Bushco the way invading Iraq and securing resources for the oil companies does. After all, W needs money to live on when he’s out of office.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:51 pmOB, you appear to exhibit classic characteristics of the authoritarian follower, one who would score pretty high on the Dangerous World scale. Do you think the world is more dangerous today than it’s ever been?
September 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Wrong again. It is I who has the correct take on the Iraq situation.
Says the preacher on the stump in some local park. He rails at the world from his lonely perch, preaching fire and brimstone to all those who don’t believe as he does.
Blind to those who gather around him to laugh at his insane rantings, he mindlessly blathers on, believing that they will one day, heed his “black is white” message.
Carry on, o Bigfoot the stump preacher, who knows all, and sees all as no one else does! Continue to provide us unbelieving mortals with the comedy hour we need during this painful BushCo/neocon experience.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again - this is the core of the Bush fiscal strategy:
1. National security (and especially ongoing military action) is the “universal solvent” of Republican politics. It takes an awful lot of malfeasance and ineptitude before the general public will vote against war spending.
2. Because war spending is non-discretionary, kept outside of normal budgetary processes, open-ended war spending provides several benefits to the Administration: a) redistribution to defense contractors; b) a Keynesian economic “boost,” especially in the locales where contractors are based; c) an exploding “real” budget deficit that has grown so large that even Democrats will (soon) agree needs to be addressed.
3. Genuine “success” in Iraq would have limited these “benefits.” Better to drag things out, deflect the blame onto others (especially those “traitorous Democrats”), while pushing for both more tax cuts (i.e., more redistribution to cronies) and open-ended military action.
4. Repeat until all social programs are closed to stave off bankruptcy.
In my darker moments, I’m also tempted to believe they’d also be happy to see martial law and full transition to a reactionary feudalism.
They certainly don’t seem to have any love for democratic institutions.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:29 pmMoney to protect America from Terrorist vs. new entitlement program money. I know what I choose.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pmTake it off the top of the War Budget! Take out all money for Defense security contractors like Blackwater for example.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:39 pmRoger your priorities are depressing. The terrorist threat is vastly blown out of proportion in order to sway those such as your selves via the most effective means of mass manipulation FEAR. Do you really think that the current administration incompetent in every facet of its faculty would really be able to protect us from this “threat” that is supposedly looming around every dark corner regardless of the excess billions provided to do so? I refuse to live in fear. Though I am very afraid of the state of our internal “entitlement” programs as you have classified them.
Money to line elitist pocketbooks under the manufactured premise of doom vs educational/infrastructure funding. Wow I hope the choice isn’t that hard.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pmBush will get his 200 billion for his unholy war, and the 22 billion for the vets, the children and the poor will be wiped away under the “threat” of another fillibuster.
The democrats are too weak to fight the republicans, as they continually tell us over and over and over again. So this rubber stamp congress will give Bush exactly what he wants, just like the other rubber stamp congress did. The only difference is the whining.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pmOur pal Bigfoot has to have LOTS of that there gasoline to drive his Hummer. So the war’s all right with him.
How about a draft, big boy…? And I do NOT mean beer.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pmRe: Bobwurst and Uncle Ho urging people to “go Green party!”
I hate to be the one who reminds you of this, but that’s a big part of the reason why we have GW Bush in the first place. Without Nader’s Green Party campaign in 2000, we’re not in Iraq, 9-11 possibly doesn’t happen, the debt is being paid down, we’ve had universal healthcare for a few years now, the wealthiest among us haven’t looted the treasury and the middle class is a little less squeezed.
I know, I know, the Green Party had absolutely NOTHING to do with all of this, right guys?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:40 pmRogerRoger: “Money to protect America from Terrorist vs. new entitlement program money. I know what I choose.”
Yes, of course, because you are a moron.
1. Money going to Iraq does nothing to “protect America from Terrorist.”
2. Money going to Iraq IS an entitlement program for Bush’s crony war profiteers.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pmMoney to protect America from Terrorist vs. new entitlement program money. I know what I choose.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 24, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Col., what are the odds that R2 has a portion of his income, and/or investments in oil and Defense companies?
That would be the ONLY way anyone with an IQ over Bush’s favorable poll numbers could even make the statement he did!
September 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pmWell, upside, as Upton Sinclair so famously said, “it’s hard to get a man to agree with something when his paycheck depends upon disagreeing.”
September 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pmYes, I think we need a change here, now that feudalism is back and noblesse oblige forgotten:
September 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pmSeptember 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
He wants the gun money in his friends pockets. Not the health money to provide human care.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pmBush cuts money for human necessity to provide for the firecrackers that maim and kill.
The president throws your money away as fast as you provide it with your tax money.
He’s very rich. You may be very poor.
The whole world should wake up and act now. Boycott ALL American products. Every country in the world should stop supplying America with its consumables. Every Oil country in the world should start trading their oil in Euros not US Dollars because why should we trade in a currency that has no value and if their is a value then its certainly not stable enough. The world is united on one thing, they ALL hate America and its totally ignorant leaders who are bombing countries they cant even spell, let alone point out on a map. 70% of Americans don’t even know where England is on the map. Hello!
September 24th, 2007 at 10:09 pmSo what if America puts sanctions on every country that doesn’t want to play ball. Nobody wants to play ball with America anyway. All Americans should take a step back, and if they are not to ignorant contemplate what America is doing to the rest of the world. Take a long good look at yourselves and the Monkeys YOU voted into power. Are You happy the way things are? Are you happy that in YOUR country you don’t even have the basic human right of Habeas Corpus - Free Speech.
How can a nation of idiots who don’t even practice free speech and democracy impose those rights onto other nations by force?
Bush is the spokes person for the free world and America. Sorry, I live in a free part of this world, and we are not Bush fans and he does not speak for me or my countrymen. Bush is a Joke, and all Americans who follow this Joke are being laughed at all around the world. You Americans need to educate yourselves and listen to what other people from around the world are saying.
Why do you think they tell all Americans who travel outside on the states to keep a low profile and no openly shout out they are Americans? (There was a time it was cool to be an American).
Only 2% of All Americans have a passport. Out of that 2% over half are military people. That leaves a handful of Americans who are Worldly. Surely a nation with absolute NO knowledge or interest of the rest of the world should reflect that knowledge by pulling their necks in and stop telling US (The rest of the world) what to do.
Only then, once America sorts out their own mess at home, apologizes to Iraq and any other country they have illegally invaded, cleaned up their mess and actually becomes an example to the rest of the world, only then will America possibly be respected again. But until then, I speak for a huge global majority from hundreds of countries. Nobody respects Americans anymore. Nobody likes Americans anymore. Soon, people are going to do something about it and it isn’t going to look good for Bush and his followers. So take head America, your days are numbered and come the elections or in 483 Days when Bush leaves office you better vote in an President and not some dumb monkey.
Your future and lives depend on it.
Please, just tell me if this nightmare is ever going to end. 150 days seems so endless now, and now that we’ve started on this path of lawless government, who’s to say the next crew won’t be just a continuation. How did this happen here?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:02 am113 - when did 69% become a tiny fraction - I thought that was quite abit more than half, but I only got a B in idiot math.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:00 amYou want this to end, you have to do more than sing to the choir. You have got to roar at the politicians, at the media, and everywhere on the internet where rightwing bloggers and posters spew their nonsense. This website is a good starting point but you have got to go out and battle the rightwingers where they are, in their strongholds and everywhere else.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:55 amBWAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA…
The only thing wrong with your diatribe is……everything.
You are so full of crap, you must type your stuff just so you can read your own stuff on some website and make yourself feel important because you are “published†somewhere.
The problem is, posting your nonsense here preaches to the choir…and it’s only a tiny fraction of the U.S. population.
The rest don’t give a rat’s about what you have to say. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 24, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Bigfoot, you are 12 aren’t you? Seriously, you’ve GOT to be 12! If I was a betting man I would put a large sum on 12 (or younger). At any rate, are you disputing the truth of what he is saying? I guarantee you, if you actually did some research, you would find that all the facts he cited are accurate. But no, you’re just arguing that you know why he posts comments, and you also know what everyone thinks of his comments. You also apparently think that most people disagree with the general tone of his comment, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. It would seem that you are under the impression that you are a psychic, but unfortunately you are not, and you are quite out of touch with the general mood of this country. Don’t worry, you are not the only republican laboring under those false assumptions.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:23 amAnd how much that 22 BILLION are EARMARKS for John Murtha’s buddies? How much are we spending on “bridges to nowhere?” And how much is going to creating centers that have the name Byrd in it? Or Frank? Rangel?
How much of that 22 BILLION is going to Democratic pet projects?
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:24 am118 - however much those numbers might be, they’re small in comparison to what we’re throwing away to bushbuddies.
politicians are all similar, but they are not all the same, and republicans since reagan have distinguished themselves as being the most corrupt since the days of tammany hall, and that’s just objectively true.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm