look, a cute puppy!

Why only 70? Let's just round it off to $100 billion and divide it up among his cronies.

Not merely Friday, but during "Happy Hour."

War... What war? Stimulus packages for everyone! Do you like me yet?

And while we're at it, let's suspend the gasoline tax.

Heck, our dollar isn't worth a damn anyway. Let's just load up planes with money and drop it on Iraq.

Let all those small business, flag waving, patriotic Republicans pay for the war. They voted the guy in, they supported him when it counted (election time), let them pay for their stupidity and mistakes.

Money where your mouth and vote is, please.

pvd021: Let all those small business, flag waving, patriotic Republicans pay for the war. They voted the guy in, they supported him when it counted (election time), let them pay for their stupidity and mistakes.

Aren't these cronies the 'evil rich' who are making all the money and therefore paying the most taxes?

Epsilon: Why only 70? Let's just round it off to $100 billion and divide it up among his cronies.

Splurge on the Surge^TM

I say approve it but require that a detailed accounting of how it is spent is made public. How much goes toward food, armaments, ammunition, Iraq infrastructure, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.

Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

is Bush still around?

what's wrong down there in the USA, can't anybody shoot straight?

And $193 Million of that is for Pakistan. What a joke.

at least he's not an elitist!

FTA: "At the same time, Bush has promised to veto the war funding bill if Democrats add money for domestic programs and present him with a bill over his request."

Ruthless Aggression!

And while we're at it, let's suspend the gasoline tax.

Yes because the one thing that will help is to strip the government of even more money and have 17 cents per gallon cheaper gasoline, when the price is increasing by 60 cents in the past month and still massively climbing. That will make us all feel better that for a week or two we pay slightly less than we were paying for it, until the price goes up just as high as it was before the suspension of the gas tax.

Of course that still does nothing for stabalising the oil rich areas of the world, or the rampant speculation that accounts for about 50% of the oil prices right there, or the limiting of production at plants. Maybe if we rise the price to speculate on oil to the same level as every other goods, we can use that tax to lower the prices and stop some of the selling between each other to see how best to rape the public's cheque book.

Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

I sure am glad we're done with the republican congress who helped ruin us in the first place!

WillyShwonka: Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

I sure am glad we're done with the republican congress who helped ruin us in the first place!

Using your thinking, it's a good thing Nixon was elected since it got rid of the Democrats who started the Vietnam war in the first place.

Churchill2004: Using your thinking, it's a good thing Nixon was elected since it got rid of the Democrats who started the Vietnam war in the first place.

One of the few things he did right.

"Jenny...You know I'd never hurt you. It's just the war...And that lying SON OF A biatch JOHNSON!"

Fart_Machine: Heck, our dollar isn't worth a damn anyway. Let's just load up planes with money and drop it on Iraq.

I'm not sure that wouldn't be cheaper. Anyone ever figure out how many C30s dropping $100 bills equal what we're spending?

Damn, part of me wants to go out.

Another part wants to stay at home and watch the drunken flame war.

Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

How exactly do you propose they do that? The Senate only has a majority if Lieberman caucuses with them, and he's already said he won't on any bill to end the Iraq war or deny it funding. You're blaming them for something they have no control over.

brainiac-dumdum: Damn, part of me wants to go out.

Another part wants to stay at home and watch the drunken flame war.

I blew a bunch of money for my birthday last weekend, so I think I'll stay home, drink, and partake in drunken flamewar action. Now, to fan some flames:

On one hand the liberals biatch and moan about how the president won't properly equip the troops. Whether it's body armor, vehicles, or platoon sizes, they always find something to complain about. Yet when it comes time to actually put up the money to accomplish these things, they instantly become the party of 'no more money for blood oil!' Look, either support the troops or don't. This cognative dissonance crap might work with the left wing loons at MoveOn but the rest of the country sees right through your pathetic act.

Gunther: Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

How exactly do you propose they do that? The Senate only has a majority if Lieberman caucuses with them, and he's already said he won't on any bill to end the Iraq war or deny it funding. You're blaming them for something they have no control over.

You obviously are stupid as fark. They can deny funding anytime they want.

bolzy: They can deny funding anytime they want.

I think it would be a splendid idea for a political party to completely abandon our own troops in a desert hellhole to die just to stick it to the other side. I would be a proud American that day!

shower_in_my_socks: I say approve it but require that a detailed accounting of how it is spent is made public. How much goes toward food, armaments, ammunition, Iraq infrastructure, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.

Agreed. Oh, hell yes, put a microscope on these crooked pissants
and then make it public. It would put an end to a lot of the baloney and put a whole bunch of them in the jail.

And then go and put the same microscope on the mainly republican
congressmen and senators who are openly opposing any congressional hearings into corruption in Iraq, and put that on the air.

/Only thing is, is Congress already too far out of control for any of this to matter?

Bravo subby. First Bush headline to make me giggle in a long time.

I think it would be a splendid idea for a political party to completely abandon our own troops in a desert hellhole to die just to stick it to the other side. I would be a proud American that day!

I can't tell from this comment whether you're a Bush supporter or a Bush opponent.

bolzy: Gunther: Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

How exactly do you propose they do that? The Senate only has a majority if Lieberman caucuses with them, and he's already said he won't on any bill to end the Iraq war or deny it funding. You're blaming them for something they have no control over.

You obviously are stupid as fark. They can deny funding anytime they want.

I assume you're suggesting they just refuse to pass any funding bills? They can't do that without leaving the troops out to dry.

Shaggy_C: On one hand the liberals biatch and moan about how the president won't properly equip the troops. Whether it's body armor, vehicles, or platoon sizes, they always find something to complain about. Yet when it comes time to actually put up the money to accomplish these things, they instantly become the party of 'no more money for blood oil!

Liberals biatch and moan about properly equipping the troops, because it's IMPORTANT. And, we've put up the money to accomplish these things over, and over and over again. The equipment should have been bought in the FIRST war bill, or even better, the defense bill before the war even started.

The government doesn't need 70 TRILLION BILLION ZILLION dollars to buy body armor.. They need it to continue a war that should have been won 5 years ago, or better yet, not even started.

/prick

BenderZone: The government doesn't need 70 TRILLION BILLION ZILLION dollars to buy body armor.. They need it to continue a war that should have been won 5 years ago, or better yet, not even started.

Perhaps if a certain someone hadn't gutted the Pentagon's procurement office in the 90s we wouldn't have had the problem to deal with. Congress gave 300 million for the armor in 2003 and it took almost a year to get to the troops. Why? Typical big government bureaucracy. Not malicious intent from Herr Bush.

Shaggy_C: Perhaps if a certain someone hadn't gutted the Pentagon's procurement office in the 90s we wouldn't have had the problem to deal with. Congress gave 300 million for the armor in 2003 and it took almost a year to get to the troops. Why? Typical big government bureaucracy. Not malicious intent from Herr Bush.



/I keed..
//But seriously, you're saying that this is (at least partially) Clinton's fault?

Shaggy_C: BenderZone: The government doesn't need 70 TRILLION BILLION ZILLION dollars to buy body armor.. They need it to continue a war that should have been won 5 years ago, or better yet, not even started.

Perhaps if a certain someone hadn't gutted the Pentagon's procurement office in the 90s we wouldn't have had the problem to deal with. Congress gave 300 million for the armor in 2003 and it took almost a year to get to the troops. Why? Typical big government bureaucracy. Not malicious intent from Herr Bush.

Big gov't bureaucracy you say? Who controlled Congress and the Executive in 2003? Them filthy libruls?

ConservativesBlow: Big gov't bureaucracy you say?

"It's not a question of money, it's a question of capacity to manufacture these devices," Gen. Richard Myers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, told a Senate committee last month. "We're making them as quickly as we can."

Gunther: How exactly do you propose they do that? The Senate only has a majority if Lieberman caucuses with them, and he's already said he won't on any bill to end the Iraq war or deny it funding. You're blaming them for something they have no control over

They don't have to pass a bill to deny funding. All they have to do is not approve new funding.

Gunther: bolzy: Gunther: Churchill2004: Man, I sure am glad we elected this Democratic Congress to end the war!

How exactly do you propose they do that? The Senate only has a majority if Lieberman caucuses with them, and he's already said he won't on any bill to end the Iraq war or deny it funding. You're blaming them for something they have no control over.

You obviously are stupid as fark. They can deny funding anytime they want.

I assume you're suggesting they just refuse to pass any funding bills? They can't do that without leaving the troops out to dry.

Look farkbrain, first wipe that koolaid off your lips. The stupidest argument in the world "They can't do that without leaving the troops out to dry" can be used to keep them there for next 1000 years.


/stupid moron

rustik: //But seriously, you're saying that this is (at least partially) Clinton's fault?

Hey, a cut in the number of active duty troops results in less need for equipment. A war drives up the number of active duty troops needed and producers couldn't keep up. No one would have foreseen a war in 2000, so I don't hold it against him.

Shaggy_C: bolzy: They can deny funding anytime they want.

I think it would be a splendid idea for a political party to completely abandon our own troops in a desert hellhole to die just to stick it to the other side. I would be a proud American that day!

with morons like you who needs freepers

bolzy: Look farkbrain, first wipe that koolaid off your lips. The stupidest argument in the world "They can't do that without leaving the troops out to dry" can be used to keep them there for next 1000 years.


/stupid moron

Calm down bro. There is a difference between trying to get them home safely and simply saying: "oops, no more ammo for you! no evacuation! you farks are fending for yourself in the desert LoLorZ we sure stuck it to bush hahahaa fark you soldiers you prolly would have been rethuglikkans anyways!"

Shaggy_C: Calm down bro. There is a difference between trying to get them home safely and simply saying: "oops, no more ammo for you! no evacuation! you farks are fending for yourself in the desert LoLorZ we sure stuck it to bush hahahaa fark you soldiers you prolly would have been rethuglikkans anyways!"

I just don't understand how the billions upon billions that we've spent on this war weren't enough to properly arm the troops and/or prepare for an eventual withdrawal.

I realize that heavy equipment is expensive, but seriously.. The best figure I could find is 154,000 troops in Iraq as of Dec. 2007. We've spent over $500 billion on the war. If you divide that out, that's about $3.25 million PER SOLDIER.

If that's not enough to properly equip these guys, then I don't know what is. Even accounting for for the heavy equipment, the numbers still boggle the mind. For the money we've spent we could have given each soldier their own tank. (M-1s cost about $2.5 million each)

Shaggy_C: A war drives up the number of active duty troops needed and producers couldn't keep up

I know you're a troll, but I fell the need to point out that Bush hasn't actually enlarged the military.

bolzy: Look farkbrain, first wipe that koolaid off your lips. The stupidest argument in the world "They can't do that without leaving the troops out to dry" can be used to keep them there for next 1000 years.

wipe the rabid foam from yours and listen to me very carefully. If they denied funding one of two things would happen:

1)Bush would back down and the troops would be brought home or

2)the farking troops would be left in a farking desert on the other side of the world with no supplies. Every right winger on the planet would blame it on the democrats, thus ensuring a republican sweep at the next election (in the house and senate as well as the presidency) and thus the continuation of the war for four farking years at the least.

Which of those do you thing is more likely?

rustik: If that's not enough to properly equip these guys, then I don't know what is. Even accounting for for the heavy equipment, the numbers still boggle the mind. For the money we've spent we could have given each soldier their own tank. (M-1s cost about $2.5 million each)

The problem is not that they didn't get the armor, it's that it proved ineffective. It was heavy and made for stopping rifle rounds; that doesn't help much against IEDs.

rustik: We've spent over $500 billion on the war

Even that's a low end estimate. I've heard well-respected economists talking about total costs to the US taxpayer at $1-2 trillion.

And remember when the administration jumped as alarmist a guy who claimed before the war that it might cost as much as $100-200 billion?

Shaggy_C: Calm down bro. There is a difference between trying to get them home safely and simply saying: "oops, no more ammo for you! no evacuation! you farks are fending for yourself in the desert LoLorZ we sure stuck it to bush hahahaa fark you soldiers you prolly would have been rethuglikkans anyways!"

But knowing that Bush will use the spin game (ie Look! The Democrats don't support the troops!) if they deny funding without a timetable or troop reduction, what choice do they have but to go along with him.

Bush is so stubborn that he will gladly let the troops stay there with dwindling funds because he is unwilling to compromise whatsoever. Not only that, but he would blame those who are trying to bring the soldiers home with "siding with the turrists," or something equally offensive.

Churchill2004: I know you're a troll, but I fell the need to point out that Bush hasn't actually enlarged the military.

Was it the 'now to fan some flames' comment that made it obvious? Nope, Bush hasn't enlarged the military itself, but he sure made the military-industrial supply chain move with clockwork precision.

youl100: Bush is so stubborn that he will gladly let the troops stay there with dwindling funds because he is unwilling to compromise whatsoever.

That's because he really doesn't care about the troops, he cares about the war. To some extent, I think he truly believes it to be the most important idealogical struggle of our times, this 'War on Terruh'. On the other hand, he's making a lot of people around him very, very rich.

Shaggy_C: The problem is not that they didn't get the armor, it's that it proved ineffective. It was heavy and made for stopping rifle rounds; that doesn't help much against IEDs.

That's really not much of an argument, though.. I mean seriously, what kind of armor is going to protect against a bomb at close range? If your argument is that the troop transport vehicles (ie, humvees and troop carriers) weren't outfitted properly, there should still have been plenty of money for upgrades. If you can build an M-1 for $2.5 million, you should be able to upgrade existing equipment with far better armor for much less.

It just seems at this point we're flushing money away on contractors who are intentionally bloating their budgets because they're getting free government handouts with no real oversight to ensure that we're actually getting our money's worth.

In the 1940's we raised the top marginal tax rate to 94% on income over $2.3 million (in 2007 dollars) to pay for WWII. These days when we have a war we give those people tax cuts and run wars on credit for the children and grandchildren of middle class Americans to take care of.