Looks like DUHbya and Co. are looking for yet MORE money for Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20991580/

What about America? What about our schools? Our roads? What about AMERICAN'S???? Border patrol??? INFRASTRUCTURE??? If we erode from the inside out it won't matter if we fight the war on terror because we won't have anything to fight for.

1. Every single penny that is spent on Iraq is borrowed from foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia, and we pay them interest on it.

2. Look at what that money is being used for: Mostly equipment which is stuffing the pockets of the Bush Adminstration's donor base.

I'm tired of my tax dollars being pissed down a rat hole half a world away. It's not making us safer, so what's the payoff??

After further review, this would put the total money at $200 billion just for 2008, one year. That's $16.67 billion per month, which is over half a billion PER DAY!!

SICKENING!!!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

I've linked that story before, but it's particularly exceptional. Matt Taibbi may win something for this story alone - but he's in the running for his many other stories.

I'd be sick about this much money being spent, but it pisses the liberals off so much, it's worth it.

So you're willing to throw out the baby as long as there are Liberals in the bathwater?

Deane, did you read the article?

No, should I. What am I looking for?

Cliff's Notes:

"America the beautiful and bankrupt."

Littlesongs, didn't you get this post in the wrong thread?

I think you should, yes. I don't want to tell you what to look for - but I like how your mind works and would like to talk about your take on the information presented. I'm fairly certain you'll not like some parts - but the list of specific examples ( that are NOT exceptions to the rules around Iraq ) are revealing of a situation that would not make ME happy if I were a Conservative. I can smirk and semi-secretly be ok with a LOT of things that piss off Conservatives. But this article read much differently to me.

But hey, maybe you'll still come down on the side of " If it pisses off Liberals so much, it's all worth it."

Which article (link) are we talking about?

This one:

"In February, Bush requested $141.7 billion for the wars; officials said at the time the figure was only a rough estimate and could climb. In July, the Defense Department asked Congress for another $5.3 billion to buy 1,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

Gates says another $42 billion is needed to cover additional requirements. The extra money includes:

* $11 billion to field another 7,000 MRAP vehicles in addition to the 8,000 already planned;
* $9 billion to reconstitute equipment and technology;
* $6 billion for training and equipment of troops;
* $1 billion to improve U.S. facilities in the region and consolidate bases in Iraq;
* $1 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces.

The request for additional funds takes into account Bush’s decision to bring home five Army brigades by next summer, Gates said.

The $190 billion total would cover war costs for the 2008 budget year, which begins Monday."

I'm confused about what you lefties are tense about. Should we dump the 7,000 MRAP vehicles? Or the $9 billion to upgrade equipment and technology? Or maybe the $6 billion for training and equipment?

If it's the whole 190 billion, what do you want to do. Cut and run. If that's what it is, say so.

As a matter of fact, that's probably a good idea. But before you agree with me, list for me what happens next.

Sorry, I was talking about The Rolling Stone article. I can see why you needed to ask though.

Often, $11 billion to field another 7,000 MRAP vehicles in addition to the 8,000 already planned becomes $25 billion for 9,500 total vehicles after the first few thousand were parked for design flaws, or worse yet, for injuring and killing our servicemen.

You are aware that Neil Mallon Bush, William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, and Marvin P. Bush are just a few of the beneficiaries of the bloodshed, right?

>>>"Sorry, I was talking about The Rolling Stone article. I can see why you needed to ask though."

I like the way the guy writes.

Problem here is that what he's talking about is the way our government operates. It's the same way no matter which party is in control. After the next election, it will be Hillary we're talking about, but it will be the same.

The question should be, do we need to do this job, or not. If it is in the US's vital interest we do it. If not we don't.

We don't need to do this job. We don't now, and we never did. It's time to admit this, take corrective action, and move on.

The only thing that will make lefties happy are more handouts. Foreign policy is too complicated for them. Welfare is more understandable. Let's get back to that.

Now, I'm going to enjoy this evenings feature film in my Republican generated big screen home theater.

A few things to consider. The US economy is built on the avilability of relatively cheap energy. Most of our energy comes from the mideast. American lives, literally, are at risk if energy becomes too expensive, or non available.

Americans have shown no sign of reducing their desire for cheap energy. After all 30,000 Americans die every year, because we dont want to reduce speed limits, and restrict private automobile travel.

We either change our life styles, rather abrutly, or we use our military to ensure the free flow of trade, in this case oil.

I'm just an old soldier, I do what the national military command tells me.

DJ said>>>
I'd be sick about this much money being spent, but it pisses the liberals off so much, it's worth it.

That's what they're looking for in 08' DA! Just keep up that kind of crap and you'll be calling Hillary President. And I think I will move to Vancouver B.C. short there after.
You were a PD? WOW! Chris says your a good guy..... He never said you were smart....

DJ also said>>>
Which article (link) are we talking about?
No, should I. What am I looking for?

Huh... WOW! Very obtuse.

There was never a threat of the free flow of trade. This was not, and never has been a reason for the war. Bush invaded because he allowed 9/11 to happen and then used that tragedy as an excuse to finish off the job his Dad didn't finish, because he knew better!

Vit...
Now you've done it! You've opened up a new can of worms. Herb and DJ with Nwokie in tow are going to be on you like stink on shit. Get ready for the flames brother....... It's going to be SHOCK AND AWE EXTREME RIGHT style!

>>>"You were a PD?"

And GM, and Group President, and owner. Oh yes, and the best part, a Republican.

Yeah, too bad that's a really dirty word now.

Where are you guys gonna hide the President?

Owner of what??? KUIK??? KTIL???

Oh yes, and the best part, a Republican.

That something we can both feel good about...

I look forward to Bush hitting the road to campaign for their nominee.

Oh yeah.

It's gonna be golden. Let's just say he's only gonna be about 23 percent effective.

2.3% is more like it...

LOL!

I was thinking of the base. If we round that up to 25 percent, then really Bush is a net loss!

For every person he appeals to, he's gonna piss three more off!

Like I said, where are they gonna hide him?