[Go Gordon]

Okay Neal, sure, we'll hand over an $87 billion dollar check of taxpayer money without any scrutiny or disagreements. No problem. Any other larger, future checks of taxpayer money we'll rubberstamp, too, because we are just that rich.

Why not try getting your facts straight before making a jackass out of your self. Here's a couple to start with. All but $20 billion go for our troops. A certain percentage of that would have to be paid whether the troops were in Iraq or North Carolina. Because of the Iraq liberation, the troops and pilots (and the associated costs) previously stationed in Saudi Arabia are no longer there. The No-Fly zones, a previous drain on military resources, are no longer needed. (I hope you at least know that No-Fly zones have nothing to do with bug control)

[Tony Niar Brain]

I said nothing about where the money was going. I was commenting how jackasses like Neal Boortz will complain night and day about the spending of taxpayer money except when he feels the occasion is right. He's a libertarian like I'm a dentist.

[cwb]

You tell him:) And lets remember that the economic impact and reconstruction costs from 9/11 alone may easily exceed the price of this appropriation. As you said, the no-fly zones cost millions of dollars...and so did everytime we launched an attack on Saddam, which included 4 times under Clinton. We can also add in the administrative costs (and fraud) of the embargo, and the continuos inspections. For those who wanted the inspections to continue; how much do you think it costs to keep an armed armada in the Persian Gulf or feed, house, transport and pay the inspectors? The administrative costs and fraud from the UN, alone, was staggering.

The Democrats want our troops home, but are unwilling to foot the bill to finish the job. These are the same Democrats who bitched and moaned about how we so quickly abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's...even though we made no committment to rebuild that country, since it was an insurgent movement to begin with. Or how about the Guld War and how they accused Bush I for leaving Iraq so soon, then? Democrats are oppurtunistic pigs that will take advantage of ANY sitation even if it is a detriment to the security of this country. Oh, sure they say they support the troops..but who in the hell do they think is going to take the brunt of Iraqi dissatisfacton when reconstruction is failing? The Troops. This is just another indication, for me, that the Democrats want the US to fail so they can damage Bush.

Think about this irony: Today, it is the Democrats who demand we get UN approval for war or any other international operation. Yet, in 1991, when we had nearly unanimous UN support for the Gulf War, it was still a majority of Democats who objected to it. At the same time we finally get a UN vote for international support in Iraq (which Democrats demanded), it is again, the majority of Democrats who object to this support from the US perspective. The Democrats don't care which side the UN is on...they only care which side a Repubican is on so they can take the opposing position. Hell, it was democrats who avoided the UN over Kosovo because they knew that Russia and possibly China would've vetoed that war. These people are dangerous.