[Mark Felton]

"Rush favored the $200 billion debt financed war to build a welfare state in Iraq, surely he can't seriously complain about free drugs for seniors?"

Are you competent? To not engage in the war would have been disastrous for the world economy and western civilization in general.

Iraq financed terrorism and had on-going coordination with Al Queda. (see latest Feith memo)

[Sam Cree]

A quandary for the Bushbots who are Rushbots.

[JohnGalt]

Feith memo? LOL

Clearly, there was no reason to be so hysterical about Iraq as to support a $200 billion debt financed war fought by teenage girls from West Virginia. The hysterics surrounding the build-up were in retrospect unjustified, and conservatives should have demanded that the war be paid for not with debt but with cash.

But there is a reason the Beltway "Conservatives" preferred hysterics, because with heavy debt, what's another $400 billion over 10 years?

If it was so important, the President should have gotten funding for it, not simply floated ever more debt. Welfare and warfare have gone hand in hand in this country, for Rush to act surprised is less than compelling or a sign that he doesn't really get how the DC-tax regime operates.

[billbears]

Are you competent? To not engage in the war would have been disastrous for the world economy and western civilization in general.

With what? WMDs? That's rich. Not to go off the point of the thread but Iraq financed terrorists no more than the Saudis (who actually have ties to terrorism), and 'we' call them an ally.

Back to the point of the thread, I have to give credit to Rush at least on this. While he did not have the same vigor on the incursion into Iraq, at least he is willing to call the Republican party on this big government waste.

[epluribus_2]

This IS for the WAR. By getting W another four years, we will WIN it. Now Florida is a LOCK. Let the junior bin ladins and saddams of the world quake in fear. They won't have a Dem president to kick around in 2004.