Bush Wants $82B More for Iraq, Afghan Costs

AP ^ | February 14, 2005 | AP

[ohioWfan]

I'm proud to be an American because our military and their Commander in Chief have liberated 50 million people who are now free from tyranny, and creating their own fledgling democracies.

I'm proud to be an American because we are the only country in history to have enough power to be imperialists who conquer nations for our own gain, but only use our power to make people free.

I'm proud to be an American, and this spending on Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't take a single thing away from it.

I'm proud of this President. I'm proud of our military. And I'm prouder than I've ever been of this great country.

[demlosers]

Fighting wars are never done cheaply.

[sheltonmac]

You should be proud. Governments couldn't grow without citizens like you.

[1LongTimeLurker]

And I suppose this will be borrowed?

Bush is passing on a golden opportunity - send Congress the request along with a list of offsetting spending cuts. Put Congress in the position of either having to vote for the troops, or for the pork.

As much as I like the guy, Bush seems to have no idea about fiscal responsibility. He just seems to think it is no big deal to keep borrowing more and more money. It is amazing how different the perspective is from those who've never had to worry about finances versus the rest of us.

[Siamese Princess]

Do you want the US to "free" every "unfree" country on earth and then spend even more in blood and money to make certain that they don't backslide into "unfreedom"?

[ohioWfan]

Hey..........this citizen has a son in the military who risked his life for 13 months to keep YOU free.

This adminstration has improved conditions for the military and supported them without reservation.

The main purpose of Government is to provide for our defense, and that's what this money is being spent on. If you can't even deal with military spending, maybe you should find an island somewhere where there's no government at all, and be a happy man.

[econ_grad]

You always need fools to fall in line with the demogogues. This is outrageous. Bush asks for supplementals in order to avoid tacking this on to the budget. Why don't we just buy Afghanstan and turn it into our 51st state?

[ohioWfan]

I want the US to free the 'unfree' countries who are trying to destroy us, or aiding and abetting those who do.

That includes both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money and blood well spent.

[Siamese Princess]

As much as I like the guy, Bush seems to have no idea about fiscal responsibility. He just seems to think it is no big deal to keep borrowing more and more money. It is amazing how different the perspective is from those who've never had to worry about finances versus the rest of us.

Pres. Bush comes from a wealthy family and has probably wanted for little his entire life. On top of that, though, like many Americans (including Freepers) he seems to assume that this country is infinitely rich and that the money will come from somewhere somehow.

[demlosers]

So what did 9/11 cost the U.S. economy - Anyone?

[ohioWfan]

Psssst...........when you're calling people names on FR, you're supposed to ping them to your post.

Oh, no.....maybe not......you're not supposed to call people names at all....

But if you choose to attack me personally and call me a 'fool' at least have the courage to do it to my face.

It is not foolish to understand that terrorism in the Middle East is directly related to our freedom and safety, and that destroying it is crucial to our survival. And it is not foolish to understand that it takes money to do the job.

Or are you one of those 'fools' who have forgotten that we were attacked first in this war in which we are engaged?

[monday]

"Money well spent."

How about you, and the others who think this is 'money well spent' pay the bill then?

Those of us who think this is 'money flushed down a rat hole' , should be excused.

[monday]

"How ironic that the President can see that there is enough real waste that can be cut, while still funding important things and making tax cuts permanent and even adding new tax cuts, while many of the folks here would rather jump on him instead of the real wasters in the Congress..."

Members of congress are armatures compared to Bush when it comes to wasting money.

[ohioWfan]

The first responsibility the U.S. government has is to protect its citizens. That's what this money is for.

If you want to gripe about the farm bill, prescription drugs, or any number of other expenditures, you have a good point.

If you are talking about our survival, you don't.

(And the Bush family finances have nothing to do with it. That's just silly).

[monday]

"But as something the United States is investing in, Afghanistan and Iraq's self-rule, their ability to provide their own security, it will pay dividends bigtime."

That is NOT going to happen. We are still providing for Germany's and Japans and Korea's security. They are 1000 more stable than Iraq.

We need to provide security for Iraq's oil fields and pay for it with Iraqi oil. We need to get out of the rest of Iraq. Let them provide their own security.

[econ_grad]

I wasn't mentioning you particularly but since you volunteered so be it. It is foolish to think that putting countries on US welfare will somehow help us to win the war on terrorism. Between the 87 billion last year and 82 billion this year, we could have bought all of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[joesnuffy]

Purchase everything that will need to be in the room and when we are finished with it we will donate it to a clinic in Africa.

And Don't forget to take the charity write off....:)

[sheltonmac]

If you want to gripe about the farm bill, prescription drugs, or any number of other expenditures, you have a good point.

If you are talking about our survival, you don't.

So cut the idiotic social welfare programs and use that money for defense. Don't ask for more. All of your noble rantings about national security doesn't change the fact that government spending is out of control.

[jackbill]

Bush asks for supplementals in order to avoid tacking this on to the budget.

Bush is not tacking this onto the budget because then it becomes part of the "baseline". Then, if in FY2007 he no longer needs it, he would be accused of "cutting defense" by $80 billion.

[ohioWfan]

I wasn't mentioning you particularly

Yeah.....right! Follow the posts, econ.

As to 'putting countries on US welfare' you'd have to prove that with actual facts........which you don't have.