Posted on 09/07/2003 5:14:03 PM PDT by dogbyte12
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will announce on Sunday night that he plans to ask Congress for $87 billion to fund the U.S. military deployment in Iraq and pay for reconstruction, a Republican source said.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the money would fund U.S. military operations in Iraq and reconstruction over the coming budget year.
The figure includes assistance for Afghanistan. Bush was to make the request in an 8:30 p.m. EDT address to the nation, the source said.
The figure was at the high end of expectations. Some members of Congress said earlier they expected Bush to get what he asked for but wanted him to detail how long U.S. troops would remain in Iraq and outline a strategy for bringing them home. (snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do you remember asking what sort of return Reagan expected from the billions spent on the cold war? If I am right the dividend (called the peace dividend) was not so high as people thought, but Clinton cut back on the military and encouraged spending on welfare programs.
Of course making us weaker (perceived and real) did not lead to world peace, in fact a weak enemy rose up to attaked us. IRAQ is one of several countries that have a history of being a base (safe harbor) to plan and practice for these attacks. The investment Bush is spending (if congress lets him) is only a down payment on the rise of radical islam. You can keep using your arguments for years to come. (How nice not to have to come up with new arguments every few months.)
No sir, you are not. The fact that you are willing to criticize our President during a time of war shows that you are actually a terrorist bent on destroying America with logic.
And I for one, will not allow anyone to use Weapons of Mass Logic on our country and thus have reported your un-American activites to John Ashcroft.
We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. We shall always be at war with Iraq.
Unless we're at war with Iran. That's different. :)
Funny you should bring that up. I was just taking one of your compatriots to school on that over on the other thread. What did the administration think at the time when Hussein was gassing Kurds. Hmmmmm....
When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 over a border dispute, the United States tilted toward Saddam -- secretly supplying intelligence to hit Iranian positions.Now that was found from a CNN story. Of course the documentation and White House internal memos from the administration at the time can be foundThe relationship with Iraq was severely tested after Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and even gassed rebellious Kurds in the northern part of the country.
"Congress reacted, the public reacted, and this made it all the more complicated for the United States to continue its, its secret assistance to the Iraqi military," Tyler said.
I know how you love to use big bold letters. Of course how are you going to deny factual evidence? Oh, I'm sorry President Bush is a good, GOOD man. Yep, that'll clear it right up...
And what exactly makes you think there will be a 'welfare state' created in Iraq? Is Japan a U.S. welfare state? Is Germany?
Can you see beyond the end of your nose?
Or did I miss something in your searing logic and exercise in irrelevance?
Maybe we should just all give up and kill ourselves? You first.
I don't care what any of the overly emotional, pessimistic malcontents around here say..........that was FUNNY! :o)
Ah, but I didn't say 1980 did I? If you would have bothered to click on the link (which you didn't) it covered several times during the 80s. And the man who was President then, was a greater President than George W Bush will ever be. You see he actually cut domestic spending in the first two years of his presidency. I know that 'cut' is a dirty word in today's 'conservative' party, except when it comes to giving the citizens of the respective states back just a small portion of what they're owed.
And what difference does it make how any administration reacted to it. The facts remain the same. Saddam Hussein USED WMD.
I never said he didn't use them. I know full well he used them from the reports. Back in the 1980s. You don't think I feel for the poor Kurds that were gassed to death? You don't think I wanted Hussein gone? I don't hate this nation of states. However I do believe in Constitutional limits and I don't like being lied to by those in power (PNAC lackeys) to get behind a war. I also think it's a little hypocritical to use the argument that he used them for going to war when the more conservative administration of the time was able to turn its eye.
But Bush and company needed a war. Rather the PNAC wanted a war. Bush I didn't finish the job the first time around as he should have so we'll use the 'he used WMDs against his own people' routine. Mind you, the first Bush administration didn't have a problem with it until 1990. The Reagan administration didn't have a serious issue with it for 8 years. Why should Bush II have a problem with it? Unless they needed it for a reason to go to war? A reason that had sat through three administrations and the most conservative one of those had done nothing about it.
Perhaps you need to go back and look at some of the PNAC's 'published' papers. Try those by Wolfowitz and Perle. The Founding Fathers did not have in mind the establishment of the American Empire when they founded this nation. And never should it be the desire of a conservative for the establishment of one. But that's what the PNAC wants. It's quite evident from their website. And many of the men from that 'think-tank' are the ones guiding this administration on its foreign policy.
Or did I miss something in your searing logic and exercise in irrelevance?
Well considering that more conservative administrations had no problem with it and considering that Bush doing something about it is supposed to whitewash his blatant liberalism, I'd say it's not me who's irrelevant. It's hanger on partisans. When the conservative party does reform, without Gillespie, without Kristol, without Bush and friends, this nation may began a return to a Constitutional form of government. But some don't really want that do they? They just want someone to idolize in the Presidency, to have 'their' party in power, and to hades with the consequences.
Meanwhile Wahabism is the newest best thing since sliced bread to the 'religion of peace' (don't think I missed the President calling it that last night either), North Korea gets the administration to bend to talks, our borders are wide open, and terrorism grows exponentially. I'd have to say Hussein couldn't have wished for better unintended consequences. The UN reigns in the US, Iraq gets restocked with a new infrastructure, Israel is being forced to give away land to a bunch of squatters, and hatred for this nation of states in the Mideast is at an all time high. But Bush is 'in control'. Okey dokey
The problem I see is that the Republican party and conservatism are quickly becoming mutually exclusive. Is it acceptable to go around kicking tail while at home continuing to espouse blatant socialism? Mind you Democrats wouldn't do any better, they'd sell out defense to anyone and everyone and push their socialist agenda at home. But what exactly is being 'defended' in this war if the socialist agenda marches on full steam? The Constitution? Hardly. Only a few conservatives pay it mind anymore.
Sorry went off on a separate rant there
I'm sure it all makes sense to you, viewing, as you do, all of life through their own private political prism. You're a picture perfect ideologue, bill.......long on jumping to irrational, and sometimes bizarre conclusions, and short on common sense.
Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to try to figure out what you're trying to say right now, so I'll bid you a fond farewell for now............until you try to defend Jimmy Carter's character again. :o)
I don't know if you heard that he had to be Medevac'd from Baghdad to Germany because he couldn't eat or drink anything, and was dehydrated. It turned out that he had 5 ulcers in his esophagus from the malaria pills he has to take!
He's probably going back in a day or two, since he's doing much better now....
Funny thing....... he WANTS to go back because his mission is not finished.
Some of the blowhards and cowards around here could learn a thing or two from the courage and strength of our 19 year old 'boy'.......
Secondly I don't think I've ever said Bush wasn't a good man. Matter of fact I went back and looked at the thread from last night (you do remember that thread don't you? The one where you practically accused me of being 'un-American' because I dared question the Republican party?) and the only point I brought up goodness was in post #446 to cajungirl. And the only point that I mentioned was I thought at one time Jimmy Carter was a good man at heart but not a good President. Never said Bush wasn't a good man. Receiving and acting on bad advice? Yes. Bad President? No, not yet. But never said he was a bad man. I just don't think he's a, how did you put it?, good, GOOD man..
Oh, but you and the 'team' took it and ran didn't you? To compare Bush to Carter, why that's, that's blaspheme!! And using the old liberal tactic of taking one word out of context you twist it to destroy the rest of what is brought before you.
And exactly like a liberal you ignore 90% of the mountain to hang on to the 10% no matter what the facts tell you.
My son is sick, and he's going back to Iraq.
You make things up (I never said anything remotely similar to what you just posted.....I have problems with the Republican party, you dolt!), deny what you, yourself, have said, and make no sense whatsoever.
I don't feel like dealing with your irrational ideology right now. I'm sorry.
There are REAL things happening in the world, REAL crises, REAL problems, and REAL solutions.
President Bush is solving them, my son is solving them.......and YOU are not.
Whine at someone else for a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.