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 ...
Is THAT where they went??.........and I just thought they moved to Cleveland.............. :o)
(Great post! Thanks for the laugh!)
This thread has been an interesting exercise in discovery for me.....
The one time that I 'used' my son to make a political point was right here on this thread against billbears.....for which I subsequently apologized and admitted was completely wrong......to him, AND to you.
Since that time, I have found out that billbears is an honest gentleman who respects both my son and me. We disagree in a major way, but we are both adults, and now have an improved relationship.
You, on the other hand, have revealed that you are anything BUT honest, and as far away from a gentleman that male human beings get (can I assume you ARE both male, and human?). You have continued to be abusive and dishonest, and reveal your own weakness in thought and character in every post (especially the deleted one).
Differences of opinions among adults do not result in the abusive posts that you level at everyone in your path, dogbyte.........operative word here.......ADULT.
I have a letter in my pocket that has a list of members of the communist party too.
I get freep mails all the time, but I don't share them, or use them for the purposes of debate, yet you are accusing me of being unclassy. If people want to say anything about me, say it publically. I can take it.
I apologize for going over the line in any way however. I was emotional, and I over-reacted. I do not however apologize for my point of view. My means of expressing it, and my tone though can always be improved.
Only one man walked on water, and I ain't him.
What is that suppose to mean?
I was drawing an analogy to the McCarthy trick of saying that he had letters in his pocket that proved that somebody was a communist, without actually producing the letters.
I am not a McCarthy basher btw, just bashing that tactic. I am sure that many people find me to be a creep, jerk, fill in the blank. I just think that saying that anonymous people agree with one through freep mail is kinda well uncool.
I do though genuinely apologize for my tone earlier. I am just feeling a sense of frustration with "your side". I do sense that it is becoming un p.c. here to be allowed to criticize the president. I am just venting btw. I still plan on voting for him. I just don't feel that pretending one thinks everything is rosy is not the best long term strategy.
It reminds me of the democrats I know, who would defend Clinton to the hilt, then years later admit that they found him profoundly flawed. I am not comparing Clinton to Bush by this. I am just drawing an analogy.
I am probably being more contrarian than I would typically be, just playing devil's advocate to those who fawn over the president. I detest the Cult of Personality. Doesn't matter who the personality is. Idolatry is one of the 10 commandments that I really get irked at when it is being violated.
If it doesn't apply to you or anybody else reading this, then do not take it personally or offense. I do sense a whiff of this though on the "isn't he so dreamy" threads.
He is a politician, not a pop star. It reminds me of the fawning over Clinton. Again, not comparing their attributes, just comparing the blind allegiance.
Sorry for being so long winded, but I ambushed OhioWFan a bit, and feel a bit counter ambushed, and I feel that some things might be misconstrued.
I was a republican before the president was president, or governor for that matter. Shall be one after he leaves. I see the same thing with Reagan worshippers. Both George Bush's are "no Ronald Reagan" with them. Reagan isn't the idealized Reagan. He made mistakes too. We all do. Come next August, I will be full time attacking the democrats. I just don't want my vote taken for granted, my objections pushed aside for the sake of "unity".
Dick Cheney used to hold my position on Iraq btw. He said that the reason we didn't take out Saddam in 91 was because it would fracture international alliances, be inordinately expensive, would require massive troops, massive money, and the exit strategy would be hard to come up with, with us most likely spending years upon years in country as occupying force with most of the world opposed to us.
Cheney changed his mind. But I would appreciate that those of us who believe he had it right in 1995 when he said that, or when Brent Scowcroft, or the President's own father just last year echoed similar thoughts, would not be treated as parriahs to the cause.
I believe Dick Cheney was dead accurate in fact. Everything that he said would happen if we toppled Saddam has in fact happened. I hope we are still allowed to differ here.
Thanks for/if ya read this long rambling post.
--dogbyte12--
Unfortunately, you haven't learned much about reality. Aren't you glad Eric didn't serve under Clinton.
Some of us did.
Gee, didn't the president say the war is over..however, since that time, we've been seeing our guys getting killed daily..
I'm sure there has been freepmail about me .. heck I get bashed over at TOS all the time. Most times, I just ignore it, because no matter what I say, they will still call me all kinds of names.
But you do realize how this reference could be taken the wrong way, don't ya? Which is why I asked you what you meant by it, before jumping to the wrong conclusion ..
I do though genuinely apologize for my tone earlier. I am just feeling a sense of frustration with "your side". I do sense that it is becoming un p.c. here to be allowed to criticize the president. I am just venting btw. I still plan on voting for him. I just don't feel that pretending one thinks everything is rosy is not the best long term strategy.
I am glad that you genuinely apologize and I do hope that you and OhioWfan can some how work things out.
With that said, maybe you can understand "our side's" frustration at all the attacks we have recieved.
Personally, I don't have a problem with criticizing the President, but I do have a problem when false information that is being reported in the papers and then some believe it like it's gospel.
And no I don't think everything is rosey .. We are in a war on terror, people from around the world want to kill us. But I do think that President Bush is trying to fight these terrorists. Do I wish he could do more, You're damn right I do, but I also realize the political climate that we are facing.
And no matter how much you, I or anyone would like to hear Bush say "Let Roll, Nuke Mecca" .. he ain't gonna do it .. it might cross his mind ..but he ain't gonna do it.
It reminds me of the democrats I know, who would defend Clinton to the hilt, then years later admit that they found him profoundly flawed. I am not comparing Clinton to Bush by this. I am just drawing an analogy
I understand that you are not comparing Bush to Clinton .. but there are others that do. For which the life of me, I cannot understand. Bill Clinton is nothing but a worthless piece of sh**, that sold our country to the any bidder.
And YES, the thought of another Democrat in the White House, especially while we are at war scares the hell out of me.
No matter how bad some may think Bush is .. a Dem in the WH will be 100 times worse.
Also, I and many others don't fall all over Bush like loved sick puppies. We admire his character, his leadership, and the strength he has shown in some very difficult times.
The fact that he looks pretty good in a pair of jeans is a plus. ;0)
I was a republican before the president was president, or governor for that matter. Shall be one after he leaves. I see the same thing with Reagan worshippers. Both George Bush's are "no Ronald Reagan" with them. Reagan isn't the idealized Reagan. He made mistakes too. We all do. Come next August, I will be full time attacking the democrats. I just don't want my vote taken for granted, my objections pushed aside for the sake of "unity".
Bush is not Ronald Regan, there is only one Regan .. but I do think Regan would be proud of the things Bush has done. And yes, you are right .. both men have made mistakes .. but all the good they have done for our country outweight the bad.
And I totally agree, our vote should not be taken for granted. But I am of the thinking that this battle belongs in the primaries. Heck, I have not intention of voting for Arlen Specter in the primary .. but if he wins, then I will hold my nose and vote for him in the election, because keeping control is important.
I can also understand the beef about the 3rd party .. I have never ruled out voting for one .. It's just that they haven't brought forth one that catches my attention.
Plus, if there was a 3rd party canidate .. if the poll numbers aren't good for that person .. then I will not take the chance of getting a Dem in the WH .. I learned that lesson in 1992 (for the record, I didn't vote for Ross)
Dick Cheney used to hold my position on Iraq btw. He said that the reason we didn't take out Saddam in 91 was because it would fracture international alliances, be inordinately expensive, would require massive troops, massive money, and the exit strategy would be hard to come up with, with us most likely spending years upon years in country as occupying force with most of the world opposed to us.
I understand your point .. But that was then and this is now ... Yes, I agree .. This war will be expensive .. but what other choice do we have?
Should we have ignore Saddam untill he hit us, or he gave someone like Bin Ladin WMD to hit us??
That's what Clinton did .. and look what we got from it .. Thousands of people were killed because he didn't have the balls to go after the terrorists.
Some out there can call me all the names they want .. I don't care .. What I care about is our country and the people that live here. I care about my children, your children and the children across the country .. and I'll be damned if I'll sit back and let the liberal left like the Clinton's, Kennedy's Durbin's, Dashole's and Dean's hand our country over to the UN
Is Bush God .. hell no .. but I do think he was sent to us by God ... Bush is a step in the right direction .. a step in brining our country back on the right track .. brining it back to what our founding fathers intended it to be.
Can Bush do it all in 4 years .. hell no .. it took over 50 years for the left to get us to this points .. it's gonna take some time to get things right again.
So if all that makes me a Bush Bot ... so be it.
Well ... now it looks like it is me that has turned this into a long winded response
I just want you to know .. we are on your side too. We may have different opinions .. but we are not your enemy .. that is as long as you are not a Dem ;0)
I was honest. I am sorry for my tone, and my anger. I am not going to walk on broken glass. I don't expect those who have wronged me to do either. If you believe I should fake something I don't feel, I think that is what I believe much of this argument is about in the first place.
Do those of us who profoundly disagree with the direction in Iraq falsely pretend we don't to stay popular with the cool crowd? I seem to get the vibe that I should, or to shut my mouth.
I have chosen not to do so. I don't walk on water. Yes, I was pissed off when Ohio accused somebody of wishing ill upon her son. She regrets it, I regret attacking her so vehemently. I will move on now. I am unpatriotic, cruel to mothers, and an evil person.
I will go buy ten George W. Bush action dolls as pennance.
And what a great way in keeping the economy going ;0) .. *L*
No, he didn't.
Well, most -- 60-something billion -- of the 87 billion supplemental will be going toward providing for the needs of our troops. Out of the development end, 5-point-something billion will be going toward training, equiping and deploying Iraqi security forces (military, police, border guards, etc).
Already, just a few month after the end of major military operations, there are Iraqi police forces operating in every major city, and over 55,000 Iraqis in uniform and under arms, helping to defend their own country. Even with the intitial costs of recruitment, training, infrastructure creation and equipment, we can field 30 Iraqi policemen for the cost of one U.S. soilder.
We are headed in the right direction, spending the American taxpayer's money well, and moving along, even under very difficult circumstances, with almost unbelievable speed. Rumsfeld, in today's National Press Club speech, made a number of comparisons to reconstruction after World War II, which were just stunning. For instance it took two years to establish a central bank and new currency in Germany. In Iraq that was done in 2 months. It took 4 years to establish a German cabinet, which has new been done in Iraq in four months.
who owns those companies!
Whoever wins the bids. Yes, there were no-bid contracts awarded for work that had to be done immediately, and the background, nature or scheduling of which had to be classified. (There was the war, after all.) But from this point forward, all contracts will be awarded by open bid. Adminstration officials have been very clear on this (all along, actually, though certain people like to obscure the fact in the interest of politically motivated and agenda driven arguments that can't withstand objective scrutiny).
BZZZZZZZT! Wrong-o. This supplemental was anticipated and included in the Pentagon budget (although don't expect to hear this from the 'Rats or the press -- couldna happen, you know, because there was "no planning") at which time it was estimated to be $79 billion. So the addition to the deficit is $8 billion, not 87.
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.