Now there is somebody on Fox saying that if only we hadn't gone to war in Iraq, we could have given THAT money to the victims of the tsunami.
Fox just lost a listener for tonight..Even Alan Colmes was reasonable then that nutso Nancy Skinner starts on the billions for war and goes on her rant..click/
Let's see. So we should have let the POS Saddam kill 100,000 more innocents; let his sons rape and torture innocents; let Saddam buy some more uranium to finish up his little nuclear factories; and keep sending Iraq money for the Food for Oil Program.
Am I getting this right?
And people are complaining that we were initially going to send $10 mil plus an enormous carrier for a hospital and five or six helicopters to help find people still alive in the muck left over by the tsunami.
I guess that wasn't enough because we're sending more.
I heard tonight on the news from one of the "babes" that of the 50 richest nations we are ONLY the 25th of the richest to give so little (populationwise, I assume).
I've got an idea. Stop the $25,000 give-a-way to the parents of the sons and daughters that blow people to bits, and send the money to the nations that now need help. That might be more justified, I think. I mean, they don't even have to blow up their kids to see dead people.
< last paragraph / sarcasm >