home

Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:11:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush is going to ask Congress for another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total to $280 billion.

$280 billion...he must think it grows on trees. Where will it come from? The Bush Adminisration badly miscalculated the cost of its war:

Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs of $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues.

Where's the money going?

Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which has been estimated to cost $1.5 billion.

Even more ambiguous:

One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug-trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko.

I wonder what kind of help they have in mind.

< Five Dem Activists Charged With Slashing Tires of GOP Workers | Join Us and Help Fight the New York Death Penalty >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War | 48 comments (48 topical)
    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:32:12 PM EST
    A billion and a half for the embassy?! Good lord! Even by Halliburton standards (We all know how small-government Republicans love to eliminate waste and fraud, that's why they put Halliburton employees in the $5,000 a night suites and buy $100 loads of laundry and $30 gallons of gasoline) this is a pretty big slurp from the public trough by those rotten pigs in the White House. Unless this embassy is made from solid plutonium or is roughly on par with the Superdome, I'm calling BS, if you can imagine. But hey, at least gays ain't gettin' married!

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:51:55 PM EST
    Billion and billions it will never stop, but bush and business can't stand to see paying jobs in this non nation, just keep it up Bush boys, maybe you can get mexico in on your fight. and as few as the Embassy cost, ask who will really be buliding that? and who will really be making the dollars? and how much more blood. and to the guys fighting in this war, ask what point is it? when you come back and see no jobs and a nation that cares nothing about you.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:42:11 PM EST
    Where's the money going? Mostly to American "defence" contractors: Lockheed Martin, Halliburton et al. In that sense it's money that stays in the US (and their Chinese subcontractors, lol!).

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:43:11 AM EST
    Anyone know how much WWI, WWII, and Korea cost in today's dollars? How about Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia? -C

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:57:04 AM EST
    Cliff why don't you tell us how much Kosovo and Somolia cost. Wasn't Iraq's oil profits supposed to help pay for this? Its also possible that some of this money is in anticipation of Bush's next misadventure in Syria or Iran.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 03:04:09 AM EST
    Of course the other question is where is the money coming from
    The Bush administration is preparing a budget request that would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
    LINK

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 03:24:39 AM EST
    And while we're asking for 80 billion for war while running record deficits don't forget its importnat to cut government revenues. LINK

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pete Guither on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:58:01 AM EST
    Cliff, Sorry I don't have the link, but WWII and Vietnam each came in around 600 billion in today's dollars, which makes this (I've seen the combined numbers for this one at 300, not 280) close to half of those already. (Of course, this is the one that wasn't supposed to cost us much because oil would pay for it and it would be a short involvement since we'd be greeted as liberators). This also comes as the Army announced that they're planning to keep at least 120,000 troops in Iraq for the next two years.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:02:32 AM EST
    They are engineering a fiscal trainwreck for the country that will be cited as the reason why we have to cut entitlements. Anybody remember discussion of health care? Heck, that's so far gone that we are in the position of watching Social Security get dismantled. This is going to turn the electorate around. It's just a matter of time, but I don't know what difference it will make. People have to be able to vote and have their vote counted for the electorate to be a factor in the democratic experiment. What are rank and file repubs thinking to sign on to these plans? Cliff and some others here like to talk about the democratic party walking away from them. I think it's also happening with republicans who have traditionally had a conservative fiscal bent. But on the positive side, these wars are helping our economy by keeping Halliburton, Lockheed et al churning. I really think that those of you who think this is all a grand idea should invest your sons and daughters to the noble cause.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:19:47 AM EST
    How long were we in Vietnam? Korea? How many fronts were we battling in WWII? By the by, didn't Japan attack the United States in the United States, Hawaii as I recall? How many American soldiers gave their lives in Kosovo? Did we win WWI? WWII? Anyway, what I'm starting to wonder is if it is possible that the United States, with all her hundreds of billions of $ of war machinery, is -- dare I say the word -- losing the "war" in Iraq? It sure ain't over, and we sure are not winning anything.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:40:23 AM EST
    Tell Congress: Not one more damn dime for the occupation! http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lefti_archive.html#110662405172402148

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:41:10 AM EST
    Trying again, with link: Not one more damn dime for the occupation!

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:46:26 AM EST
    CA - You bring up the key point. One of the tactics for killing off the entitlement programs that has been discussed since the Regean days is to bleed them dry. Thats what they are doing, they have record deficits in part because of tax cuts, then you add the war and everybody starts yelling for "fiscal responsibility" and so you whack the safety net. The medicare drug benefit was a clever way of helping eventually eviscerate it. It will become so costly that no "reasonable" person would continue to fund it at the current levels. It is estimated that the medicare drug benefit will cost about 6.8 trillion over the next 75 years which is a little under 2x the projected SS shortfall over the same period. Regean despise the Medicare program.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:49:55 AM EST
    I think that is the agenda: military corporate profits, whack the safety net, rig the elections, use the military as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the chicken hawks in Washington who will fly into the war zones occasionally to "deliver the turkey."

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:58:16 AM EST
    Another 80bl dollars. Thats a lot of money that could have fed people, given health care, education, built schools, highways, sent people to college; a virtual endless list of good things instead of murder.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:13:36 AM EST
    RW, This so called nation has been in Korea since 1945,(end of ww11) our great and good nation was in Vietnam since 1945 to 1973, the real cost of both wars in todays dollars would be 120 times that of what pete guither stated, the fact is you can't come up with a real cost, because the dollar is not what it was. but our politicians on both sides have no real ideals of what this war will cost. as far as the oil, well some politically interesting people have that in some bank some place in our world, and this war is a new vietnam and our Rats in washington don't know how to get out of it. our boy bush talks a great deal about freedom and justice but yet we have so many homeless people and why is that? bacause a few make a hell of a lot of money on the N.A.F.T.A., Can i say more? last thing you can't train Iraqi like we train out troops, because we live in a different world with a different culture of what is war and what people are. so get out now; bush said we can always start attacking people here! bacause in the end that is what our government will do, murder people here. and ask where is bin laden?

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    I thought the mission was accomplished.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    Check out what's going on in Boston (besides 3 feet of snow). Bechtel Parson's is a subsidiary (of some sort) of Halliburton. Just remember - these are YOUR TAX DOLLARS - and that Boston Transit Authority is also being sued for renigging on their promise to increase public transportation (NOT) in return for Federal Funding of the Big Dig. Iraq's their next mark...er, I mean target. See Big Dig Problems Here

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    I wonder if anyone here is really advocating for an immediate and unconditional pullout. We got four feet in this tar-baby; anyone?

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#20)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    I'm with Kdog, what's this talk about a "war?" War's over.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    I wonder if anyone here is really advocating for an immediate and unconditional pullout. We got four feet in this tar-baby; anyone?
    Sure, Why not? It can only get worse.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    Why don't we auction off Saddams wmd to the highest bidder to help fray the costs?

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    The trolls always respond to these things by comparing Iraq to WW2. The differences are innumerable, but the key difference is *expectations*. In Iraq, U.S. leaders expected -- and promised -- a quick invasion welcomed as a liberation, and a rapid transition to normalcy. Human and monetary costs were estimated to be very small. In WW2, ... aw, what the hell, why continue this argument -- the trolls will just spout their lies anyway. There is no possible Bush action -- NONE -- which the trolls would not rationalize and defend.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    I'm for a complete pull-out of troops, but I'd be all for leaving the Iraqi people a pile of money, say 20 billion, kind of as an apology for destroying their country, and for supporting the brutal Saddam for all those years. Staying only adds to the problems, nobody likes an occupier.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    I'm with you, kdog, if I thought the "people" would actually get the money. The only out I see is for Bush to crawl back to the U.N. and say "I f****d up" and turn this whole damn mess over to an international force. We will (and should) have to pay for this mess and it's cleanup with our own cash, of course. My big worry is that, upon watching a very excellent PBS special on OBL last week, it's clear that our pullouts (i.e. Mogadishu) are fuel for his inflammatory and infectious ideas - namely, that the U.S. isn't that strong or resilient and can be defeated by his Mujahadeen. Of course, if he hasn't figured that out these past few years by observing the obvious, this would be a better argument. But as a mother with a young child in solidarity with mothers everywhere - until a woman can walk down the street to get milk and food with a reasonable assumption that she will return to her house alive and intact, we have abjectly failed and our pullout will doubtless bring our failure to fruition. And isn't it "Strange Fruit" indeed.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    Kdog and I don't disagree on much but this one I have to disagree with. I don't want to install democracies all over the planet nor do I want our country or soldiers to be cast in the light of aggressors. I would like to see some eating of humble pie via the distribution of rebuilding contracts to other countries. Let Ukraine build pipelines, France design buildings, Germans build the roads, the Polish construct the buildings and so on and so on. Build a coalition established and rooted on financial parity for all countries that will encourage other types of support as a result. Give France a 25 billion dollar contract to rebuild a town or two and observe the diplomatic healing. We broke it and I am hard pressed to leave it in shambles, despite my disagreement with why we broke it. I would have preferred Sudan, The Congo, North Korea or several other nations suffering much worse than the Iraqis for "regime change" but as long as we started it, we should finish it.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    Kdog, much respect in spite of my disagreement.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    No disrespect taken, and I see where you are coming from J. I just think that if we stay, the insurgents won't rest, they will continue to disrupt and terrorize the population, and kill American kids. If we pulled out, and left behind a nice chunk of change for the Iraqis themselves to rebuild, the chance for sucess could be greater. With the US out of the picture, there is a chance (be it slim)that the Iraqis could sort it out themselves. There is no definite, easy solution. I agree we did break it, but our current path isn't fixing it in my opinion.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    Anyone have the details on the General Accounting Office report on the huge chunk of Iraq money already allocated thats been unaccounted for? Of course,this happened in the Spanish-American War and in 1812 too, so I suppose we shouldnt worry ourselves about it.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    conscious angel "I think that is the agenda: military corporate profits, whack the safety net, rig the elections, use the military as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the chicken hawks in Washington who will fly into the war zones occasionally to "deliver the turkey." I'll add one more item on the agenda--remove all safety nets so people have to go to faith-based organizations for help--make conversion to their religious bent a condition of getting help--and BINGO you've got more Regressives in the world, ready for the rapture! pig-le--we may not have any choice if the right people win the Iraqi election. The fella that most people think will be the next prime minister wants us out tomorrow! Won't that be a big bruise on GW's butt? kdog--hell leave them the $80B GW's asking for--it would save us lots of money in the long run.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    One more point, and maybe the most important....How can our gov't ask any more kids to die for a mistake? Bush, the whole Executive Branch, and all of Congress should catch a flight and clean it up...it's really THEIR mess, them and the 51% who gave the mess a seal of approval back in Nov. by re-electing Bush.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    Fine with me Ben, hell give 'em a hundred billion...I'm more concerned with the blood spent.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    jlvngstn writes:
    but as long as we started it, we should finish it.
    What does "it" mean to you, j? And how do the terms "start it" and "finish it" translate to actual steps taken? This is not a race with a clearly demarked (demarcated??) start and finish line with us, the weary marathoners. Your position in general is admirable, but you've picked up this shop-worn phrase and say it like it means something to you. What does it mean? By the way,LoL, are you Dr. Livingston??? (I don't presume!)

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    It means the complete disruption of their government as a direct result of the war. It also means the destruction of infrastructure caused by the war. Leaving after deposing Saddam without a suitable government in place to serve its people would be reprehensible to me. Perhaps most of the Iraqi population would be fine under theocracy or a federal republic or a ruled by another tyrant. I cannot speak for the Iraqi population, but what I can surmise is that leaving after deposing the ruler of a sovereign nation without a full committment to assisting in the establishment of a new government would be highly irresponsible. I am in agreement with Kdog that there the planning has been suspect at best and am also of the opinion that the elections are window dressing if not farsical. One only has to examine the state of political affairs in afghanistan where warlords run every region save for Kabul to surmise that and election without infrastructure and security do not amount to much. What is the right thing to do when you invade a country, devastate it with your bombs and render it nearly completely incapable of governing itself? Perhaps incapable of governing itself is a stretch but traditionally speaking, when a brutal dictator is removed someone of their ilk typically replaces them. Is that what we want for the people of Iraq? I don't. We broke their country when we invaded and attacked justly or unjustly, and what is just and fair in my little world is that we commit to assisting in the establishment of a stable functioning government.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    And no, I am not doc livingston but I do like cannabis meds.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    80 billion is 20 billion more than Iraq's entire 2003 GDP. We should have simply bought them from the start.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    We broke their country when we invaded and attacked justly or unjustly, and what is just and fair in my little world is that we commit to assisting in the establishment of a stable functioning government.
    I totally agree J. But the help of the US will only ensure a gov't friendly to the US, which may or may not be in the best interest of Iraq. Judging by history, it will probably not be in the interest of Iraqis. Just look at how the majority of candidates are former exiles who haven't lived in Iraq for years. How can they possibly know what is best for countrymen they no longer can understand? Not to mention how the US can possibly know. I just thought of a novel idea. By googling the adult population of Iraq (approx. 12 million aged 15-64 in 2000), we could give every adult Iraqi 6000 dollars for a total cost of approx. 72 billion. That, with our sincerest apologies for the destruction we have wrought, is about the best thing we could do for them at this point. Then, let them self-determine their gov't.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    I think pulling out may be the only option but I'm not convinced now is the time. Spencer Ackerman in his Iraq'd blog had a report that might represent a sliver of light. That is, the Suuni leaders have committed to remaining in the political process after the election even if most Sunnis don't vote. Their goal would be to help advise on the drafting of the constitution so that Sunni rights were respected. If this was to happen and if the constitution was drafted in a way that would help pacify Sunni fears then the insurgence might lessen somewhat. I'm sure the former Bathist leaders will not be deterred but that is a minority. Step 2 would be that as support picked up for the constitution then a gradual draw down of troops would need to occur. There is no guarantee of any of this. After the election there's no guarantee that the people elected and who will be drafting the constitution will be able to stay alive. The other caveat is that the Kurds still want a lot of autonomy and a return to Kirkuk, so that needs to be worked out. So given we've gone this far I would propose waiting until 3-4 months after the elections. If there is no progress on the constitution, no progress in training effective Iraqi police/troops and no lessening of the insurgency, then we should leave since it would then be obvious that the hatred of the US cannot be overcome. The problem here is that Bush has no intention of leaving regardless of how things are going. So the discussion is mute.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    I agree that our planning has been suspect and bringing in Chalabi is a clear demonstration of our ability to assess/understand the will of the Iraqi people. Afghanistan is also a resounding failure thus far and the administration continues to use it as a beacon when touting its successes. Which of course is why I suggest a more equitable distribution of contracts to other countries. An economic interest in rebuilding the infrastructure would allow for political and diplomatic capital and lessen the burden for the US militarily. I hate seeing soldiers die on a regular basis and attribute much of their loss to arrogance on our behalf. A "free" society is one that conduct business and award contracts based on needs and fiduciary responsibilities and we currently are not awarding contracts based on an equitable formula. What I hear you saying Kdog is that we are losing americans on a regular basis and we still do not have broad international support which of course would lead to increased military support for security and stability. If we could build an international alliance to lessen the burden on us financially and militarily, would you still say "cut and run"? Based on your postings here I don't believe you would endorse that, yet the frustration with constant reports of dead americans with no real exit strategy and no reason to believe that an election is going to change things significantly I understand the desire to get out. I think international forces need to be involved for at least 5-10 years to insure stability and unfortunately all appearances tell me that we will be responsible for the bulk of those years. Clearly the most sensible and viable plan would include a broad coalition and increased participation especially financially for other countries but the administration has made it very clear that they wish to award the booty to US companies...

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    An international alliance sure would be a hell of a lot more legitimate, and I would support giving that some time to stabilize things, but with Bush in office, I fear that's a pipe dream. Why say "cut and run"...how about "we've done enough harm"?

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    I am still holding out hope that someone will have an epiphany and an international effort will ensue. But I am hard pressed to argue with the "we've done enough harm" other than we should at least rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed.....

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    dare I say the word -- losing the "war" in Iraq? It sure ain't over, and we sure are not winning anything.
    Where as I say as soon as the election is started, we declare victory and leave like Bremer did, on the first plane out.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    It has become gospel to say that we can't pull out now. Well...yes we can and we should. It is so telling that the mighty American war machine has not been able to put down this insurgency. Perhaps it is a more complex situation than Bush (duh) realized. There is no winning this one...now it is only about saving face and rewriting the history. The only reasonable answer...leave,apologize, repent and fall in line with the rest of the world. Pride goeth before the fall. we're falling fast.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    Hey, jim hurt that is the bush plan and remember the laden and bush family go way-back. in the case of both families its not hate for anything its just following orders from some God head; one time in my life i was part of that war machine and like all machines it can and will fall-a-part. and deanna you are so right on that one fact the old history rewriting of facts.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    Can you say "Haliburton slush Fund?"

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:21:11 PM EST
    Well, how about just declare Mission Accomplished and leave? We can probably afford to anchor the fleet off the coast and have Dubya and Rummy fly around for photo opportunities and have money left over to start investing in privatized social security.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 08:00:51 AM EST
    we should at least rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed.....
    Definitely agree there J, but I would hope that Iraqis would get the work instead of American contractors.

    Re: Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    Posted by soccerdad at January 25, 2005 03:15 PM ...The problem here is that Bush has no intention of leaving regardless of how things are going. So the discussion is mute. and the Reps just continue to achieve 1+1+1 = 2. There was no exit strategy because there will be no exit. Their documents and policies prior to 9/11 revealed their true desires. gullable!!! when you refuse to acknowledge the factual truths.

    Bush to Seek $80 Billion More for War | 48 comments (48 topical)