Another Bush Lie. So Simple, So Straightforward.

The headline is simple enough: Bush asks for $46 billion more for wars.

George W. Bush's assertion is forward enough: "We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done."

The nerve of some people's children. Imagine what that $46 billion could do to educate our kids, fix our roads, or fund health care.

Every one of those dollars is like another gallon of gasoline fueling hatred international hatred of the United States and nurturing international terrorism. One man and his imperial Vice President should never have been given the responsibility of moving the world closer and closer to World War III.

This is a nightmare.

Comments

funny you don't mention jeremy scahill anywhere on your blog

[Marius]

What an utter disaster.

From the Roberts court to Baghdad to Abu Graib to SCHIP to gutting the environment to demolishing our standing in the world and on, he has secured his place as absolutely the worst president in our history. And there's no telling how much more havoc he will have a wrought by the time he finally bumbles out in a year and a half. Our children's children's children will be paying the price for this horror, and rest assured "the judgment of history" will be even more damning.

Sorry to slip into afternoon outrage, but sometimes the abomination of it all is just unendureable.

[Anonymous]

The price we pay for moving towards world goverment...let's complain about it all including the merging with Canada and Mexico.

[backwords]

You make a good point, Paul, to think of all the good works we could be doing with the money we're spending to fight this enemy. The same can be said of the millions (billions?) of dollars to fight the fanatical Nazis, half a century ago. But for all we could have done with that money then, you can't deny that it was money well spent. Yes, mistakes were made just as they continue to be made and will always be made in times of war.

And it's true the United States has not been a perfect member of this world over the centuries. No country has. But now, another population of bad guys has chosen to become our enemies, for whatever reason, and they too must be defeated as well, or they'll defeat us. At which time such issues as financing education and fine roads will be moot.

[Elohim]

Civilization means civil, non violent and non military!!

www.rael.org

[mickey]

Paul, you are entitled to you post-Woodstock-burnt-out-Ben-and-Jerry's-liberal-tripe, BUT, could you explain what LIE, you were referring to?
No offense your honor, but, you are a nut.

[Brian]

But he actually wants 189 billion, Paul:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/22/4744/

[Dan Sebald]

To conflate the situation in the Middle East (call it Gulf War II) with World War II is absurd. The Third Reich extended across Europe and Africa, destroyed England, opened two major fronts, sank the world's naval fleets. Sadaam Hussein was in no position to do any such thing because weapons inspectors had dismantled his existing arsenal throughout the 90s. Also, Hussein was not responsible for the World Trade Center attack. That was done by a small band of terrorists.

World War II, money? There was rationing, e.g., pennies were made from tin rather than copper, people were allowed only so much sugar and butter. There was a draft. Young women were working dangerous jobs in factories as part of the war effort.

Compare that to today. Has America rationed as much as a single barrel of oil since 2003?

[Paul]

Dan: well said.
Mickey: Is it too subtle? The money is needed to fund his stupidity, not the troops.

[backwords]

Brian, rationing is not the issue. But here's the comparison: Hitler could have been stopped for a lot less money and lives if the Western powers had taken him out or stopped him before he gained the power and territory he did. But the mentality of such appeasers as Neville Chamberlain, Joe Kennedy, and Charles Lindbergh, prevented such action.

With Islamic jihadists, and such appeasers as we see in the Democratic party, we have a parallel that reasonable people recognize as valid. Defeating these fanatics before they gain more power and nuclear weapons is imperative. And we're doing it -- without a draft. If you want to engage in some rationing on your own, be it oil or pennies, go ahead, make a statement.

[Dan Sebald]

Backwords was probably referring to my comment.

Please explain why rationing is NOT the issue. You've passed that off as insignificant. People driving around with "Support The Troops" stickers on their automobiles is the ultimate in irony. My point was that in WWII the homeland was making a sacrifice. Why can't people do that today rather than passing the cost of a war onto future generations?

I ride a bicycle when I can and try living near where I work or work at home, so yes I engage in rationing. I take a bit of pride in it too, as un-American as it might seem. (PS: My 90s era Trek bike frame was made in America, but their similar model today no longer is made in the country and, and frankly isn't as good.)

The country can be as paranoid as it wants, but the fact remains there was scant, if any, evidence that Iraq was building an arsenal or had any plans to attack an "allied" country. (Gulf War I and its odd surrender agreement are an issue not worth going into here.) Who is it that we are trying to stop?

Senator Feingold has pointed out in so many press releases that the real threat was and remains the terrorist networks. After the WTC attack, there was an outpouring of common thought about thwarting such networks. Yet, somehow terrorist attacks were successful in Spain, England, (did I forget one).

I'm not denying the existence of would-be terrorists. I'm saying they are far less prevalent than Backwords is trying to imply. The Iraq War must be approaching one trillion dollars by now, and the total sum will be far more. One would think a multi-national, coordinated police-like effort of breaking up terrorist networks could be done for far less than one trillion. And where is a breeding ground for terrorist networks? In the slum-like conditions of refugee camps created by events like the Iraq War.

The Democratic party are appeasers? There are few war spending bills that haven't passed congress.

[sloanasaurus]

If we wouldn't have taken out Saddam in 2003, he would have had the largest personal piggy bank in the world with $80 per barrel oil - over $50 billion a year. Larger than the defense budget of the UK. Also, Saddam would be the chief supplier of funds for the terrorists fighting us in Afghanistan.

Thank god Bush took him out when the opportunity presented itself.

[sloanasaurus]

"The country can be as paranoid as it wants, but the fact remains there was scant, if any, evidence that Iraq was building an arsenal or had any plans to attack an "allied" country. (Gulf War I and its odd surrender agreement are an issue not worth going into here.) Who is it that we are trying to stop?"

You totally forget who Saddam was and what he was capable of.

Prior to the war in Iraq, Saddam had attacked nearly everyone of his neighbors. He attacked Jordan in the 1970s. He attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1991 No other individual in the world had a track record that came close. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Saddam managed to start and restart several nuclear programs and build the 4th largest military in the world... all with $20 per bbl oil. At 3 million bbls a day, Saddam was grossing $21 billion per year. If Saddam were around today, he would be grossing over $80 billion per year - money that he could personally spend. We know this because Saddam stayed in power when he made no money during the sanctions. $80 billion is almost as much money that the U.S. spends on military procurement in a given year. Saddam would have been the number one buyer of weapons in the world. The factories in France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... would have been bursting with business just as the were in the 1980s when Saddam was the number 1 customer of the French arms industry. Moreover, Saddam would have been the chief financier of Osama Bin Ladin's terror army fighting us in Afghanistan.

We already knew that Saddam had bribed half the UN. With an additional $50 billion per year, he might have been able to bribe the other half.

None of the other "evil" countries have the same concentrated power as Saddam. Iran has oil wealth, but it is ruled by committee. North Korea has totalitarian rule, but no money. Saddam had both, and the track record of aggression.

Bush did the right thing when he took out Saddam. We should be thankful for him and our military.

[sloanasaurus]

"To conflate the situation in the Middle East (call it Gulf War II) with World War II is absurd. The Third Reich extended across Europe and Africa, destroyed England, opened two major fronts, sank the world's naval fleets."

Yes and World War II cost us 1.5 GDP ($18 trillion today) and 400,000 dead to wage. Maybe we should have done something about Hitler in the 1930s before he took over most of Europe.

[Hermes]

Amen. Why isn't every news outlet shrieking this same message?!? Time to invest in a nuclear-radiation-resistant bunker and a lot of dry rations.

[Dan Sebald]

"You totally forget who Saddam was and what he was capable of."

In the 1980s? Or 2003? Perhaps I should have clarified in 2003. The 2003 Hussein was found disheveled in a hole, no grand army protecting him. He did assemble some kind of loose network of insurgents in case the country ever was invaded, which I'm guessing the administration paid no mind to. Seems to me Hussein was more struggling to stay in power (that happens to a lot of regimes eventually). I never said Hussein was a saint and that I was happy he was in power, but one has to consider the consequences of destabilizing a region... and what Elohim said.

"Moreover, Saddam would have been the chief financier of Osama Bin Ladin's terror army fighting us in Afghanistan."

From the experts I've seen interviewed on the news, this was highly, highly unlikely. You pointed out that Hussein antagonized almost every country in the region at some point. Why would anyone, even a terrorist, have wanted to cooperate with Hussein? There are other reasons the connection would not have happened.

"Yes and World War II cost us 1.5 GDP ($18 trillion today) and 400,000 dead to wage. Maybe we should have done something about Hitler in the 1930s before he took over most of Europe."

Maybe.

I'd like to point out I hesitate to use the word evil to classify Iran or North Korea; the civility thing again.

[backwords]

Brian, the main reason that rationing is not the issue is because, generally speaking, the materials used to support the war are not in short supply. It's all relative, of course, and you can say that money is in short supply, as are brains and boots on the ground. But I think the dollar spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts is still a relatively small proportion of GDP. It's clearly swamped by U.S. domestic spending.

As far as the Democratic party being appeasers is concerned, you don't have to listen to my words; listen to theirs. In particular the Democrat "leadership." I'll provide quotes if you're interested, but if you listen to the news beyond the major networks, or read the newspapers beyond the New York Times and Washington Post, you already know them. Their inability to thwart spending is due to the fact that they just don't have the numbers in congress. But look at the names of those who signed against further spending (Hillary and Obama to name two). They're 98 percent Democrat.

--Ross

You raise some interesting questions, though, particularly regarding the very number of terrorists -- those who want us dead -- that exist in the world. But however many there are, they are potentially deadly and were doing damage to our country long before George Bush came into office.

[Brian]

Some of these comments are pretty far off the historical record.

First, there were people trying to defeat Hitler and the fascists: they were called the Abraham Lincoln brigade. And look what happened to them when they came home? Branded as communists. The rise of fascism was perfectly acceptable to many in the ruling circles of power in America and Europe as they were seen as a bulwark against left organizing and unionism. And, that's why Hitler was allowed to rise.

Second, Saddam was no threat to anyone who was sane in 2003. When he was a real threat---during the presidencies of Reagan and Bush I--- he was our amiable friend and trading partner. We gave him aid during his attack on Iran and we knew all about his weaponry since we had the receipts. The criminal sanctions that ran throughout much of the 1990s pretty much brought Iraq to its knees with about one million people dying as a direct result of these illegal actions, mainly imposed by the Clinton Adminstration.

The weapons inspections that George Bush terminated were in fact showing that Saddam had no weapons or weapons programs of any kind as was attested to by his chief of WMD who told the CIA, the UN and the weapons inspection agency that all weapons were destroyed by 1995. The man provided copious documentation proving this and was believed by our government and the UN. Newsweek even made a passing reference to this historic and authorative fact right before the war started in their Periscope section with all the documentation available on line for anyone who cared to know. And that's why no weapons were found: there never were any. That was all a ruse to invade this country for other, equally criminal reasons.

"Seems to me Hussein was more struggling to stay in power (that happens to a lot of regimes eventually)."

The first Bush administration was confident that Saddam would fall after Gulf War I. No on gets defeated that badly and survives. However, it turns out that Saddam had more total control then we realized. Immediatly prior to the invasion in 2003, Saddam had complete totalitarian control over Iraq and its resources. To say he was losing power is naive.

"From the experts I've seen interviewed on the news, this was highly, highly unlikely. You pointed out that Hussein antagonized almost every country in the region at some point. Why would anyone, even a terrorist, have wanted to cooperate with Hussein?"

One of the gravest mistakes made by many is the idea that Saddam and Al Qaeda were idologically opposed and therefore would not cooperate. This is gravely naive. There are hundreds of examples in history of enemies forming alliances when they have common goals. Saddam and the terrorists had common goals, just as the Soviets and the Nazis did.

Saddam would have seen an American defeat in Afghanistan as very beneficial for him, which is why Saddam would have been the chief financier of the Jihadists in Afghanistan (We were the chief financier of the jihadists in their war agains the Soviets). Today, the jihadists scrounge for money. With Saddam in power the money would be flowing freely.

Saddam would have been a horrible menace if left to rule Iraq at $80 per bbl oil. He woul have spent the money fighting us, funding terrorists, and causing trouble. Today most of Iraq's oil resources are spent building up Iraqs security forces to fight Al Qaeda and to rebuild their infrastructure to provide services to their own people. This diversion of funds is a great asset to world peace.

"Second, Saddam was no threat to anyone who was sane in 2003."

This is true. Which is why 2003 was the right time to take out Saddam. If we would not have waited, the sanctions would have soon collapsed and the money would be flowing Saddam's way once again, and people would have been calling Bush a dope for not taking out Saddam when he was weak just as history faults France and Britain for letting Hitler reoccupy the Rhineland when Germany was weak.

"The weapons inspections that George Bush terminated were in fact showing that Saddam had no weapons or weapons programs of any kind as was attested to by his chief of WMD who told the CIA, the UN and the weapons inspection agency that all weapons were destroyed by 1995."

Saddam's cousin defected in late 1995 to Jordan and spilt the beans on Saddam's nuclear program that had never been located by the weapons inspectors after 5 years of searching. The inspectors then dismantled this program. Saddam managed to get his son-in-law back to Iraq where the son-in-law was beheaded by Saddam.

Now forward to 2003. Every world organization reported that Saddam had WMD, but the inspectors were running up dry as they were in 1995 before the defection of Saddam's cousin. So the UN inspectors ordered Saddam to require that his scientists be interviewed without minders. Saddam refused.

At this point, what is Bush supposed to do. If you were 80% sure that a person had stolen money in his pocket and you took the final step in asking him to allow a search of his pocket and he said no, the obvious conclusion is that the money is in the pocket. When Saddam refused to let the scientists be interviewed without minders, the obvious conlclusion was that Saddam was lying about the WMD. Bush made the right choice regarding the WMD. If we did not invade, the sanctions fall and Saddam is a free man raking in $80 per bbl oil with rule over a totalitarian society.

War was the only alternative.

[Dan Sebald]

"Now forward to 2003. Every world organization reported that Saddam had WMD, but the inspectors were running up dry as they were in 1995 before the defection of Saddam's cousin. So the UN inspectors ordered Saddam to require that his scientists be interviewed without minders. Saddam refused."

1) Today's media is by no stretch investigative. They simply repeat what they've been told, only a bit more sensationalized.

2) When you are a relatively powerless dictator, you don't say you have no weapons or let inspectors verify you have no weapons. People aren't afraid of you then.

"Bush made the right choice regarding the WMD."

How is that possible? There were no weapons.

[backwords]

This and that could have been done, should have been done, should not have been done--it's all an amusing exercise, and I've almost enjoyed it. But the statements that started this thread were the string of non sequiturs about "another Bush lie" (unexplained by the writer), and how the money being requested to fund the wars could be better spent to educate our children, etc. For my tax money, I'm more in favor of funding wars that I believe are legitimate and worthwhile (and yes, I served in the military) than funding more dependency on an ever-bigger government.

[Dan Sebald]

Derrick Z. Jackson
The budget lies that haunt us

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/27/the_budget_lies_that_haunt_us/

[Tim Kisting]

Plain and simple, Liberal cut and run cowards are brain dead losers. Every liberal politican, prior to 2000 said Saddam had WMD and had to be dealt with. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions, thats not enough for cowardly, treasonist liberals. Neville Chamberlian at Munich Conference of 1938 tried to appease Hitler, and 6.5 millon Jews and millons of others paid for his and his ilk's (liberals) ignorance. The only thing terriorist know is the Iron fist of justice that George Bush and the United States is delivering! (Yes cowardly, treasonist liberal losers, that last statement is 100% accurate) So do me a favor all you cowardly, treasonist pieces of shit, quit your whining and Bush hating on this fine Sunday afternoon and die, but alas you losers multiple like coackroaches on the goverment dime, trying to raise my taxes, and by making me and my family less safe by trying to weaken George W. Bush winning fight on terror. Liberal coacroaches,just continue to crawl under your rock and just say thank you to GWB for keeping your cowardly fat asses safe

[Tim Kisting]

Tim Kisting
6235 S Karrington Ln
New Berlin, WI 53151
414.241.0984
For any irate liberal that dares to contact me as i am no coward

[Dan Sebald]

"Every liberal politican, prior to 2000 said Saddam had WMD and had to be dealt with."

Well any politician who said that was wrong. However, Bush and Cheney were not in any way compelled by anyone other than themselves and fellow neo-conservatives to act on Iraq. I would say, though, that the longer the war drags on, the more it becomes a joint responsibility of all of congress.

"The only thing terriorist know is the Iron fist of justice"

Tim, how does an iron fist effect someone willing to give up their life in a suicide bombing?