Active Users:946 Time:15/11/2024 06:42:38 AM
umm ok. Aisha Send a noteboard - 26/05/2010 07:26:02 PM
Obviously, this is a bit of a challenge since Wotmania is no more, but to refresh your memory, I stopped supporting Bush in 2003 when he pushed through that financial disaster called Medicare Part D.....FLUSH goes our money.


so you stopped supporting him on November of 2003 when Medicare Part D was passed but not in March 2003 when he invaded Iraq and started this unnecessary and EXPENSIVE war in Iraq that we cant ever get out of and is burning billions in tax dollars as we speak? nice.

Um, ask them before Obama took office though.... ;)


I for one have not seen any figure that doesn't do things like include our normal military operating costs that puts the price tag for Iraq at even a trillion dollars, most reliable figures have it at about 700 billion to date and likely to cost 1 trillion tops when all is said and done, adjusting for inflation WWII cost us about 5 trillion dollars, Vietnam just under a trillion, and the Korean War 1.5 trillion - not including the continued price of leaving multiple divisions there for 60 years.

I'm not fond of a lot of the deficit spending under Bush but don't tack it up to the war, nor act like that money was unjustly spent. More than half the dems voted for the invasion, and have voted for the funding. This war has not been that expensive nor has it's funding been a controversial fight between the GOP and the Dems, the latter of whom continued funding it once they gained power in '06 - need I remind you that they have had control of congress for half the time this war has been going on and racking up its tab? Don't blame our deficit woes on the war, when the deficit is well over a trillion and the annual spending is in the trillions, the hundred trillion or so we're spending specifically on Iraq each year is not the primary source of our deficit woes.

'Cos I'm headed to bed any minute, for one thing; maybe this weekend, which will supposedly be five days long (but that was as of four days ago; things have a way of changing.... ;))

But I don't give Dems a pass on inconsistent hypocrisy either; if anything I hold them to a higher standard, not because I identify with them (I actually don't, for the most part) but because Faux "News" isn't our elected political leadership (for which I thank God! :P) Senate Dems went AWOL on the Iraq war vote, and have since found it put them in a political quagmire of their own. They can't "cut and run" but they don't have any more of an end game than Bush did (near as I can tell, Bushs "end game" was the 22nd Amendment: Now THAT'S leadership! :rolleyes: ) They didn't even bother to read the IWR OR the "PATRIOT" Act, and even if Bush insisted there was no time due to emergency, they were the ones who let themselves be frightened (by poll numbers, not emergency) into rubber stamping it.

Yet at times spending on the war HAS gotten controversial and adversarial; again, it was a bill much like the one Faux is criticizing here that Kerry voted against, saying, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it" (because of the spending amendments) and considering that was the rallying cry of those calling him "unfit for command" I'd say there was a little controversy and opposition, however belated. It also illustrates why Congressional Dems, even when they had a majority, didn't fight Bush more on Iraq spending: Because whatever their basis for doing so, it would have been characterized as "voting against the troops. "


If you're telling me that the Dems have been supporting the war funding because they don't have the backbone to 'do the right thing' then I'm inclined to agree, it's more or less what a lot of the right has thought for years. I tend to prefer honest wrong over coat-holding coward myself, though I still believe this war has been just. On the other hand I genuinely believe a lot of the Dems really did and do support the war for the right reasons.

I'm not sure what the origin of the sudden heavy usage of "Faux News" is but just as a reminder, the majority of neutral studies on FoxNews have typically shown it to be less biased than the big three. Why you are even directing the comments about Fox News my way I do not know, I thought I'd made my views on media bias abundantly clear in the past. Just as reminder, whatever the 'real level of media bias' actually is, Fox News is the only channel that has more Americans responding with 'trust' than 'distrust', 49% trust with the next in line being a distant 39% for CNN, so while leveling charges about how dishonest they - which typically are considered groundless distortions or major exaggerations of minor slant outside leftist groups - keep in mind you're calling 49% of the US public gullible and stupid, including me.
Aisha - formerly known as randschicka
Reply to message
US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues..... - 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM 918 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits. - 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM 542 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending. - 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM 599 Views
hmmm - 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM 538 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well. - 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM 508 Views
I'll take what comfort I can from this. - 26/05/2010 06:45:53 PM 599 Views
"They" plural. - 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM 763 Views
you are so full of crap - 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM 560 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war. - 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM 805 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument - 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM 721 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that. - 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM 734 Views
I wish ... - 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM 708 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election? - 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM 573 Views
I don't know those articles specifically. - 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM 643 Views
These days I typically just say, "Fox. " - 27/05/2010 03:48:40 PM 746 Views
You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo - 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM 679 Views
Actually, I think it was a pretty thorough response. - 27/05/2010 03:57:55 PM 721 Views
then let me make is simpler - 27/05/2010 07:23:19 PM 729 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here... - 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM 745 Views
commas are so over rated - 26/05/2010 10:50:57 PM 541 Views
I find this image to describe the deficits pretty useful - 27/05/2010 01:56:29 AM 512 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting... - 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM 644 Views
Correct - 27/05/2010 02:11:47 PM 507 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong - 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM 531 Views
Yes, that would be wrong. - 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM 549 Views
Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years..... - 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM 466 Views
Increasing the debt is a problem, yes. - 27/05/2010 07:55:04 PM 840 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said - 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM 498 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from? - 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM 638 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense. - 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM 540 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM* - 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM 289 Views
I wouldn't call it a drop in the bucket... - 27/05/2010 09:03:43 PM 750 Views
yeah I was just being a smart ass - 27/05/2010 11:09:37 PM 753 Views
Re: And where does the rest of the money come from? - 27/05/2010 10:58:59 PM 644 Views
I interpreted it as saying... - 27/05/2010 02:22:13 PM 1003 Views
Hmmm... - 27/05/2010 03:41:15 PM 566 Views

Reply to Message