October 24, 2007
No More Blank Check for Iraq (Bill Press)
Here we go again.
George Bush is up to his old tricks on funding the war. At the last minute, he’s asking for an additional $196 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He insists that Congress grant the money immediately. If not, he warns, they will be putting the lives of our troops in danger … When, of course, he’s the one who put their lives in danger by sending them to Iraq in the first place.
Before giving George Bush one more dime for Iraq, Congress should remember:
1. This brings the total cost of the war to $610 billion — more than 10 times what President Bush originally said the war would cost.
2. $196 billion is $46 billion more than the $150 billion Bush requested earlier this year.
3. George Bush wants $46 billion extra to protect Iraqi citizens — three weeks after saying we couldn’t afford $35 billion for healthcare for American kids.
4. He offers no plan to pay for $196 billion. Instead, he would borrow all the money — adding $196 billion to an already obscene budget deficit.
Isn’t it obvious by now? This is a bottomless pit. We can’t keep pouring good money after bad. Iraq is no longer worth the cost in lives or dollars.
There’s only one way to stop the war in Iraq: Turn off the spending spigot … Now!
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Bill: The government spent trillions in the War on Poverty. All we got for that money was crime ridden slums. I didn't hear any complaints from you about that. Also, the congressional earmarks are out of control. Any complaints there? Just wondering.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 24, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Of course. The problem is the cowardly Congress and Senate. If you strongly feel that you don't want to further bankrupt our country, if you don't follow this President into hell, if you are appalled at war profiteering, and if you are human enough to recognize that we have destroyed a sovereign country that did nothing to us, then YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS.
As I've pointed out again and again, this is the DC wisdom. Out here in reality land, we recognize that this war must end, and that means that we support the troops. we want them out of a place that they never should have been.
I'm certainly not alone in feeling that our Democrats will let us down, once again. This is becoming the sick reality that will only get resolved in November of 2008.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 24, 2007 @ 9:22 am
The SoCal fires occur year after year. Why should the brave fire fighters be put in danger??? Stop this foolishness, don't fight these endless fires in a pointless attempt to stop the inevitable. Do it now! It's urgent!
Comment by Igor R. — October 24, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
[...] Wesley Clark No More Blank Check for Iraq » This Summary is from an article posted at The Hill’s Pundit Blog on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Here we go again. George Bush is up to his old tricks on funding the war. At the last minute, he’s asking for an additional $196 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Summary Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at The Hill’s Pundit Blog » 10 Most Recent News Articles About George W Bush [...]
Pingback by University Update - George W Bush - No More Blank Check for Iraq — October 24, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
The Democratic controlled Congress does not have the political guts to turn down Bush's request. And somehow, someway the Democrats will blame the Republicans for their willingness togive Bush more money.
Comment by John Simmons — October 24, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
"…this war must end, and that means that we support the troops."
The bravery of the men and women over there fighting for your freedom to spout that garbage. You should be ashamed, pulling them out without the victory they so desire and saying that you support them is pure liberal b.s. You're not in reality land, you're in coward land!
Comment by Sheryl Mallison — October 25, 2007 @ 8:37 am
What, exactly, Robert Rosencrans, does the question of whether or not Bill Press (or anyone else for that matter) complained about the failures of the War on Poverty or congressional earmarks have to do with the question of whether or not we are recklessly wasting huge sums of borrowed money fighting a foolish war in Iraq?
You seem to suggest, in typically snide Republican fashion (evident whenever they issue red-herring, ad-hominem smear attacks against those with whom they disagree, which is almost always), that since Mr. Press is a hypocrite then his argument about Iraq presented here is therefore wrong and to be ignored.
Why not address the argument at hand? Or is it that you really aren't able to muster a logical, cogent rebuttal? Just wondering.
Comment by James Hart — October 25, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Let's see, according to Sheryl Mallison the Iraq war is now "about" the troops, and the reason we need to continue spending vast sums of money our grandchildren will be repaying for decades to come to fight this war for the troops is because the troops want to "win," whatever that may mean.
Interesting.
So, we invaded Iraq merely to give the troops something to do?
I thought it was because of 9/11, er, uh, I mean, WMDs, wait, make that "spreading democracy," or was so we could lure al-Qaeda into a quagmire that would bankrupt them? I forget.
Comment by Smokey Debare — October 25, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Sheryl Mallison suggests our troops are fighting in Iraq to keep the Iraqis from censoring our political speech? And I thought daily survival in a war zone was more or less a full-time occupation. Obviously the Iraqis have way too much time on their hands.
And, by the way, since anyone who disagrees with her on this is a "coward" we can all safely asssume she's writing from the front lines, rifle at the ready, defending our inalienable right to deny reality.
Comment by James Hart — October 25, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Smokey and James;
Good posts.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 25, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Sheryl my dear, it seems that about 70% of the troops disagree with the war and want to get home.
Foolish post!
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Chris, to me it seems like 70% of the troops want to win the war.
Comment by Igor R. — October 25, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
I don't conduct the polls. All you need do is read them.
There is nothing to win. Whatever has been going on there during the surge, does not even touch the ongoing civil war. I sent you a link to the website, not a left or right website, but purely a statistical one, that actually bore out your Iraqi death number.
The civil war is continuing every day, with people getting slaughtered every day. This is not a fact that I am searching to support, it's simply the truth.
Our soldiers have no business being in the middle of a civil war. They can't win and they can get killed.
I'm thinking of instituting one of my questions, like the one about criticising Bush is insulting the troops. Here it is:
If it's going so well in Iraq, and there is no civil war, why can't we leave, or even draw down any significant number of troops.
I think that I'll get that answer when I get the answer to the other question that I've asked at least ten times.
Comment by Chris Calbi — October 25, 2007 @ 6:40 pm