Where do any of you supporters of the Iraq war think the money to pay for this war should come from?

Every war in modern times was paid for by an increase in taxes to pay the added cost of war. Bush must think the Tooth Fairy is coming to leave a trillion dollars under his pillow to pay the cost of a war that did not have to be fought. We were NOT attacked. There was no threat of an Attack. This was an elective preemptive war. Every one who supports Bush and this war should be surcharged to pay the added cost of the war they insist was needed!!!!!

You don't support crap but your own ignorance. You act like trauma and psychological problems are something new, invented by Prs. Bush just in time for the war in Iraq. You act like no troops ever get hurt and soldiers don't suffer the trauma of watching their buddies get killed unless there is a war on.

Let me awaken your lifelong slumber. Guess what, during the Clinton administration there were more troop deaths than there have been coming home from Iraq and Afganistan. During the Clinton Administration Walter Reed was getting patients from accidents and terrorist attacks. They offered substandard treatment then just as they are now.

The human body doesn't differentiate between wartime trauma and peacetime trauma. Trauma is trauma, and no bloated bureacracy can or will ever handle trauma to the standard required. It's not the workload, the doctors, nurses, techs or other staffmembers. It's not even the budget. It's the fact that bloated bureacracies DON'T WORK...

and here you are childishly demanding the head of Prs. Bush while at the same time defending the bloated bureaucracy that is actually the problem.

You are pathetic!

Para Ted 2K

“The human body doesn't differentiate between wartime trauma and peacetime trauma. Trauma is trauma,”

Are you saying the Iraq war has not created MORE troops with physical and mental injuries? How many troops were injured during the Clinton administration?

You are such an idiot. The issue is that we started a war that has resulted in over 25,000 injuries and as many as 100,000 mental problems and have not provided the medical capability to deal with the injuries this war has created! WHY?

and here you are childishly demanding the head of Pres. Bush while at the same time defending the bloated bureaucracy that is actually the problem. WHO is the in charge of this bureaucracy?

WRONG!!! Add CONGRESS too! President Bush does NOT control them. And "they" are the biggest and most corrupt part of the bureaucracy.

Island Dog

"No. A minimal tax increase on the middle class will not impact their ability to live and you know it."

A minimal tax increase on the middle income taxpayers will not solve this problem. In addition people in the lower and middle third of the middle income live from pay check to pay check. That group WILL be impacted by paying higher taxes. The wealthy will not be impacted by higher taxes as it will be paid from their SURPLUS. You can not make that case that the top 20% NEED the Bush Tax cuts! They may want them but they do not need that added money!

As to the danger from Iraq, I said were not attacked and there was no danger of being attacked.


"Afghanistan didn't attack us either; neither did many other countries we went to war with. We have already had this discussion and you lost."

No YOU LOST. Attacking al Qaeda in Afghanistan was getting to the cause of 9/11. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any danger from Saddam! All we did in Iraq is allow a Civil War to erupt that we are in the middle of with no possibility of winning.

Daiwa

I am not sure what your comment has to do with this Blog. I think we should fire Bush for Cause!

Once again, a tax on the middle class will not impact their lifestyle.  Understand that basic concept.  As usual all of this is about taxing the rich, nothing else.  It has already been explained to you what the "rich" do with their money, but you keep telling everyone else what they shoudl do with their money.  1st graders have a better understanding of the economy than you do.




The cause of Sept. 11 was al-aqaeda, not Afghanistan. 

Nobody ever said invading Iraq was in retaliation for Sept. 11.  And as usual you rather declare defeat than even consider the possiblity of winning in Iraq.  Pathetic.

Island Dog

A tax increase for the wealthy will not impact their lifestyle. It will impact all middle income families except those at the top of the middle income. In addition a tax increase on middle income workers will reduce spending which will have a negative impact on the economy.


"The cause of Sept. 11 was al-Qaeda, not Afghanistan." The attack on 9/11 was planned by Ben Laden in Afghanistan? Bush attacked Iraq that had NO part in 9/11 and against a country that had no capability to attack the United States.

“Nobody ever said invading Iraq was in retaliation for Sept. 11.” Then WHY did we invade Iraq? Saddam had no nuclear weapons which Bush was told before we invaded. He had no military capability to attack any other country as documented by the Pentagon assessment of Saddam's military capability in 2002. HOW were WE in danger from Iraq?

Mason M

“The Attorney General and the White House using politics to fire the U.S. Attorneys.”

Since these Attorneys were all highly rated in their job performance, the explanation that they were replaced for poor performance is a LIE. There is also some indication that the Attorneys were fired for not going after enough Democrats. If that is true, their removal is interfering with the judicial process. These people should be free to deal with any person who broke the law-- Republican or Democrat.

Now that the Bush trip is over, we all know that the PEOPLE in every country that Bush visited demonstrated against him. He is a disgrace and should not travel abroad and waste our tax dollars. He should use technology and employ tele- conferencing to talk with other world leaders.

Mason M “The Attorney General and the White House using politics to fire the U.S. Attorneys.” Since these Attorneys were all highly rated in their job performance, the explanation that they were replaced for poor performance is a LIE. There is also some indication that the Attorneys were fired for not going after enough Democrats. If that is true, their removal is interfering with the judicial process. These people should be free to deal with any person who broke the law-- Republican or Democrat.

As usual "more" twisting of the truth.There in lies truth. They'll slam the hell out of republicans but won't touch a case invilving dems. They were NOT doing their job and according to "law" the administration can fire "any" US attorney that they feel is not doing their job. And it "is" POLITICS, col. Here's an example from the Times.

Iglesias said the New Mexico Republican and former mentor hung up on him after learning Iglesias would not seek indictments in a criminal investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so... to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead. "I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Iglesias testified. "Six weeks later I got the call that I had to move on." The ousted prosecutor also said that Heather Wilson, a Republican House member from New Mexico, had called him about the same issue.

"For the same reason Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry gave us. Because he was a threat." None of them proposed to invaid Iraq!

What President was liked throughout the world in recent times col?  What President hasn't been protested?  Why do you care so much about what low-lifes think?



They voted for it!

So people won't cooperate with stopping terrorism because they have a mindless hateful obsession like you with Bush.  Yeah, thats the people we want on our side.



Where is your Rosie O'Donnel quote col?  LOL.