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!!!!!

There was threats from Iraq, democrats told us so.  You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over even though you can't back any of it up.

Let's increase taxes, but across the board with no class warfare involved.  I bet you don't go for that.

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!

Island Dog

The reason I do not support tax increases for middle income workers is that tax increases on them will negatively impact their ability to live especially those in the middle and lower section of the middle income. The effect of increasing taxes on the wealthy is that they pay it from their Surplus and it will not have a negative impact on their lives!

As to the danger from Iraq, I said were not attacked and there was no danger of being attacked. That was confirmed by the Pentagon Assessment that Saddam had no offensive military capability and that assessment was just before we invaded. The ease with which we destroyed the Iraqi military and deposed Saddam proves the correctness of the Pentagon estimate of Saddam’s military power. Thus we invaded a country that was NO DANGER to the United States!!! What we did succeed is to uncork the sectarian violence and allowed a Civil War to erupt in Iraq! We also have provided al Qaeda the ability to begin operating in western Iraq.

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 Prs. Bush while at the same time defending the bloated bureaucracy that is actually the problem. WHO is the in charge of this bureaucracy? ANSWER GWB!

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.

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




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.

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.

I'm not sure why the administration is backpedaling on the attorney firings. They can fire any or all of them any time they want for any reason whatsoever. Clinton fired all of his at once. To accuse the administration of "playing politics" is silly since they are patronage positions and purely political appointments in the first place. Politics is the "best" reason to fire them.

Daiwa

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

It was commented on above; by you, I believe.

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 ha\d 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 in danger from Iraq?

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?

Wow, the level of stupidity on this blog continues to grow to amazing levels.







It would seem that you're the one who brought it up "Col", and then you want to accuse someone else for posting off topic when they demonstrate how stupid your comment was? Typical insane liberal tactic. No wonder no-one takes anything you say seriously. This is the best humor blog on JU. I laugh like hell every time I read it.

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.

As it's been told to you over and over the wealthy will simply cut or not create jobs without the tax cuts, that affects the people you falsely claim to care so much about.  The middle class can take a tax increase.  It just might mean one less iPod or HDTV.



For the same reason Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry gave us.  Because he was a threat.



LMAO!

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard of.  Do you understand the people that protested were mostly thugs and low-lifes and made up a small percentage of the population?  Presidents don't travel to other countries to impress their thugs, they travel to conduct business. 

People protested.....WHO CARES!!!!

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.

Island Dog

As it's been told to you over and over the wealthy will simply cut or not create jobs without the tax cuts that affect the people you falsely claim to care so much about. The middle class can take a tax increase. The Comptroller General has shown that the new tax revenue from the investment resulting from tax cuts to the wealthy does not replace the lost tax revenue from the tax cuts. He has shown that only 50% 0f the lost tax revenue is replaced by new investment. Below is a quote from The Comptroller General that I posted on another Blog:

"There is a crisis, and it's George W. Bush's misplaced priorities, fiscal mismanagement, expensive wars, and tax cuts for the rich. Bush will talk tomorrow night about how he's on track to halve the deficit - but its lies, smoke and mirrors."

"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!

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. Do you understand the people that protested were mostly thugs and low-lifes and made up a small percentage of the population? Presidents don't travel to other countries to impress their thugs, they travel to conduct business.

People protested.....WHO CARES!!!! If you believe Bush is liked throught the world you are kidding yourself!

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!

IslandDog

Today cooperation thought the world to deal with the radical Islamists is essential. Bush has burned more bridges for America then any President in modern history.

Today on CNN The Comptroller General is again warning about how dangerous the way we are running the fiscal affairs of this country is on our future. This was his earlier statement:


"There is a crisis, and it's George W. Bush's misplaced priorities, fiscal mismanagement, expensive wars, and tax cuts for the rich. Bush will talk tomorrow night about how he's on track to halve the deficit - but its lies, smoke and mirrors."Donald Trump was also on CNN and said GWB was the WORST President in our history!
I guess I am not alone as to my opinion of GWB!!!

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.