ok i was watching a news show about the inaguration n its great n all way to go bush or whatever but they brought up a good point and that was with all this national debt and money needed to b put toward war funds and money needed for tsunami aid do u think bush really needed a party that cost over 45 million dollars or do u think we couldve put it to better use???????
just wondering if that bothered anyone else????

It would have been far better, and more benificial if that money had gone to the families of the servicemen and women fighting over in Iraq.
The families of thoes service men and women who paid the ultimate price, who are at times living in sub-standard housing, should have been the ones to receive the benefit of all that waisted money.
As always, the repubs need desperately to show they command attention, even if it is at the cost of thoes who have given all for this country.
They should be ashamed for such a spectical.
That "parade" looked like the second comming of the third reight.
DISCUSTING INDEED.

He had multiple parties... sucked, 45Million... our troops are driving HumVees with no armor in Iraq... nice.

Was this inauguration any different than past ones? (honest question)

In a way, yes, our last Inauguration during a war time was with FDR (I believe) and he had a small party with Chicken Salad served.

In a way, yes, our last Inauguration during a war time was with FDR (I believe) and he had a small party with Chicken Salad served.Well, that was WWII. The whole country and most of the worlds entire endeavors centered on that war. Everything was rationed and most everything produced was to fight it. Not to belittle what we're doing in Iraq, but that's comparing an apple to a barrel of apples. What about more recently?

I don't believe we really have anything more recently to compare to... JFK had a regular parade, Nixon, I dunno, Ford, Carter, times were hard financially, Reagan started changing our Economics as we know it. Bush1 and Clinton were fruitful years towards the end. This really is kinda the worst spot we've been cornered into in a pretty long time. ( I think )

I can understand where some people may be offended at celebrating Bush's inauguration. But in the grand scheme of things, is this really so out of the ordinary?

Unfortunetly i didn't get to see it.

Does anyone know where this 45 mil came from? I know us serfs footed most of the security bill, but how much of the 45 mil came from the public trough?

"Was this inauguration any different than past ones? (honest question)"

It defenitely was.
This one with all it's glits and glamour, plus millions spent on security was all being done at a time when our troops in Iraq have to stoop to salvage yards to outfit their vehicles so as to protect themselves.
I said it before, AND IT BEARS REPEATING, This was an outlandish show of medioricty.
The republicans would have done a much better service to this country and our service men and women, too just have only the inauguration ceromony.
Skip the parade and all the glitz that followed.
The money could have been much better spent.

this was said to b the most expensive inaguration in the history of the ceramony this in a time where we really couldve found better uses for it

Good opinions all, but sour grapes none the less. Just my $0.02. This is really about Bush. If it was a democrat and $45 mil was spent, there would not be a peep about it.

nope id still say it im not really the type to judge based just on rep or dem im just sayin y is it that we feel the need to go out n have this this expense when we dont need to i kno 45 mill in the bigger pic prolly aint that much n still couldnt have corrected any of the problems but i c america today much like its ppl who have no money but have no problem sayin just put it on the credit card and not buying neccesary things b4 luxuries i just kno one thing u take any senator or the president give him a trip for moral in iraq they get some body armor n the guys they c might not have sh*t but i guess its all good aslong as u make sure u look out for number one in their eyes

Again my opinion, but I believe the talk about body armor and humvee armor is taken to a level well beyond it should. We have the obligation to make sure that our servicemen are properly equipped, but this argument is being used for other purposes besides the safety of our military personnel. It's just another way to defame the president and Republicans in general, or to complain about the system. All fighter planes in WWII weren't P51 Mustangs. Everybody in an infantry squad doesn't carry a SAW. And all humvees aren't armored; they weren't designed to be armored vehicles. They were a replacement for the old 1/4 ton jeeps. Do you remember any complaints about the lack of armor in jeeps in WWII and Korea? Again, I'm not down playing the very real danger our army is facing in Iraq due to mines and car bombs, but I'm not buying the argument. The real reason for the complaining is that people don't want us to be over there in the first place so any and all things that are wrong or even perceived as wrong will be greatly magnified.

ok i c ur argument n hey its understandable n im not just sayin that ya this party is the absolute decline of everything yes i use these 2 things as examples of things that will b and have been around for awhile u can say ya there r underlying issues or whatever but hey im just saying if u take a close look on how we spend money around this country its not to hard to c y we aint got none for other sh*t yes i could sit around naming off a bunch of stuff that this country does wrong but u c this right here is y i would rather stay away from this couse u say dem n rep to most of the career politicians all that means to them is hey i got to say this or that to keep my paycheck most of them have lost all sense of passoin for the job that they went into the job with i mean what is this system about the person who can accually fix things or the person who looks like they might b lying less when i look at the politicains i c a big game of like survivor who can stab ppl in the back while still looking like they r innocent

:Beer

"K BOB", Could you say the same things you just posted to the famlies who have lost loved ones because the equipment was sub-standard.
I doubt they feel it is "sour grapes" as you so aptly put it.
It was bad enough getting into that rotten war in the first place but, not equiping the forces with life sustaining equipment is unconsionable.
Tell thoes broken families you think it is all to get back at Bush.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thing.
It boils down to the administration not giving a damm about protecting our service people, rather, putting on a big "show" held center stage.
You should come down off your high horse and take off the rose colored glasses.
See this for exactly what it is, republican extravigance at the cost of service personal lives.
Some of the money was donated but, the cost of the thousands of security people came right out of the treasury.
It was uncalled for.
Thoes millions could very well have equipped many military vehicles with much needed armour, which could have saved lives.
The problem with you Bush lovers is, you can't see the forest for the trees.

hey bob nice but u kno what f*cked up bout it i was readin another article n it was backed up by a few ppl i kno in the military a few service men wrote home about not having armor so their families said hey we can help u out n sent them vests and guns to use couse what they had for a gun was like a pea shooter n the gov sent it bac saying it wasnt gov issue so we cant do it wtf they made their guys go without even tho their own fam sent em stuff they needed cmon i understand the gov has there own stuff but make ur own men suffer when they had the stuff sent to them screw bush lovers anyone thats just f-up no matter who does it

I think you will find that the vehicles without armor are the ones being used by Reservists that were called up. No one ever expected the Bush administration to use the Reserve to the extent that he did.

In my opinion, most of the Reservists never expected to be shipped overseas. Most expected to be "Weekend Warriers" or a worst, used to defend our borders.

As much is I hate Emperor Bush, I don't think the armor issue is directly his fault. Blame can be placed on several past administrations, both Republican and Democrat that have treated the Reserve as the poor stepchild, giving them old and worn out vehicles.

Where the last (hopefully) of the Bush Dynasty made his error was in not realizing (miscalculating as the real brains of the outfit Cheney said) that the insurgents would use the stored arms, we failed to guard, against us in car bombs. That sole reason created the need for body armor in vehicles that were only intended as transportation and mounts for mobile weaponry.

Buckethead,

You have a lot of valid things to say. My old brain has trouble decyphering some of your writings. Please use complete words so we old guys know what your are talking about. Thanks.

HumVee Armor or not, $45mil, Battle Vehicles is just one example... how about taxes? medicaire? $45mil in college grants, $45million dollars is Books for College Students, approximately 200,000 College Students. Just examples. Dem or Rep, that should have been a $4500 party, not $45million.

"K BOB", Could you say the same things you just posted to the famlies who have lost loved ones because the equipment was sub-standard.
I doubt they feel it is "sour grapes" as you so aptly put it.
It was bad enough getting into that rotten war in the first place but, not equiping the forces with life sustaining equipment is unconsionable.
Tell thoes broken families you think it is all to get back at Bush.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thing.
It boils down to the administration not giving a damm about protecting our service people, rather, putting on a big "show" held center stage.
You should come down off your high horse and take off the rose colored glasses.
See this for exactly what it is, republican extravigance at the cost of service personal lives.
Some of the money was donated but, the cost of the thousands of security people came right out of the treasury.
It was uncalled for.
Thoes millions could very well have equipped many military vehicles with much needed armour, which could have saved lives.
The problem with you Bush lovers is, you can't see the forest for the trees.I'm asking this because (1) I don't know and (2) I don't think you know either. But how many military personnel have been killed because of "sub-standard equipment"? Talk about high horse, I can hear your answer now "if only 1 person could be saved . . . ." If I'm on a high horse, you're in a hot air balloon. Other questions: How many humvees are over there and how many are not armored? What's the schedule to have them all armored? How many don't have body armor and are these combat troops or support personnel? If you really and sincerely cared you'd have already looked this up. But it's much easier to moan and gripe and despise out of ignorance, isn't it? I'll tell you what's shameful, and that's your hypocritical attempt to silence my opinion by trying to put me on a guilt trip. By your standard the only ones that have a right to say anything on this subject are those that agree with you. All I was trying to do was shed some more light on the topic. I'm sorry if you were offended. If I had a family member that died in Iraq I'd be offended with you using his/her death for the sake of a political argument. And if I have rose colored glasses, you have gray colored ones, sir, if you can't see the pork that both repubs and demos spend. Money that, as you say, is "extravigance at the cost of service personal lives." [sic]

You have a lot of valid things to say. My old brain has trouble decyphering some of your writings. Please use complete words so we old guys know what your are talking about. Thanks.
i am very sorry i am used to instant messaging where u use the more short hand form of writing ill be sure to try and write everything out in full now so u can understand everything i am trying to say thank you

and one other thing hotwheelz i think college tuition and help is a great investment for our future that wouldnt be wasting money in my mind how else will we as a country be if we dont have knoledgable people who wont repeat history

so you agreed with me? i'm tired.

ya i do agree with u i think i read it wrong when i posted that im sorry but yes i do agree with you

"K BOB", Could you say the same things you just posted to the famlies who have lost loved ones because the equipment was sub-standard.
I doubt they feel it is "sour grapes" as you so aptly put it.
It was bad enough getting into that rotten war in the first place but, not equiping the forces with life sustaining equipment is unconsionable.
Tell thoes broken families you think it is all to get back at Bush.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thing.
It boils down to the administration not giving a damm about protecting our service people, rather, putting on a big "show" held center stage.
You should come down off your high horse and take off the rose colored glasses.
See this for exactly what it is, republican extravigance at the cost of service personal lives.
Some of the money was donated but, the cost of the thousands of security people came right out of the treasury.
It was uncalled for.
Thoes millions could very well have equipped many military vehicles with much needed armour, which could have saved lives.
The problem with you Bush lovers is, you can't see the forest for the trees.


Reading right along here all fine and then I see this... C'mon Bob "You should come down off your "heavily left slanted" horse.

From what I've read, almost half of the cost for this was security!!! Last thing we need to show the world is how a US Inauguration of our President can be disturbed with violence because its own people cannot unify... REMEMBER:

We live in "The United States" United by our Freedom, Liberty and the Democracy that is OUR Government!

Lets really be honest here people... Do you really think if the Democrats won that they would have toned down the Inauguration Ceremonies???? Please, they would have staged a huge event to celebrate the defeat of Bush!!!

Your linking this to the deaths of soldiers is completely out of line! As with any military engagement, as unfortunate as it may very well be, you often learn what is required from your equipment upon lost battles. The US has used that equipment sucessfully many times in the past... Suddenly we're dealing with situations that require the full armorment of the vehicles...
You blame the cost of inauguration ceremonies as the reason for their lack of this? That is just nuts!

" Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004. The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997.

A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year. "

(Monster) Factor out the costs of doing business (9/11), and the real facts are that Bush's spending was in line with history and actually lower than Clinton's in real dollars.

Also, the festivities are funded by private parties. That's right, fat cats that send in a max of $100,000 get a bunch of tickets and a really grand time. Sour grapes? I don't know. Sounds like class warfare to me. Do you think each of those people ate $100,000 grand worth of champagne and caviar?

Here it is, adjusted for 1977 dollars, going back to Carter.


Me thinks some of you guys really need to heal.

We'll be healed whe Bush is impeached.

Why? Has he been playing hide the cigar with an intern?

And here I thought you were going to refute what I posted.

We should have been really lax on the security and then maybe somebody could have taken a pot shot at Bush right? That would have made you very happy, I'm sure. Show the world we really are vulnerable. Good strategy.

I don't want him to be injured or killed. Just impeached.

The $42M came from the DC area's HOMELAND SECURITY budget, NOT some "fat cats". 'Yall think WE are mad, ask those who LIVE in DC, those who VOTED 90+% AGAINST BuSh how THEY feel! Meanwhile GW donates a WHOPPING $10K towards tsumnami relief? What a total LOSER!

GW must be REALLY SCARED of the folks living in DC. Stealing that amount from their coffers is only making things worse. But then again, I'm not suprised. :mad:

Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.

Nice try. Johnny. I'll give you a Do-Over.

I don't care what it costs to protect the President of the United States. There is no budget as far as I am concerned.

As far as your comment about Bush giving $10,000. How much did you give? The fact that he 'only' gave $10K makes him a loser? Get real.

And now he is stealing from the D.C. people? LMAO!

I think the United States should move the office of President out of D.C. to a more secure location anyway. Stealing from their coffers. How much money do you think the US government pumps into DC annually?

The $42M came from the DC area's HOMELAND SECURITY budget, NOT some "fat cats". 'Yall think WE are mad, ask those who LIVE in DC, those who VOTED 90+% AGAINST BuSh how THEY feel! Meanwhile GW donates a WHOPPING $10K towards tsumnami relief? What a total LOSER!

GW must be REALLY SCARED of the folks living in DC. Stealing that amount from their coffers is only making things worse. But then again, I'm not suprised. :mad:

Who gives a damn how they feel...they got their 3 electoral votes. What else do you want. You didn't hear Idaho pitching a fit for eight years of Clinton...

And even if you were right and all $42 million came from DC's DHS budget...GOOD, I would hope that a significant amount of that money goes to protect our Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches (past and present) when they make a tempting target all sitting on one podium at one time.

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.


ya but hey did clinton not help the national debt yes he wasnt in office in time of war but i believe the country was prosperous with him as pres. yes that was expensive too but clinton didnt face the budgett issues as does bush where we as a country are spread a little thiner with our money

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.


ya but hey did clinton not help the national debt yes he wasnt in office in time of war but i believe the country was prosperous with him as pres. yes that was expensive too but clinton didnt face the budgett issues as does bush where we as a country are spread a little thiner with our money

Clinton presided over the internet boom and left just before the bust. During that time, we had an artificial runup in stocks in which many Americans participating in the boom paid large amounts of taxes into the treasury. That is where the money came form. Then the government attempted to convince us that the goods time would last and forecasted robust (internet fueled) growth and the accompanying tax revenues that would follow.

Tax rates go up, revenue to the treasury goes down. Only time that didn't happen was when Clinton jacked the rates but the economy and all it's foolishness was able to overcome the negative impact of taxation.

I think they call it smoke and mirrors. Now they want to say Bush squandered a $5 trillion dollar surplus. I laugh everytime I hear that. It is not a profit or a surplus until it is earned.

.

Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.

Nice try. Johnny. I'll give you a Do-Over.

As far as your comment about Bush giving $10,000. How much did you give? The fact that he 'only' gave $10K makes him a loser? Get real.



220, 221, whatever it takes.

If ALL I've donated was $10 (it's been much more), it is a much HIGHER % of my net worth than BuSh's $10K. When it comes to being a LEADER and setting an EXAMPLE for us US citizens, BuSh is a BIG FAT ZERO.

220, 221, whatever it takes.

If ALL I've donated was $10 (it's been much more), it is a much HIGHER % of my net worth than BuSh's $10K. When it comes to being a LEADER and setting an EXAMPLE for us US citizens, BuSh is a BIG FAT ZERO.


Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.

I have been reading this thread and I cannot believe people are complaining about the amount spent on his party. The security was there to protect not only the Pres. but to protect all the people that were there. Don't tell me that if Kerry was elected his party would have been any smaller or cost less. You cannot put a price on security IMO. As for spending the money on updating the equipment, yeah it would be nice, but tell me are we suppose to pay to have every single Vehicle that is over there. Also what about the servicemen located in other areas? Are you saying they don't protection as well? They may not be on the frontlines, but does that mean their lives are worth less? Where is the line drawn on this? It is a war lets face it people are going to die while over there. We could spend Billions on updating equipment, but would it stop people from dying? maybe it would save a few lives, but not all. If Bush was to spend the money needed to update everything, the same people complaining about this issue would turn around and complain we are spending to much money on the war.

Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.

I have been reading this thread and I cannot believe people are complaining about the amount spent on his party. The security was there to protect not only the Pres. but to protect all the people that were there. Don't tell me that if Kerry was elected his party would have been any smaller or cost less. You cannot put a price on security IMO. As for spending the money on updating the equipment, yeah it would be nice, but tell me are we suppose to pay to have every single Vehicle that is over there. Also what about the servicemen located in other areas? Are you saying they don't protection as well? They may not be on the frontlines, but does that mean their lives are worth less? Where is the line drawn on this? It is a war lets face it people are going to die while over there. We could spend Billions on updating equipment, but would it stop people from dying? maybe it would save a few lives, but not all. If Bush was to spend the money needed to update everything, the same people complaining about this issue would turn around and complain we are spending to much money on the war.

Here is an example of the misunderstanding between "Valid" and "True."

You're points are Valid, We can't save all lives, We can't update every vehicle (Esp with $45M). This money did aid in security of our President and the Witnesses, Officials, Civillians, otherwise. We do need to protect servicemen and servicewomen in other locations, absolutely Valid.

You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.

You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.I'm a little confused. Are you saying to spend whatever it takes cause you're going to complain anyway?

We are complaining of the long term errors in judgement. If this war didn't drag on so long, or was it needed at this current time anyway, would we be THIS concerned with security? Would we have anyone's opinion about Armored Vehicles, or complaints about protection for troops? The troops shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with now. No WMDs existed. If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?"

If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?" Well in that case, it should have gone into my bank account. How much was funded by the govt again, $17M or so? That amount could have given each citizen about a nickel. Now I'm really mad!!! :joke

[QUOTE]We are complaining of the long term errors in judgement. If this war didn't drag on so long, or was it needed at this current time anyway, would we be THIS concerned with security? Would we have anyone's opinion about Armored Vehicles, or complaints about protection for troops? The troops shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with now. No WMDs existed. If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?" [QUOTE]

So you are saying that we should have left Iraq alone and let the mad man have free control over there? Don't tell me he wasn't supporting terriorist. IMO we should have taken him out during Dessert Storm. No matter who the President was given the circumstances they would have all entered this war.

Now on to the money issue. Yeah the money would have done good in alot of different places, but it served well where it was spent. I am sure the people that were there felt safe with the security there. In these times anytime the president goes anywhere or has a party of any type it is going to cost mega dollars. People there is always a threat of something happening when a major figure of any type is involved. Security isn't cheap. The only cheap way would have been not to have a party at all. If they had cut corners it would have made the party an easy target IMO.

[QUOTE] Here is an example of the misunderstanding between "Valid" and "True."

You're points are Valid, We can't save all lives, We can't update every vehicle (Esp with $45M). This money did aid in security of our President and the Witnesses, Officials, Civillians, otherwise. We do need to protect servicemen and servicewomen in other locations, absolutely Valid.

You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.
[QUOTE]

How are my points not TRUE???? It is a fact we cannot save all their lives. I think the gov. is doing a good job of supplying what equipment they can. In WWII not all servicemen were able to have ful-auto weapons, many still had a bolt action rifle, not even semi-auto. in Vietnam not all had full-auto, many still had semi-auto. it isn't practical to try to update all the Hummers to have armor.

There will always people on each side of these issues and that is what makes America great and sets us apart. By going to war we are giving people a chance to take control of their own country and stopped a major funding of the terriorist that attacked us.

Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.



Exactly. All the Bushies are patting GW on the back for his "GENEROUS" donation of $10K. My point is, $10K is pocket lint to the Bush family, THEREFORE his "GENEROSITY" = ZERO. This is a prime example of the GOP fabricating an illusion to make themselves feel vindicated / justified when the REALITY of the situation is smoke and mirrors.
:Bang

Exactly. All the Bushies are patting GW on the back for his "GENEROUS" donation of $10K. My point is, $10K is pocket lint to the Bush family, THEREFORE his "GENEROSITY" = ZERO. This is a prime example of the GOP fabricating an illusion to make themselves feel vindicated / justified when the REALITY of the situation is smoke and mirrors.
:Bang

I don't know where you live, but again $10k is $10k more than he had to give. How does $10k = Zero? I make alot of money, I gave a few hundered to the relief fund. Trust me his % of income given is higher than mine, does that make me not generous? What are you saying he should give? There are people that make alot of money, but didn't give a penny. I wouldn't take his giving what he did as a slap in the face. If somebody was to give you $10k, are you saying they wouldn't be generous? A person that gives anything is generous.

OK, my bad. GW's generosity is NOT ZERO. On a scale of 1-10, it's 0.0001.

$10K to Bush is POCKET LINT, CHUMP CHANGE!! BIG friggin' deal!

OK, my bad. GW's generosity is NOT ZERO. On a scale of 1-10, it's 0.0001.

$10K to Bush is POCKET LINT, CHUMP CHANGE!! BIG friggin' deal!I can hear you yelling in a French accent, "off with his head!" Remember what you just said the next time you give $10 to the March of Dimes or whatever charity you give "pocket lint" to. Just keep your money, dude, no one wants it.

So you are saying that we should have left Iraq alone and let the mad man have free control over there? Don't tell me he wasn't supporting terriorist. IMO we should have taken him out during Dessert Storm. No matter who the President was given the circumstances they would have all entered this war.


I will pose this to you, some people will point out that other countries like Iran, North Korea and Libya have more fully developed weapons programs. And I believe this to be true as well. AND I know that was part of the rationale for going to war with Iraq in the first place.

BUT anyone, someone, help me understand and explain why Iraq was first when a credible argument can be made that Iran was more dangerous (closer to getting nukes) and that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are more dangerous (the former doing far more to sponsor terrorism than Iraq and the latter lending material support to those who harbored Osama Bin Laden). Was Iraq first because it was supposed to be the "easiest" target?

Was Iraq first because it was supposed to be the "easiest" target?Without all information and intelligence at my disposal, I am forced to speculate just like everyone else. But sure, the "easiest" theory could be it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we will use military force against those other countries you mentioned. Right now this is being used to put political pressure on them. Libya has already buckled to this pressure, and there are positive signs in Pakistan and North Korea as well. IMO, Iran is the biggest challege.

As a side note, I would like to comment that even though Iraq is considered by many to be a failure already, that doesn't mean it is. And if it does turn out to be a failure, that doesn't mean we will always fail.

As a side note, I would like to comment that even though Iraq is considered by many to be a failure already, that doesn't mean it is. And if it does turn out to be a failure, that doesn't mean we will always fail.
I like that

ok u say this gw paid 10k to the war ben roethlesburger gave 18,000 hhmmmmmm............ a rookie in football who isnt set as good as gw gave more than him yes 10k is alot to me but to bush it isnt much

Benji signed a 6 year, $22 million dollar contract with additional incentives totalling another $17 mil. Bush makes $400,000 a year and hasn't been able to hit the speaking circuit yet to talk about his favorite way to moisten a cigar or write a book about all his affairs. He's too busy saving the free world.

Clearly Iraq was first to try to restore the Bush Dynasty honor. And oil.

Benji signed a 6 year, $22 million dollar contract with additional incentives totalling another $17 mil. Bush makes $400,000 a year and hasn't been able to hit the speaking circuit yet to talk about his favorite way to moisten a cigar or write a book about all his affairs. He's too busy saving the free world.

In all fairness that's $400k a year with 0 expenses... I wish I made $40k a year with 0 expenses.

So to follow the logical progression, Ben Roethlisberger is a cheap-skate! The nerve of that guy giving only $18k.