Quote:
Originally Posted by brk101
We can all agree that there are examples of politicians who seem to think that the rules don't apply (Tom Daschle, Randy Cunningham, Congressman Foley, Richard Nixon) the list goes on. What bugs me is the selective recall people employ to formulate their political outlook.
One poster said Sadam was evil and heaven knows what he would do next if not stopped. The fact that he was responsible for ONE MILLION deaths in the Iran-Iraq proves that, but what does our complicity with him in suppling war materials and satellite intelligence to target Iran in that war make us? Which ex-Secretary of Defense and which ex-Vice-President have their smiling faces photographed with Sadam? (Hint: Rumsfeld, Cheney) Or does anyone remember the USS Stark that was attacked by our ally Iraq in 1988 that left 133 sailors dead when George the First was at the tiller?
While G W Bush gets to whack weeds in Waco, 4300 and counting brave soldiers get to push up weeds for eternity. Add in 10,000 permanently maimed, 100,000 wounded mentally and physically and 100,000 Iraqis dead for good measure, ONE TRILLION dollars is a gross under estimate of this little excursion into Iraq. To boot, conservatives claim fiscally superiority, well how about a nice war tax for everyone who supported this blood bath. (There's a spot on the 1040 form for your voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt these morons ran up - only $5.7 trillion under Bush et al)
Now we can argue all day long about US foreign policy(spelled OIL addiction), but a disaster is a disaster. At least be objective enough to admit who was in charge and when.
We are all Americans and I would hope we would all be for righting the ship of state. I'm pretty sure most people agree things are not going swimmingly, so let's lay our partisan differences aside and try to evaluate problems and solutions that have the promise of the greatest good for the greatest number.
|
Wow! We lost the war in Iraq? Who knew? I've gotta get that subscription to
The Nation re-activated it seems.
The more I read the above post the funnier it becomes for me. You see, there's a certain mind-set that consistently fails to see that the defense department is the most egalitarian of all of our federal government's spending that there is. We all get protected equally. I'd like some more of the equally disbursed protection rather than less of it. Let's fully fund our armed forces. There's plenty of money available in the farm, the transportation, and the education bills to do so without touching other federal entitlement obligations.
(damn! those guys just hate it when the military does that thing they do, so well!)