87 BILLION F*CKING DOLLARS!!!

[LeftHander]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Get your forks out folks.....he's done

[soupkitchen]

1. Why not give the money to Bill Bennett to play the slots

And then he can give the winnings to Iraq.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Spin meisters are already at it though.

On the local radio station this morning I heard...

"87 Billion? Is he Crazy."

"Yes, but to get the Taliban and al'Queda?"

"Oh, well, when you put it that way I guess 87 Billion isn't that much really."

This is local radio people. Locally owned and operated. *sad sigh*

[bryant69]

3. See the thing is

I'd accept it if I thought that was actually what we were going to accomplish. al-Queda killed some 3,000 Americans and wants to kill more; if we can we need to put a stop to their murderous intent.

The problem is that Iraq has little to nothing to do with stopping terrorism, as I'm sure we all know.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[tjdee]

5. The Taliban have like 10 dollars.

We are the richest country in the world, and have more resources than both the Taliban, al Qaeda, AND Saddam Hussein, so that deejay is a dumbass.

Box cutters cost like 3 bucks.

EIGHTY SEVEN BILLION?

What a joke.

[quilp]

4. A portrait of failure

Bush looked like a kid who'd had his ass smacked by his father for using bad language to his mother, and had to apologise to her for it. Where was all that "swagger"? Why didn't he wear his flight suit?

Hey Tweety! Your man looks more like a "worrier" than a "warrior" now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. That's just this year.

87 next year. And the next...

[nedlogg]

7. 87 here, 87 there . . .

and before you know it, we're talking real money!

What kind of a healthcare plan would $87 billion buy?

[wellst0nev0ter]

8. 87 Bil plus 73 Bil Already Spent Equals

a hell of a lot of money.

Don't worry, if those conservative assholes aren't worried about the budget deficit as the percentage of the GDP, we'll explode that threshold in no time.

[oc2001]

9. done? Who's done?

The Presidents strategy is to get funding for the war for next year, WITHOUT getting the UN involved or seeming to have a need for the UN.

This is a good political strategy, and has already taken the offensive political manuver of putting out to the public as a needed expenditure to fight terrorism, re-building a free Iraq and lastly its the right thing or patriotic thing to do. It seems that the President has taken the first step in framing the argument for the debate and has once again put the oposition in a defensive posture. As any debater knows, he who frames the debate ussualy wins it.

With the political question on the table for funding, the oposition will have to respond to this tactic by now convincing the public that it is not in their best interest of the US to go it alone and defeat this request for funding. The public will needs to know that the real danger is not terrorism from Iraq, but the lack of a real plan to re-build Iraq and more importantly, an exit strategy for our troops. The oposition must point out that an ever increasing burdens to the budgets will only be worse next year, and the year after that if the US taxpayer is the sole contributor with no UN backing of a solid plan.

In short, the Democrats must make a stand, this is their second chance to stand up and say "NO" we are not a rubber stamp, or not to be taken for granted.