When you think about it, George W. Bush could raise the whole $87 billion himself by just continuing his campaign fundraising schedule. Only this time, the money would go to paying for Iraq. I doubt he'd miss it.
Hell, half of what he's already raised would cover the $87 billion.
Do your part, George! After all, you are the Fundraiser-in-Chief.
The sad part of that $87 bn number is that, according to the White House estimates reported on CNN on Monday, only 15% of that money is earmarked for actually rebuilding Iraq and its infrastructure. So, don't expect much in the way of schools and hospitals or the like. The bulk of it is for replacing weaponry, military salaries and Humvees. That's how you're "paying for Iraq."
Any interest in fine-tuning that accounting, Mr. President?
Actually, to be inelegant about it, has anyone ever heard what happened to the first $70 bn we gave him?
I saw a viewer's e-mail read on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show in which the person wrote that a White House staffer opined that it'd take $200 bn for Iraq. Of course, he was clearly accurate and truthful on this issue; of course, he was also fired by the administration.
Meanwhile, stateside, Attorney General John Ashcroft comes to New York City tomorrow. Demonstrations are planned to protest this man who would make us safe by enslaving the American people.
This from a man who lost his Senate seat to a dead man, who was later replaced by his widow, Jean Carnahan.
Ashcroft only wishes we'd be as silent as the man he lost his seat to.
Fat chance, John.
Of all of the reactions I've seen to Bush's Sunday speech, the most "to the point" is Howard Dean's comparing it to problematic administrations from thirty to forty years ago. That it
"was beginning to remind me of what was happening with Lyndon Johnson and Dick Nixon during the Vietnam war."
In his comments, he repeatedly invoked the Vietnam analogy, saying that the U.S. was "bogged down" in Iraq and claiming that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were now costing the U.S. as much each year as did the Vietnam war.
He accused Mr Bush of leaving "a false impression" by claiming a link between Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former dictator, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.
"Iraq is the beachhead of the war on terrorism because the president has chosen Iraq as that battlefield," he said. "I think that was a grave mistake and I think it's endangering the security of the United States."
If the White House isn't packed to the gills with actual psychotics, then at least there does seem to be a few sociopaths running loose over there. Unfortunately, they have policy responsibilities.
Let's just say the place doesn't reek of stability right now, you know what I mean?
Has anyone else seen the growing similarity between President George W. Bush and Alfred E. Neuman, Mad Magazine's poster boy? It's getting eerie.
This administration is becoming more and more a Gumby-type creature with every passing day. It's totally at ease with twisting itself in any direction and take advantage of any scenario that presents itself. It does appear that neither Bush nor anyone in his inner circle is emotionally capable of admitting any mistake or miscalculation. Denial runs so deep as to be an art form in the White House these days.
Whenever something goes awry, they merely deny that yesterday's version of the facts existed and move gallantly ahead.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction? What Weapons of Mass Destruction? We're not talking about that any more. That's so yesterday."
Remember the 2000 campaign? How about the "3 dollar bills" trick? How many of you remember that?
I must confess I had forgotten as well until I picked up an old New Yorker from 2000 the other day. It reminded me of a favorite, simple trick Bush had at the time to help people visualize his tax cut plans. Saying that the tax cut was for returning the surplus funds to the taxpayer, he'd take three dollar bills out of his pocket during speeches and say, this one comes out of the surplus for defense; this one comes out of the surplus for entitlement programs. But this last one goes back to the American worker who earned it. Until the surplus is all used up and is gone.
His whole rationale was that the surplus was just found money and we should just put it in our pockets and move on. Like finding a dollar on the street.
And, darn it, wouldn't $1.3 trillion in tax cuts help us do that very thing?
At about the same time, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was warning the U.S. markets of the bubble that he feared was about to burst. He said at the time that he wanted to begin a series of maneuvers to slowly bring the market (and with it the economy) in for "a soft landing." He conceded that it would be a delicate procedure. But Bush made great hay by saying at the time, see? the market dropped another point today! We need my tax cuts before the surplus is all gone!
If you remember, he kept up this "the sky is falling!" routine for the entire rest of the campaign. Greenspan repeatedly tried to get him to refrain from this negative cheerleading, but Bush kept it up.
The markets being the cauldron of twisted emotions that they are, this helped send the markets landing with a splat instead of enjoying a "soft landing." How many untold millions did Bush cost investors with his actions?
Then, the first tax cuts were for easing the recession, which, of course, it didn't do. Then, the later cuts were to ease the pain of the slow recovery. Which it didn't do. Now, it's supposed to create jobs.
Sounds great, Sparky! Just how do ya propose going about that?
By sending Treasury Secretary John Snow to China, begging them to revaluate their yuan currency, which would drive interest rates due north, and cost more jobs?
I wonder if Cheney knows what he'll say when he pardons Bush.
***
Get Angry! Have your say. Write your elected officials now!
Register to Vote Here!
Here's the Realtime Iraq Invasion Cost Clock!
posted by Gotham 12:13 AM
