Gates Asks Congress for $700 Billion for Defense & Iraq

[Bronco_Beerslug]

A big HELL NO to you and all the other chickenhawks in the Bush cartel!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gates Asks Congress for $700 Billion for Defense (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10098216&ft=1&f=1001)

by Guy Raz
All Things Considered, May 9, 2007 · Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says he wants $700 billion to fund the Pentagon and the war in Iraq. If he gets it, he will preside over the equivalent of the 10th-largest economy in the world. Gates explained the Pentagon's budget request to lawmakers Wednesday.

Speaking alongside Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, Gates acknowledged that there might be "some sticker shock" at first encountering the figure.

"But consider that the amount of money the U.S. is projected to spend in defense this year is actually a smaller percentage of GDP than when I left government 14 years ago following the end of the Cold War," Gates said.

Like many statistics government officials cite, this one is true, even if it may be misleading.

When considering all of the wars the United States has fought since the American Revolution, adjusting dollar amounts to 2007 figures, the money spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the second-highest total in U.S. history, second to World War II.

When adjusted to 2007 dollars, spending on the Revolutionary War was about a hundredth of 1 percent of total Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2003.

That could be why Gates was asked a lot of questions Wednesday, like this one from Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter:

"What are the prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel?"

Gates answered, "I think the honest answer, Senator, is I don't know, but I would say this: I think I consider it my responsibility to give the president and the Congress an honest evaluation of whether the strategy is working or not in September."

Congress is dealing with two separate money issues related to defense at the moment. One is the Pentagon's budget for 2008; the other is the supplemental funds, intended for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress approved a supplemental funding bill — but with conditions like a timetable for troop withdrawal, which led President Bush to veto it. Because of that, Pentagon officials are understandably anxious about what to do if they don't get the supplemental cash soon.

"If we pulled out all the stops, made use of everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the war into July," Gates said, "but I would tell you the impact on the Department of Defense would be huge if we had to do that."

To underline his point, the secretary offered a little Chinese philosophy.

"As Sun Tzu said more than 2,500 years ago," Gates said, "the art of war teaches to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him."

[Rohirrim]

Meanwhile, China and India are spending all their money educating and training their young people to take over the future.

[Willynowei]

Yeah Sun Tzu also said the best battle is one that is never fought.

Oh and here's a more relevant one:

When one employs batte -
If victory takes long, it blunts the military and grinds down its sharpness
Attacking walled cities, one's strength is diminished.
If soldiers are long in the field, the state's resources are insufficient
Now if one blunts the military, grinds down its sharpness,
Diminishes its strengths and exhaust its goods,
Then the feudal lords ride one's distress and rise up.
Even one who is wise cannot make good the aftermath!

Thus in the military one has heard of foolish speed
but has not observed skillful prolonging.
And there has never been a military prolonging
that has brought advantage to the state.

[Rohirrim]

Either we are the most paranoid nation on earth or, like Eisenhower warned, our government is being controlled by the military/industrial complex. In Iraq we are now spending more money than any war in our history except WWII? That is insane. We're spending more on defense now than we did when the USSR was still in business. Who wants to argue that a bunch of rugheads with bombs are more of a danger to the U.S. than the USSR? Step right up. That's what the Bush cabal is selling. What we see here is America flushing its future down the toilet.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Rascal]

Even if it might cost me my job, I think this country would be better off to reduce the amount spent on the military to under 10% of the GDP.

[TailgateNut]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;1582635] We're spending more on defense now than we did when the USSR was still in business. QUOTE]


Just picking oput this tidbit because this morning I read about some comments made by our friend in the "USSR" comparing the US to the 3rd reich.

Nice!

The beginning of "cold war 2"!?!

I get back on this topic later.

Gotta get to a mtg!

[Spider]

you people need to get off your high horse , that 700 Billion dollars is to pay back all those Iraqi people that threw flowers when we liberated them .....

[Bronco Bob]

Keep this $700 billion in mind when some ludite starts bitching about a story
in the newspaper where the government is "wasting" money on some scientist
studying fruit fly mating rituals.

[defenseman]

Even if it might cost me my job, I think this country would be better off to reduce the amount spent on the military to under 10% of the GDP.

Not a good move at this point in time. If anything, we need to beef it up in the area of spec war and such.....dman

[Rascal]

It was a joke as he would have to double his request to make it 10%. Current GDP is roughly 13 trillion.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not a good move at this point in time. If anything, we need to beef it up in the area of spec war and such.....dmanWe need to cut the military roughly in half. Merge the Army and Marines, and get rid of all the dead weight floating around the 7 seven seas. A few aircraft carrier groups is all that is needed in these times.

[clarkster]

We need to cut the military roughly in half. Merge the Army and Marines, and get rid of all the dead weight floating around the 7 seven seas. A few aircraft carrier groups is all that is needed in these times.

youre kidding right?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

youre kidding right?Nope.

[defenseman]

youre kidding right?

don't worry clarkster , he know's not what he says. And, is not privvy to the day to day crap that goes on in the world, unnoticed and unreported...to the public I might add..dman

*We need to increase in specific areas is what it comes down to. that'll be the direction in the next ten years.

[Rohirrim]

I know there are some who might find this really difficult to swallow, but there are ways to solve disputes other than war.

Here's a fact: The United States is the largest arms merchant in the history of the world. War makes us wealthy.

[defenseman]

I know there are some who might find this really difficult to swallow, but there are ways to solve disputes other than war.

Here's a fact: The United States is the largest arms merchant in the history of the world. War makes us wealthy.

Tell that to the big crocodile, and see if he listens? don't take your eye off him though, he'll take your arm off in a flash...dman

[bendog]

It's both, really. We're going to have to up spending because bushii has ignored things, like our not have a counter measure to the ruskies anti-ship missle and cutting back on the new generation of fighter/strike aircraft, to play cowboy when avoiding war was possible. And for adults, that means finding more tax revenue.

[alkemical]

To underline his point, the secretary offered a little Chinese philosophy.

"As Sun Tzu said more than 2,500 years ago," Gates said, "the art of war teaches to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him."



Uhhh, did you read the part Mr. Gates where Tzu talks about over exerting your military and closing your borders?

F'n morons -

[Rohirrim]

Tell that to the big crocodile, and see if he listens? don't take your eye off him though, he'll take your arm off in a flash...dman

You're going off the deep end there, salty. ;D

[Crushaholic]

North Korea needs to be watched because of nukes, Putin remembers fondly of the Iron Curtain days, who knows what Cuba will be like after Castro finally croaks, the radical faction of the Middle East still wants us dead for various reasons...

Nope, this certainly isn't the time to downsize the military. There are too many dangers in the world.

[Hotrod]

We need to cut the military roughly in half. Merge the Army and Marines, and get rid of all the dead weight floating around the 7 seven seas. A few aircraft carrier groups is all that is needed in these times.

:oyvey:

[W*GS]

We're spending more on defense now than we did when the USSR was still in business.

Are we?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are we?Absolutely, in dollars! Only the chickenhawks and Bush cartel try and defend that by using inflation or relative GDP as markers. Nor will either count the actual costs of their wars.
North Korea needs to be watched because of nukes, Putin remembers fondly of the Iron Curtain days, who knows what Cuba will be like after Castro finally croaks, the radical faction of the Middle East still wants us dead for various reasons...

Nope, this certainly isn't the time to downsize the military. There are too many dangers in the world.Why not make it a more efficient and cost effective military? How many armies do you think we need in a nuclear world?

I'd also add a Constitutional Amendment stating from now on when any White House ruler or Congress decides to start a war, their immediate relatives including nieces and nephews, children, grandkids, etc... must be the first to see duty in combat areas and a national draft must be instituted until such war is declared over and and all troops are back home.

[Hotrod]

Slugo we certainly dont agree on many things but this one your flat out insane. Do you really want to carve up the military after the honets nests that Bush has stired up around the world?

Not to mention the fact that by the time we get out of Iraq our military will be tired and need $ to fix/repair/rebuild etc...

[W*GS]

Absolutely, in dollars! Only the chickenhawks and Bush cartel try and defend that by using inflation or relative GDP as markers.

Actually, the number-fiddling lies with those who use a measure that varies over time and claim that it doesn't. What's so wrong with using percentage of GDP? Please explain.

Is stealing $100 from a person who has $101 only 1/10th as bad as stealing $1000 from John Kerry?

I'd also add a Constitutional Amendment stating from now on when any White House ruler or Congress decides to start a war, their immediate relatives including nieces and nephews, children, grandkids, etc... must be the first to see duty in combat areas

Why? Pure vengeance? Suppose Hillary is elected - do you want to see Chelsea forced into combat just because her mom is President?

and a national draft must be instituted until such war is declared over and and all troops are back home.

Dumb.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Actually, the number-fiddling lies with those who use a measure that varies over time and claim that it doesn't. What's so wrong with using percentage of GDP? Please explain.
Because in past administrations we weren't running budget and trade deficits at all time records, put under the largest Medicare Fraud plan in our history and invading and policing foreign countries.

Why? Pure vengeance? Suppose Hillary is elected - do you want to see Chelsea forced into combat just because her mom is President?No, to force some responsibility and ownership onto those who would kill Americans because their daddy was threatened or it was that time of the month.

Dumb.Actually the best possible thing we could do. Basically would burden every American with the responsibility of war. Far more effective than burdening only a few for the few.

[Rohirrim]

What people need to realize is that wars can destroy cultures regardless of the win/loss outcome. The Pelopennesian war is a great example of that. The Spartans won, but the aftermath of that victory, the burden of the cost, created poverty that led to their coalition of city/states coming apart at the seams until finally, they were embroiled in constant civil wars. It was the end of Greece, for all intents and purposes.

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, much like the Athenian invasion of Syracuse was their worst blunder. Like the vets organization headed by General Batiste is arguing, Bush has set us up for a massive tactical weakness around the globe. He has destroyed our military forces. He has put our government into massive debt. And by all these mistakes, he has destroyed the credibility of his administration at home and credibility of the American government abroad. Plus, he has exascerbated worldwide terrorism, not lessened it. We are in greater danger now than we were after 911 because the actions of Bush have destabilized the world.

It is critical to the welfare of the United States that we get out of Iraq and start repairing all of this damage as soon as possible.

[W*GS]

Because in past administrations we weren't running budget and trade deficits at all time records,

"All time records"? Measured in what way? And is the trade deficit really Bush's fault, or the fault of our undersaving overindebted fellow Americans?

put under the largest Medicare Fraud plan in our history

The tag for that goes onto LBJ and the Democrats from back in the late 1960s... Bush certainly has helped anything with his prescription drug giveaway to the geezer segment, but the bigger problems are the entitlement programs.

and invading and policing foreign countries.

Outside of Iraq, what other countries has Bush invaded unjustly?

No, to force some responsibility and ownership onto those who would kill Americans because their daddy was threatened or it was that time of the month.

It's just a dumb idea that your hate-addled mind pulled out. Do you think a reasonable approach to increase safe driving would be to force people to strap babies on the outside of their cars?

Actually the best possible thing we could do. Basically would burden every American with the responsibility of war. Far more effective than burdening only a few for the few.

Comparing Vietnam (draft, 10+ years, 58,000 dead) and Iraq proves otherwise. Plus there's that pesky problem of unconstitutional involuntary servitude.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What people need to realize is that wars can destroy cultures regardless of the win/loss outcome. The Pelopennesian war is a great example of that. The Spartans won, but the aftermath of that victory, the burden of the cost, created poverty that led to their coalition of city/states coming apart at the seams until finally, they were embroiled in constant civil wars. It was the end of Greece, for all intents and purposes.

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, much like the Athenian invasion of Syracuse was their worst blunder. Like the vets organization headed by General Batiste is arguing, Bush has set us up for a massive tactical weakness around the globe. He has destroyed our military forces. He has put our government into massive debt. And by all these mistakes, he has destroyed the credibility of his administration at home and credibility of the American government abroad. Plus, he has exascerbated worldwide terrorism, not lessened it. We are in greater danger now than we were after 911 because the actions of Bush have destabilized the world.

It is critical to the welfare of the United States that we get out of Iraq and start repairing all of this damage as soon as possible.This is what Bush apologists can't seem to understand is the long term effects of the U.S. attacking a sovereign country and conducting a police action there. It may take decades to erase the festering hate for the U.S. throughout the entire planet that Bush has created.

[W*GS]

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history[...]

Worse than Vietnam? That was a war of choice based on lies as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Worse than Vietnam? That was a war of choice based on lies as well.May very well be. Time will tell. We know already the financial toll is and will be far greater. It's more than possible that we have created thousands of terrorists where there were none before. The result of that doing may be upon us for decades to come.

[atomicbloke]

What people need to realize is that wars can destroy cultures regardless of the win/loss outcome. The Pelopennesian war is a great example of that. The Spartans won, but the aftermath of that victory, the burden of the cost, created poverty that led to their coalition of city/states coming apart at the seams until finally, they were embroiled in constant civil wars. It was the end of Greece, for all intents and purposes.

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, much like the Athenian invasion of Syracuse was their worst blunder. Like the vets organization headed by General Batiste is arguing, Bush has set us up for a massive tactical weakness around the globe. He has destroyed our military forces. He has put our government into massive debt. And by all these mistakes, he has destroyed the credibility of his administration at home and credibility of the American government abroad. Plus, he has exascerbated worldwide terrorism, not lessened it. We are in greater danger now than we were after 911 because the actions of Bush have destabilized the world.

It is critical to the welfare of the United States that we get out of Iraq and start repairing all of this damage as soon as possible.

I admit I appreciate your depth of knowledge and perspective on this issue. Rep.

[atomicbloke]

This is what Bush apologists can't seem to understand is the long term effects of the U.S. attacking a sovereign country and conducting a police action there. It may take decades to erase the festering hate for the U.S. throughout the entire planet that Bush has created.

Nah you don't understand.

Every incident is isolated and shouldn't be perceived as part of a big picture. That's what retards like the French would do.

Proud and patriotic Americans don't worry about consequences for future generations in later decades. That's how an America-hating, terrorist worshipping liberal pussy would think. Just too gay.

[Rohirrim]

Worse than Vietnam? That was a war of choice based on lies as well.

As Bernard Fall pointed out at the time, nobody on earth really gave a damn if we bombed South Vietnam into the stone age. Nobody cared about Vietnam. Vietnam's importance to Kennedy and Johnson was simply as a test case of a theoretical model called "the Domino Effect" that turned out to be grossly mistaken. In that way, the American intrusion into Vietnam was very similar to the neocon assault on Iraq: Both were instigated by arrogance and a lack of critical thought fueled by an almost religious adherence to false theoretical models. The Russians and Chinese used it as a proxy against us. Other than that use, they didn't care about Vietnam either. It had almost zero strategic importance just as it has no geographical or strategic importance today. It's also why the reverberations of the Vietnam War on global geo-politics had a relatively short half-life. In other words, the world moved on pretty quickly once the U.S. pulled out and the NVA moved in.

Iraq is the geographical center of the Persian Gulf where the world gets the majority of its oil. The reverberations from Bush's fiasco could go on for decades.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

don't worry clarkster , he know's not what he says. And, is not privvy to the day to day crap that goes on in the world, unnoticed and unreported...to the public I might add..dman

*We need to increase in specific areas is what it comes down to. that'll be the direction in the next ten years.
I'll give to you honestly as I can. If all Navy NCOs are as ignorant as you are on world affairs we are in trouble.

[clarkster]

What people need to realize is that wars can destroy cultures regardless of the win/loss outcome. The Pelopennesian war is a great example of that. The Spartans won, but the aftermath of that victory, the burden of the cost, created poverty that led to their coalition of city/states coming apart at the seams until finally, they were embroiled in constant civil wars. It was the end of Greece, for all intents and purposes.

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, much like the Athenian invasion of Syracuse was their worst blunder. Like the vets organization headed by General Batiste is arguing, Bush has set us up for a massive tactical weakness around the globe. He has destroyed our military forces. He has put our government into massive debt. And by all these mistakes, he has destroyed the credibility of his administration at home and credibility of the American government abroad. Plus, he has exascerbated worldwide terrorism, not lessened it. We are in greater danger now than we were after 911 because the actions of Bush have destabilized the world.

It is critical to the welfare of the United States that we get out of Iraq and start repairing all of this damage as soon as possible.

this is a good post, but i want to know is according to who?
what expert is claiming this to be the worst blunder in US history? Ill agree that militarily, were weaker now, but i see it this way, were probably no weaker than as wed be if there was no war in Iraq. weak argument perhaps, but were just as strong as capable as we were before.
he has damaged the credibility of the country, but i counter that with what would our standing be if we leave now?
I dont think the world is any less stable than it was, just now more of it is in the public eye.
make no mistake, terrorism is less effective now than it was, again, its now on the daily news more. people are actually aware of it now.
i dont think anyone can say how the country or world will be when this is all said and done now. its easy to look back and put 2 and 2 together, not so easy to look ahead. especially now with how dynamic the whole situation is. its changing almost daily. sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
all in all, i dont advocate just walking away, not that my decision means a damn thing, but i also think we need to change our plan there, and perhaps, the admin DOES need to wake up and realize it, maybe they already have.
all we know is what the media wants us to know and they get that from their determinations, and the govt. none of which is very trust worthy

[Rohirrim]

Lt. Gen. William Odom
Odom served as director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan. Prior to that, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

He recently said, "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

In his article Odom writes, "The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the U.S." interests and has not become so."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601017_molly_ivins_vietnamization_iraq/



Richard J. Whalen
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen

The military's senior active-duty leadership will not openly revolt. "We're not the French generals in Algeria," says Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. "But we damned well know that the Iraq War we've won militarily is being lost politically." The well-read retired Marine Lieut. Gen. Gregory Newbold wrote in a Time magazine essay: "I retired from the military four months before the March 2003 invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy." Newbold calls the Iraq War "unnecessary" and says the civilians who launched the war acted with "a casualness and swagger" that are "the special province" of those who have never smelled death on a battlefield.
-------------------------------------
The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war--that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve.

[Spider]

Worse than Vietnam? That was a war of choice based on lies as well.

Depends on how you look at it ....................

[Odysseus]

Meanwhile, China and India are spending all their money educating and training their young people to take over the future.

The world is building it's infrastructure and changing the rules for our way of life regardless of this place. WHERE is the future of America? What are we focused on doing after we leave this place?

[TailgateNut]

don't worry clarkster , he know's not what he says. And, is not privvy to the day to day crap that goes on in the world, unnoticed and unreported...to the public I might add..dman

*We need to increase in specific areas is what it comes down to. that'll be the direction in the next ten years.


...and who comes to the rescue. The "Town Know-it-all"! We're so glad that you are here to keep us informed on the "not for the publics eyes" info which you always seem to be privy to.

Hilarious!

[Willynowei]

What the hell is the middle east going to do to us that a conventional military can stop?

Who the hell really threatens the US today? North Korea? You mean the country with the idiot dictator who just wants to watch american made movies and porn all day? That guy? Who's pounding his fist on the table for a couple bucks of aid money?

Or is it China who's got more american money in their country than Chinese money? Who's a hell of alot more worried about getting filthy rich than to fight it out with the worlds largest superpower.

Or maybe, we are just upgrading our military as a cross between paranoia and pork operations? Lets get real here.

The point is, in the modern world no two democratic powers will ever fight each other and no two rich states will ever fight each other.

In fact, Sadam was great for our security. Sure, he made the arab princes unhappy but people in Iraq are much more dangerous to Americans now that they will soon have a failed state than when they once had a dictatorship.

Terrorists fear dictators, they fear strong, ruthless states. In such states, terrorism cannot exist, it is only when these states fail that we have such problems.

I'm still puzzeled to this day why we didn't just show up on Sadam's doorstep with a truck load of cash and offer him an alliance.

As Roosevelt once said, "He may be a son of a b****, but he's our son of a b****". You don't fight dictators, you buy them out, thats what one of this nations greatest president understood, its something our current president doesn't.

You are rich, buy your enemies out, make them your b****. There is no need to waste away American lives and spend more cash than it would've taken to make the bastard yours.

[Bronco Bob]

I'm still puzzeled to this day why we didn't just show up on Sadam's doorstep with a truck load of cash and offer him an alliance.

As Roosevelt once said, "He may be a son of a b****, but he's our son of a b****". You don't fight dictators, you buy them out, thats what one of this nations greatest president understood, its something our current president doesn't.

You are rich, buy your enemies out, make them your b****. There is no need to waste away American lives and spend more cash than it would've taken to make the bastard yours.

Saddam was our tool until some idiot in the US State Department gave him
the idea we'd look the other way if he invaded Kuwait. By the time anyone
realized the mistake, Saddam had already invaded Kuwait and to make
up for it the first Gulf War was staged. Now that should have been the
end of it years ago, because after that Saddam was put into a little box
where he couldn't hurt anyone outside of Iraq. But Rummy wanted to show
off his shiny new lean, mean army, and Saddam looked to be an easy target.
So why not have a nice, quick easy war to show all them generals that
massive forces weren't needed to take down a country?
Truth of the matter Rummy would have declared war on Antarctica and
fought the penguins if Saddam hadn't been available.
The most amazing thing is they were also able to convince people it
was connected to 9/11 and has something to do with a war on terror.
Hell, you still have people trying to claim the terrorists would come over
here if we weren't in Iraq.

[Bronco Bob]

...and who comes to the rescue. The "Town Know-it-all"! We're so glad that you are here to keep us informed on the "not for the publics eyes" info which you always seem to be privy to.

Hilarious!

The Cliff Clavin of the Orange Mane. ROFL!

[maher_tyler]

Uhhh, did you read the part Mr. Gates where Tzu talks about over exerting your military and closing your borders?

F'n morons -
Yep...when we first invaded Iraq we should have closed up the boarders so know one could come in

[Odysseus]

What people need to realize is that wars can destroy cultures regardless of the win/loss outcome. The Pelopennesian war is a great example of that. The Spartans won, but the aftermath of that victory, the burden of the cost, created poverty that led to their coalition of city/states coming apart at the seams until finally, they were embroiled in constant civil wars. It was the end of Greece, for all intents and purposes.

Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, much like the Athenian invasion of Syracuse was their worst blunder. Like the vets organization headed by General Batiste is arguing, Bush has set us up for a massive tactical weakness around the globe. He has destroyed our military forces. He has put our government into massive debt. And by all these mistakes, he has destroyed the credibility of his administration at home and credibility of the American government abroad. Plus, he has exascerbated worldwide terrorism, not lessened it. We are in greater danger now than we were after 911 because the actions of Bush have destabilized the world.

It is critical to the welfare of the United States that we get out of Iraq and start repairing all of this damage as soon as possible.

How do you un ring this bell?

[Play2win]

I just hope, with a new administration, that most of the rest of the world will renew the trust it once had in the USA. That some weakened alliances will be held strong again. That the rest of the world will realize that GWB was the problem and that the USA is still great nation that should well respected in many parts of this world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gates Asks Congress for $700 Billion for Defense & Iraq


And guess what?

He wants you, your kids, and their kids - not ExxonMobil - to foot the bill.

And the Bush lemmings reach for the KY, bend over, grab their ankles, and cry "thank you sir, may I have another?" :oyvey:

http://www.bartcop.com/carter-bart-simpson.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lt. Gen. William Odom
Odom served as director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan. Prior to that, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

He recently said, "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

In his article Odom writes, "The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the U.S." interests and has not become so."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601017_molly_ivins_vietnamization_iraq/



Richard J. Whalen
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen

The military's senior active-duty leadership will not openly revolt. "We're not the French generals in Algeria," says Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. "But we damned well know that the Iraq War we've won militarily is being lost politically." The well-read retired Marine Lieut. Gen. Gregory Newbold wrote in a Time magazine essay: "I retired from the military four months before the March 2003 invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy." Newbold calls the Iraq War "unnecessary" and says the civilians who launched the war acted with "a casualness and swagger" that are "the special province" of those who have never smelled death on a battlefield.
-------------------------------------
The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war--that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve.

Interesting that the guy who asked you for this information doesn't have a response when you give it to him. :giggle: