Bush wants $90 billion and 10,000-20,000 more troops for HIS "war"
By lacurandera
@lacurandera (335)
United States
April 1, 2007 3:43pm CST
Bush has stated that if Congress denies the excess funding, then they are "not supporting our troops." i saw a great comic in the paper today. It was Doonesbury, and it had 2 soldiers talking about this issue. One asked the other "If they don't increase our funding, will we be left over here with no ammo and no food?" And the opther responded, "No, they'll just send us home." The first then queried "If they deny the increase and I get to go home to my family, then how is that 'not supporting the troops?'"
How do you feel about this? I also read a newspaper article that gave some figures that put $90 billion into perspective. $90 billion could purchase 20.6 million Mercedes. $90 billion is enough to give every American $300. I don't remember the rest of the numbers, but the article brought up a good point. Oh, and Bush wants 10,000-20,000 more troops when the military is already struggling to fulfill their 80,000-90,000 recruit quota per year.
Could we be doing something more sensible and better for our country and its people with $90 billion?
1 response
@coolseeds (3919)
• United States
1 Apr 07
F@#%&@#% Bush. Supporting the troops is definitely not giving him more money to fight. However you will be able to say that it is not supporting Iraq.
If I remember correctly there are people that live in Iraq. They can fight for their own damn freedom. I would. But I would not step foot to fight on foreign soil to fight a president's war unless his children were at my side.
F**K that. It is his war so his children need to fight first. It is their family who started it.
I think Bush has OCD and so does his father. All they could ever talk about was Sadaam. Well I have never seen him doing anything in my home town and if he had he wouldn't have made it far. I don't care about Iraq and my tax dollars need to go to my country.
1 person likes this