$440 Billion?

11:02 pm EST February 2nd, 2006 | Politics | 6 Comments

I know that congress just reflexively jumps and asks “how high” before voting for the military budget, but I think at the very least $440 billion budget deserves some serious explaining – like when the hell we’re getting out of Iraq.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

6 Responses to “$440 Billion?”

  1. cellulose says:

    I thought we all agreed: The money spent on the war doesn’t count.

  2. elrod says:

    Hmm. All high-tech gadgetry but no call to increase the size of the army. And how are we going to win the war on terror? Why is Donald Rumsfeld, a man whose vision of the military is so at odds with the reality of counterterrorism, still our Secretary of Defense?

  3. qkslvr_wolf says:

    Because Rummy’s doin’ a heckuva job!

  4. Dugger says:

    Lets see, are you saying that as a pre-condition to approving the military budget you want Democrats to demand a hard timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – or are you just griping? What would Senator Sheehan say?

    Dugger

  5. Bushwacked says:

    No Dugger, the republicans have enough control over the Congress and the Whitehouse that they can approve the military budget like it is, stay in Iraq as long as they want and even try to invade Iran, all by themselves. They can keep on screwing our foreign policy up, making us more hated in the muslim world and creating more widows and mothers like Cindy Sheehan. They can do this and whatever else they want until the American people finally decide to stand up to this misuse of power, corruption, and incompetence and vote them out.

  6. Dugger says:

    Congratulations BW, You have just ade the mostr convincing argument I have heard yet for voting down a military appropriation.

    “creating more widows and mothers like Cindy Sheehan.”

    Dugger