Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

[Axis Kast]

Ah yes, the myth of Bush's toughness on national defense. Like the fact that Bush promised to fund security measures like first responders and port inspections, then failed to follow through. Or the fact that he cut - slashed to the bone, actually - US aid to Afghanistan a year after pledging to help them rebuild their country. Or the fact that he's paying for a multitude of shiny new weapons programs - some of them of very dubious utility - at a time when soldier pay and retention are at historic lows.

When it comes to defense, as they say in Texas, this president is all hat and no cattle. Given a choice between a president who talks tough and one who speaks softly while carrying a big stick, I'll take the real deal, thanks. It's also becoming extremely evident that while President Bush is big on using the military, he has very little knowledge of strategy or logistics, and a disturbing tendency to override the expertise of officers with decades in the service.

It doesn’t matter in this case what Bush actually is, but instead on ly what he appears to be. Or would you like to make an argument for me that lauds Howard Dean as the next, best hope for nation security (in the eyes of the average, rank-and-file American)?

Or to re-write that post from a Democrat POV:
Bush has already lost by virtue of (A) the troubles the nation faced and has abjectly failed to resolve during his presidency, (B) the spend now, pay later philosophies that any child could see through, and know that they'll be taking it up the ass for him in 30 years, and (C) the erosion of fundamental liberties during the reimagining of The War on Drugs for the 00's.

The bottom line? People like Bush don't make us safe. Period. Even at his best - posing in air force gear to which he has no right for publicity shots, doggedly pursuing dictatorial regimes months or years after they've done their damage, or signing hundred billion dollar taxcuts with one hand while penning requests for a hundred billion dollar reconstruction effort with the other, Bush walks away looking as able to run a country as a dyslexic poodle. He's managed to reinstate Reaganistic irresponsibility without the refuge of senility: a Republican administration blind to world opinion, blind to responsible fiscal policy, and blind to the consiquences stupid actions will have a decade down the line.

Thus concludes this evening's parody.

First of all, we’re not debating candidates. Or rather, my argument isn’t in favor of anybody. I’m merely pointing out that George W. Bush has already won the next four years in the White House.

The Democratic campaign is fragmented. Much worse however, it’s organized almost exclusively around criticisms rather than innovation. People like Dean and Kerry consistently slam George Bush – and then fail to follow up with any truly realistic goals of their own. It’s already been pointed out that bureaucratic issues would strangle the national healthcare proposal before it crawled out of infancy. And don’t even get me started on the logistical and financial issues of port security or adequate first-responders, neither of which are a prospect for somebody just coming into fiscally red-lined government.

Bush’s spending plan is under attack, but Dean’s is even worse. He’s attempting to go the route of European Socialists.

“The erosion of fundamental liberties” appeals only to certain students and academic persons – i.e. the intelligentsia more concerned with theory than reality. The average American cares very little about the Patriot Acts as a limiting factor.

You might not believe that Bush makes us safe. It’s not a true reflection of the country at large however. Most Americans – not politically savvy in the first place – see Bush as being a better “security deal” than Dean. That’s that.

Get off the “Bush went AWOL” theory. As has been pointed out here before, he was never dragged before a court. We don’t need to catch Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden to win more than morale victories either. It would be nice to have them under our thumb and in our prisons – but it’s really not necessarily, in the end, from the point of view of securing either Iraq or Afghanistan.

What “consequences” will our stupid political actions have a decade down the line?

Oh, and to close out: THE REST OF AMERICA DOESN'T CARE. The average American will vote Republican for security and Bush for continuity. Dean is too obscure or radical, alternatively, and Kerry too impotent a candidate.

[Joe]

Ah yes, the myth of Bush's toughness on national defense. Like the fact that Bush promised to fund security measures like first responders and port inspections, then failed to follow through.

Source?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Perception IS reality in politics.
Bush is PERCIEVED to be the tough guy, so he IS.
The Democrats are PERCIEVED to be weak on national defence, therefor they ARE.
Wierdly enough, politics is the ONE place that truth by vote is real.What the public believes, is in fact, what the public believes!
Well, maybe taste as well.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

You can't have it both ways. If he is a bloodthirsty warmonger, he's stronger on defence.
Saying that going to war was a mistake is NOT considered a sign of strenth by the voting American public.

[Iceberg]

You can't have it both ways. If he is a bloodthirsty warmonger, he's stronger on defence.
Saying that going to war was a mistake is NOT considered a sign of strenth by the voting American public.

Sorry, but a warmonger who gloms onto pretty toys and neglects soldier pay, equipment and retention is soft on defense. This president is all hat and no cattle.

[Iceberg]

Perception IS reality in politics.
Bush is PERCIEVED to be the tough guy, so he IS.

Bush's tough-guy image is increasingly on shaky ground. We'll see if it lasts to the election. Being perceived as a wimpy, tough-talking blowhard is pretty fatal.

The Democrats are PERCIEVED to be weak on national defence, therefor they ARE.

Again, we'll see if this perception lasts to the election. 14 months is a long time in electoral politics.

[theski]

Iceberg wrote:

Bush's tough-guy image is increasingly on shaky ground. We'll see if it lasts to the election. Being perceived as a wimpy, tough-talking blowhard is pretty fatal.

Yep just ask Michael Dukakis

[EmperorSolo51]

Again, we'll see if this perception lasts to the election. 14 months is a long time in electoral politics.

I have yet to see one candidate with the exception of Lieberman who is willing to raise spending on national defense.

[Axis Kast]

Sorry, but a warmonger who gloms onto pretty toys and neglects soldier pay, equipment and retention is soft on defense. This president is all hat and no cattle.

What part of "public perception" do you fail to grasp?

This election will not be determined by your academic view, but the rank-and-file beliefs of the average American - all of whom view the situation with very distinct stereotypes in mind.

[Iceberg]

Again, we'll see if this perception lasts to the election. 14 months is a long time in electoral politics.

I have yet to see one candidate with the exception of Lieberman who is willing to raise spending on national defense.

Then you're not listening. Howard Dean and John Kerry have both said loudly and often that they plan to maintain defense spending if at all possible, and raise it if necessary.

It's not their fault that you lack verbal comprehension.

BTW, Sore Loserman tried to get a cheap shot on Dean last night, claiming he was an anti-Semite. The reason? Dean proposed to step back to an "honest broker" status as regards Israel and Palestine, which history shows is the only way the two step away from their "blades locked at each other's throat" stance.

Sure. A man whose wife and kids are Jewish is an anti-Semite. Right.

[Iceberg]

Sorry, but a warmonger who gloms onto pretty toys and neglects soldier pay, equipment and retention is soft on defense. This president is all hat and no cattle.

What part of "public perception" do you fail to grasp?

You apparently fail to grasp the part that says that 54% of Americans surveyed in the most recent Zogby poll would rather elect any Democrat than George W. Bush.

[Iceberg]

EDIT: Sorry, that's 60% of Americans don't want to re-elect George Bush; 47% of Americans would elect a Democratic candidate.

[Coyote]

In truth think most Americans are beginning to rethink what they want a government to be. The insane cost of health care in America is beginning to gouge us deeply, we see the stats every night-- millions without insurance, even families with two-income earners and living modestly.

Lets face it, costs are going up and incomes are not keeping pace. Many people are probably ready to rethink a national health care system. Even one that works half-assed is better than what most people have now, which is nothing at all.

If a candidate came along that could assure the people that they could have a basic health plan for common ailments or minor injuries, while leaving basic individual liberties alone, they'd consider it. Cradle-to-greave welfare systems, like Europe, may not be far behind-- so long as individual liberties are not threatened, a lot of people will find this increasingly appealing.

The American family is in a financial pressure cooker now, and the pressure increases every year with each unpaid bill, with the kids busting ass with no sleep to struggle through a community college... yeah, things are supposed to be better than this.

[Joe]

In truth think most Americans are beginning to rethink what they want a government to be. The insane cost of health care in America is beginning to gouge us deeply, we see the stats every night-- millions without insurance, even families with two-income earners and living modestly.

Actually, parasitic trial lawyers are gouging us deeply. The cost of healthcare isn't going to go down until we get serious about doing something about it.

And I'm sure starving people in India would disagree that American families with two income earners are living "modestly."

Lets face it, costs are going up and incomes are not keeping pace. Many people are probably ready to rethink a national health care system. Even one that works half-assed is better than what most people have now, which is nothing at all.

The WHO disagrees with you. In the famous 2001 study done by the WHO, the U.S. healthcare system ranked number one - yes, even higher than Canada and Sweden - in the area of responsiveness, or how responsive the system is to the needs of individuals. The U.S. did rank poorly in the areas of fairness/equity and life expectancy, the other two measures used by the WHO, but the former isn't really a qualitative measure and the latter is too influenced by other factors to be an effective indicator as well. But the study still shows that the healthcare system effectively responds to the needs of individuals, and that, after all, is the primary goal of healthcare.

If a candidate came along that could assure the people that they could have a basic health plan for common ailments or minor injuries, while leaving basic individual liberties alone, they'd consider it. Cradle-to-greave welfare systems, like Europe, may not be far behind-- so long as individual liberties are not threatened, a lot of people will find this increasingly appealing.

I love this. Individual liberties are a no-no, but your checkbook is perfectly fair game. And actually, there is a workable idea for dealing with common ailments and minor injuries - tax-deductible MSAs, but they're not very popular in Congress as they do not involve increased dependence on the state. Nor do they include a way for money to be transferred to politicians.

Speaking of individual liberties, how does allowing individuals to be free to invest 15.3% of their paycheck in the investment of their choice rather than the Social Security blackhole sound?

The American family is in a financial pressure cooker now, and the pressure increases every year with each unpaid bill, with the kids busting ass with no sleep to struggle through a community college... yeah, things are supposed to be better than this.

And the massive tax burden that national healthcare would place on the average American is a solution to this?

[Iceberg]

In truth think most Americans are beginning to rethink what they want a government to be. The insane cost of health care in America is beginning to gouge us deeply, we see the stats every night-- millions without insurance, even families with two-income earners and living modestly.

Actually, parasitic trial lawyers are gouging us deeply. The cost of healthcare isn't going to go down until we get serious about doing something about it.

How are you going to "do something about it" (great plan, BTW), without infringing on Americans' rights? Like it or not, it is somebody's right to legal redress if they feel they have been wronged. You will find no argument from me against the idea that tort reform is needed, but how will you accomplish this?

And I'm sure starving people in India would disagree that American families with two income earners are living "modestly."

*puts on chef's hat* Lovely red herring you've got there. Would you like it poached or pan-fried?

"Starving people in India" do not live here. The fact that there are two-earner families living well within their means that cannot afford health care does not bode well for the American system of health care.

Lets face it, costs are going up and incomes are not keeping pace. Many people are probably ready to rethink a national health care system. Even one that works half-assed is better than what most people have now, which is nothing at all.

The WHO disagrees with you. In the famous 2001 study done by the WHO, the U.S. healthcare system ranked number one - yes, even higher than Canada and Sweden - in the area of responsiveness, or how responsive the system is to the needs of individuals. The U.S. did rank poorly in the areas of fairness/equity and life expectancy, the other two measures used by the WHO, but the former isn't really a qualitative measure and the latter is too influenced by other factors to be an effective indicator as well. But the study still shows that the healthcare system effectively responds to the needs of individuals, and that, after all, is the primary goal of healthcare.

The number one drag on life expectancy is lack of adequate health care, which reduces life expectancy by over a decade. If you want to improve life expectancy, allow the third of the American people who are uninsured a way to get health care.

The majority of Americans who do have health care, have it as a work benefit - benefits which can be cut at any time, and which increasingly ARE cut, as companies look for ways to cut costs (while still cutting their CEOs multi-million or even multi-billion dollar paychecks, at the same time that they cut worker pay and benefits "for the good of the company").

The primary goal of health care is to keep people healthy. That goal will always be compromised so long as we have a health care system that is not universal.

If a candidate came along that could assure the people that they could have a basic health plan for common ailments or minor injuries, while leaving basic individual liberties alone, they'd consider it. Cradle-to-greave welfare systems, like Europe, may not be far behind-- so long as individual liberties are not threatened, a lot of people will find this increasingly appealing.

I love this. Individual liberties are a no-no, but your checkbook is perfectly fair game. And actually, there is a workable idea for dealing with common ailments and minor injuries - tax-deductible MSAs, but they're not very popular in Congress as they do not involve increased dependence on the state. Nor do they include a way for money to be transferred to politicians.

Speaking of individual liberties, how does allowing individuals to be free to invest 15.3% of their paycheck in the investment of their choice rather than the Social Security blackhole sound?

Lovely - more red herring, spiced liberally with a heaping handful of loaded language. Nothing to see here, folks.

The American family is in a financial pressure cooker now, and the pressure increases every year with each unpaid bill, with the kids busting ass with no sleep to struggle through a community college... yeah, things are supposed to be better than this.

And the massive tax burden that national healthcare would place on the average American is a solution to this?

Prove that it would be a "massive" burden. Other countries seem to be getting along just fine with a national health care system. Single-payer national health insurance works just fine in other countries, but it's electoral suicide here because idiots like you will whine about their right to choice (regardless of the fact that this right to choice has resulted in spiraling increases in cost far out of proportion to the improvement in service). Dr. Dean's proposed compromise plan - a federal payer in the present health care system - is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

People who live in countries with national health care systems pay a fraction what we do for health care, and get comparable or nearly comparable quality of service. Sounds to me like private enterprise has failed.

[theski]

Iceberg wrote:

Prove that it would be a "massive" burden. Other countries seem to be getting along just fine with a national health care system. Single-payer national health insurance works just fine in other countries, but it's electoral suicide here because idiots like you will whine about their right to choice (regardless of the fact that this right to choice has resulted in spiraling increases in cost far out of proportion to the improvement in service). Dr. Dean's proposed compromise plan - a federal payer in the present health care system - is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction

OK.. Prove to me that my 43 cents of every dollar going to the Gov is not going to get bigger and I might belive you... Tell us how Dean is going to pay for this..

[Iceberg]

Iceberg wrote:

Prove that it would be a "massive" burden. Other countries seem to be getting along just fine with a national health care system. Single-payer national health insurance works just fine in other countries, but it's electoral suicide here because idiots like you will whine about their right to choice (regardless of the fact that this right to choice has resulted in spiraling increases in cost far out of proportion to the improvement in service). Dr. Dean's proposed compromise plan - a federal payer in the present health care system - is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction

OK.. Prove to me that my 43 cents of every dollar going to the Gov is not going to get bigger and I might belive you... Tell us how Dean is going to pay for this..

I'll let the Doctor handle this for me.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/Page ... foramerica Dr. Howard Dean, MD's health care plan[/url]

[Iceberg]

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

[Joe]

How are you going to "do something about it" (great plan, BTW), without infringing on Americans' rights? Like it or not, it is somebody's right to legal redress if they feel they have been wronged. You will find no argument from me against the idea that tort reform is needed, but how will you accomplish this

Well, I don't like the idea of outright caps on damages, but indexing punitive damages to compensatory damages sounds good to me. That will leave room for real punishment while preventing billion dollar awards.

The number one drag on life expectancy is lack of adequate health care, which reduces life expectancy by over a decade. If you want to improve life expectancy, allow the third of the American people who are uninsured a way to get health care.

Proof? There are lots of factors that affect life expectancy; diet, exercise, substance use, and lifestyle are a few of them. Americans, we eat a lot, drink a lot, smoke a lot - we just tend to not do a very good job taking care of ourselves (we're the fattest country on Earth for a reason).

And the number is of people uninsured is 40 million, dumbass, NOT a full third. Many of whom are healthy younger folks who have simply chosen to go without healthcare for a while (that's right, individual choice!)

The majority of Americans who do have health care, have it as a work benefit - benefits which can be cut at any time, and which increasingly ARE cut, as companies look for ways to cut costs (while still cutting their CEOs multi-million or even multi-billion dollar paychecks, at the same time that they cut worker pay and benefits "for the good of the company").

Something we need to move away from, in my opinion, so workers will be in less danger of losing their healthcare when they lose their job.

The primary goal of health care is to keep people healthy. That goal will always be compromised so long as we have a health care system that is not universal.

You're full of shit. People are always going to fall through the cracks, regardless of what kind of healthcare system is in place. No system is perfect.

Lovely - more red herring, spiced liberally with a heaping handful of loaded language. Nothing to see here, folks.

Oh, God I love this! Any alternative offered to national health care is a "red herring"! Next time I won't offer any solution, then you can bitch at me for failing to provide a workable way to "fix" our healthcare system.

Prove that it would be a "massive" burden. Other countries seem to be getting along just fine with a national health care system.

Please. Taxpayers in Canada, for example, routinely pay upwards of 50 percent of their income to support the national healthcare among other things. Health care costs make up ~14 percent of the economy in America. Don't play stupid (I know I'm asking too much, but try) and act like the system isn't going to be a huge tax burden.

Single-payer national health insurance works just fine in other countries, but it's electoral suicide here because idiots like you will whine about their right to choice (regardless of the fact that this right to choice has resulted in spiraling increases in cost far out of proportion to the improvement in service).

Lawyers, again.

People who live in countries with national health care systems pay a fraction what we do for health care, and get comparable or nearly comparable quality of service. Sounds to me like private enterprise has failed.

It's up to you to prove its failure. And actually, the American healthcare system is something of an odd mix; it's around 40 percent socialized. So it looks like a mixture of private enterprise and socialism failed.

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

Right, because gigantic spending projects never cost more than they're projected to. Look at Medicare!

[theski]

To pay for Deans Healthcare..

Paying for the Dean Plan


There is abundant evidence that Americans are fully prepared to forego the Bush tax cuts in order to extend health insurance to all.



The cost of providing access to affordable health insurance for all Americans under Governor Dean’s plan is $88.3 billion per year at full implementation in FY2008 according to estimates by the Lewin Group. This is far less than half the cost of George W. Bush’s tax cuts both those enacted in 2001 and those he is still proposing in 2003.

Bush 2001 Tax
Cut as Passed Bush 2003 Tax
Cut as Proposed Total Bush
Tax Cuts
2006 $135B
$96B
$231B

2007 $152B
$79B
$231B

2008 $160B
$82B
$242B

2009 $167B
$84B
$251B

Again. this is just repealing the tax cut.. nothing else.. and he is going to do that with a Rep house and Senate...

[Iceberg]

The number one drag on life expectancy is lack of adequate health care, which reduces life expectancy by over a decade. If you want to improve life expectancy, allow the third of the American people who are uninsured a way to get health care.

Proof? There are lots of factors that affect life expectancy; diet, exercise, substance use, and lifestyle are a few of them. Americans, we eat a lot, drink a lot, smoke a lot - we just tend to not do a very good job taking care of ourselves (we're the fattest country on Earth for a reason).

And the number is of people uninsured is 40 million, dumbass, NOT a full third. Many of whom are healthy younger folks who have simply chosen to go without healthcare for a while (that's right, individual choice!)

How many of these "healthy younger folks" would actually choose to go without HC if health insurance were reasonably priced?

The majority of Americans who do have health care, have it as a work benefit - benefits which can be cut at any time, and which increasingly ARE cut, as companies look for ways to cut costs (while still cutting their CEOs multi-million or even multi-billion dollar paychecks, at the same time that they cut worker pay and benefits "for the good of the company").

Something we need to move away from, in my opinion, so workers will be in less danger of losing their healthcare when they lose their job.

Great, then you agree with me that we need a system independent of employers, that will continue to cover people who have lost their jobs (another 1-2 million will join those ranks over the next year, BTW, as the national do-not-call list forces telemarketing workers out of their jobs). Thank you, pull ahead.

The primary goal of health care is to keep people healthy. That goal will always be compromised so long as we have a health care system that is not universal.

You're full of shit. People are always going to fall through the cracks, regardless of what kind of healthcare system is in place. No system is perfect.

Few systems let as many people "slip through the cracks" as ours does.

Lovely - more red herring, spiced liberally with a heaping handful of loaded language. Nothing to see here, folks.

Oh, God I love this! Any alternative offered to national health care is a "red herring"! Next time I won't offer any solution, then you can bitch at me for failing to provide a workable way to "fix" our healthcare system.

Explain why your system would succeed, then. Because all I can see is the whining "My choices can't ever be infringed for the good of the community" bullshit that conservatives love.

Prove that it would be a "massive" burden. Other countries seem to be getting along just fine with a national health care system.

Please. Taxpayers in Canada, for example, routinely pay upwards of 50 percent of their income to support the national healthcare among other things. Health care costs make up ~14 percent of the economy in America. Don't play stupid (I know I'm asking too much, but try) and act like the system isn't going to be a huge tax burden.

The Canadian system, IIRC, comes out to about 8-9% of the GDP, versus 14% here.

Single-payer national health insurance works just fine in other countries, but it's electoral suicide here because idiots like you will whine about their right to choice (regardless of the fact that this right to choice has resulted in spiraling increases in cost far out of proportion to the improvement in service).

Lawyers, again.

How much is lawyers, and how much is companies getting greedy because they want the money to pay their ridiculous executive salaries?

People who live in countries with national health care systems pay a fraction what we do for health care, and get comparable or nearly comparable quality of service. Sounds to me like private enterprise has failed.

It's up to you to prove its failure. And actually, the American healthcare system is something of an odd mix; it's around 40 percent socialized. So it looks like a mixture of private enterprise and socialism failed.

When all else fails, paint your opponent as a commie.

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

Right, because gigantic spending projects never cost more than they're projected to. Look at Medicare!

Did you read the plan, or did you just come up with that whine on your own. And would you like some cheese with it?

[Stormbringer]

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

And leave our troops hanging, a pissed off world, and two breeding grounds for extremely pissed off terrorists. You want to abandon both Iraq and Afghanistan at the worst possible time in order to add more bloated bueracracy to the Federal Government. Brilliant plan there, 'berg.

And that doesn't begin to address the fact that said money isn't there. It's going to have to be scrounged up out of other sources. It's not just sitting in the White House in a big bag with a dollar sign on it.


And if you want to scream about how Bush has neglected Afghanistan, then don't immediately throw a hissy when he asks for money to do so. It's completely fucking retarded to think that it rebuilding can be done with out a dime spent.

[SirNitram]

The number one drag on life expectancy is lack of adequate health care, which reduces life expectancy by over a decade. If you want to improve life expectancy, allow the third of the American people who are uninsured a way to get health care.

Proof? There are lots of factors that affect life expectancy; diet, exercise, substance use, and lifestyle are a few of them. Americans, we eat a lot, drink a lot, smoke a lot - we just tend to not do a very good job taking care of ourselves (we're the fattest country on Earth for a reason).

And the number is of people uninsured is 40 million, dumbass, NOT a full third. Many of whom are healthy younger folks who have simply chosen to go without healthcare for a while (that's right, individual choice!)

'Many', perhaps, but certainly not most. As someone who actually works to collect the statistics on who has insurance and what their health is like, the majority in at least one state are the eldery with health problems, or the middle aged with black lung or worse.

Not to mention you've made no effort to determine why they make this choice, what factors influence them. And the price will come up as the reason most times.

[Col. Crackpot]

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

oh great, so if we spend the $87 billion we don't have on something else, all of our healthcare problems go away! yay!

[Iceberg]

George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.

And leave our troops hanging, a pissed off world, and two breeding grounds for extremely pissed off terrorists.

All of which can be laid directly on the doorstep of George Walker Bush, with a flaming bag of dog poo.

You want to abandon both Iraq and Afghanistan at the worst possible time in order to add more bloated bueracracy to the Federal Government. Brilliant plan there, 'berg.

Quit putting words into my mouth, asshole. Obviously, abandoning the troops - or Iraq - would be a very bad idea at this moment (BTW, the President is doing a great job of abandoning Afghanistan by himself). However, it is illustrative that if George W. Bush had not pursued his personal vendetta in Iraq, we would have that kind of money in the budget.

And if you want to scream about how Bush has neglected Afghanistan, then don't immediately throw a hissy when he asks for money to do so. It's completely fucking retarded to think that it rebuilding can be done with out a dime spent.

Considering that Afghanistan is one thing that got slashed badly in the last budget, you're fucking retarded to think it would make a difference. The $87 billion (plus the pre-existing $50 billion, plus another $55 billion by Congressional estimates) is for IRAQ, not Afghanistan.

President Bush seems to have conveniently forgotten Afghanistan.