Conservative Heritage Times

Sure, says Andrew Sullivan, who approvingly quotes David Frum, who now agrees with Sullivan. All “principled conservatives,” says Sullivan, support same-sex marriage.

Right. Let’s not forget that both were prominent chickenhawk war boosters for the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Frum slammed REAL conservatives who questioned W’s lunatic crusade as “unpatriotic,” and Sullivan called for nuking Iraq, convinced that Saddam was behind the anthrax scares. In fact, Sullivan even advised fellow homosexuals to support regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of “gay liberation.”

“Principled conservatives,” indeed.

8 Comments »

Since we’re into anniversaries, the 10th anniversary of the National Review’s “Unapatritotic Conservatives” articled from David Frum has provked some discussion among our writers and editors and those at The American Conservative. Here’s my take on it:

2 Comments »

Check out this bizarre post from American Power entitled “Just and Noble War in Iraq”:

It’s the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq war and the left is using this as a chance to (hypocritically) delegitimize the use of force in national security policy. … Iraq was popular at the beginning, but Americans rejected the prolonged deployment. … The Democrats: the party of defeat and treason.

As astounding that anyone could defend the Bush regime’s rush to war in Iraq, it’s just stupefying that the war could be praised as a project “conservatives” must defend against “leftists.” So I had to drop a comment:

Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, including the Clintons, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman.

The reason the majority of Americans turned against the war was because they eventually realized the Bush regime had LIED about WMD and Iraq’s ties to 9/11.

The blog author responded with this incredible assertion: “Bush didn’t lie. It’s a lie to say he lied.”

Now let me get this straight: I’m lying when I say Bush lied? In fact, we now know that both British and American intelligence knew before the war “that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.”

The head of Britain’s spy service at the time, Richard Dearlove, has admitted, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

The reason Americans initially supported the Iraq War was because they had been led to believe Saddam had assisted the 9/11 terrorists. A congressional investigation identified “237 misleading statements” about Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.

Were Bush regime officials lying, or were they merely mistaken? In 2002, Dick Cheney made this assertion: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

A claim to certain knowledge can be verified or disproven by subsequent events. I’d say that what’s transpired between the run-up to the war and now has thoroughly disproven the Bush regime’s statements.

Maybe you don’t think this affects you. “So what if a million Iraqis died, and three million lost their homes? Why do I care?” For one thing, we’re going to suffer for this colossal blunder for decades. Some of the direct results of the Neocon Wars include the Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, surveillance drones, and indefinite detention.

Then there’s the expanded Muslim influence here at home directly attributable to the Iraq War. Some 62,000 Iraqis have settled in the US since the war. The town of El Cajon, California, is now called “Little Baghdad” because of the 20,000 Iraqis who now live there. Have these Iraqis assimilated? Check it out:

Stores sell pickled turnips and cucumbers. Restaurants sell kebobs and Halal meat. … There are Kurds from the country’s northern region, Sunnis from central areas, and Shiite from the south. There are Chaldean Christians as well.

Is this good for Americans? Think the old rivalries between those groups will continue? Who knows?

And who cares?

17 Comments »

By Frosty Wooldridge

After ten bloody years in Vietnam, we finally pulled out in 1975.  We left the country bombed out, Agent Orange-contaminated and a trail of 2.million corpses of men, women and children.  We suffered 58,300 young men’s deaths and another 350,000 horribly injured.  Because of P.T.S.D., another 200,000 combat troops who left Vietnam in one piece—later committed suicide.  Millions more remain divorced, homeless, drunk and mentally distressed on our streets across America. We did nothing to make the world a better place.

Later, Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War, in his book Fog of War  said, “I made a mistake.”

Ten years ago, George W. Bush, arrogantly and without valid purpose— idiotically attacked Iraq with the same immorality and ignorance as Lyndon Baines Johnson attacked Vietnam.  Gulf of Tonkin and Weapons of Mass Destruction—both a bunch of balderdash.  Bush should stand trial for war crimes against humanity.  He created tens of thousands of “Newtown, CT” events in Iraq.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

A week’s worth of recrimination after Romney’s defeat gave this writer a feeling of deja vu. Where did we here all the happy talk or wildly optimistic talk about the future Romney Administration.

And sure enough came this realization: It was Iraq all over again and it came largely from the same people.

Remember how the neocons and their fellow travelers in the media and other in the Bush II Administration talked of “cakewalks”  and turning Iraq into a full-blown western-style democracy and it was all going to be paid for by oil? In fact talk was so optimistic that there was little postwar planning as a result. The U.S. Military would rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, they would step aside as Iraqis allied with us took over and rebuilt the country on oil revenues.

Well, we know the rest of the story.  Saddam Hussein was taken out and the country he held together by terror and tyranny fell apart. Insurgencies from both Shiites and Sunnis appeared when none were anticipated, all the grandiose postwar plans were wrecked because of the violence and U.S. soldiers needlessly died and taxpayer money was needlessly wasted due to the incompetence of their leaders who knew nothing or next to nothing about the country they were invading. And when things go badly wrong the biggest supporters of the war lash out at those who incompetence cost them their “cakewalk.” Never do they look at themselves for blame, it’s always someone else’s fault: Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush II, Bremer, then generals, everyone else.

Continue Reading »

8 Comments »

I’ll have more to say on Romney’s big foreign policy speech, but I want to post some reaction before it gets stale.

Daniel Larison

Daniel McCarthy

Reid Smith

Gene Healy (Cato)

Smith’s reaction is particularly interesting because he is posting at the American Spectator.

3 Comments »

Ever wonder how people could ever fall for those poorly written email scams? Turns out there’s a scientific explanation for why they work.

No Comments »

Jim Antle’s article on Virgil Goode (post below) is the occasion for this Daniel Larison blog post. Larison is skeptical.

The Constitution Party is often the default third party alternative for antiwar conservatives. If one wants to vote only on foreign policy and civil liberties, the Libertarian candidate will usually be acceptable (though that wasn’t really the case in 2008), but the Constitution Party theoretically gives dissident conservatives of various stripes a vehicle to express their dissatisfaction with the Republicans on a wider range of issues. Antiwar conservatives unwilling to cast a protest vote for someone as socially liberal as Gary Johnson can usually rely on the Constitution Party to nominate someone credibly opposed to unnecessary foreign wars while still being conservative on most or all other questions. As the profile explains, Goode fits the second part of that description, but not the first.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t make for much of a protest candidacy if the third party candidate can’t make his differences with the major parties sufficiently clear. I have no objection to most of what Goode says here on foreign policy, but that remark about believing that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003 is such a bizarre and unnecessary error that it brings me up short every time I read this article. The best part is when Goode qualifies his belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs with the phrase “to some degree,” as if hedging on a demonstrably false belief made it less ridiculous. I don’t know why anyone would still be saying this in 2012. It certainly makes no sense for the nominee of a party that was opposed to the invasion of Iraq to repeat one of the worst pro-war lies. If he is hoping that this claim might make his past support for the Iraq (invasion) seem less obnoxious, he is mistaken.

See more…

The problem with the WMD argument all along was that even if we knew with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMDs, that still would not have constituted a sufficient casus belli for war. Invading Iraq because they had WMDs that they might use is still preventive war.

Crossposted at IPR without the editorial content.

5 Comments »

Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with Virgil Goode, the presumptive nominee of the Constitution Party. This week is the CP National Convention in Nashville. Unfortunately I’m not able to make the convention this time around, but I sincerely hope that my fellow Constitutionalists will scrutinize Goode to the hilt. In 2008 we rightly rejected Alan Keyes because he’s a neocon. Goode’s neocon leanings, especially with respect to foreign policy, ought to be top on the list of concerns for the delegates at the 2012 convention.

I’m not going to bore readers with a list of mistakes from Goode’s congressional voting record. Suffice to say he’s voted for some ridiculous things as a member of Congress, but the top two concerns for us Constitutionalists ought to be his votes on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. I asked Goode about both of these issues and I really wasn’t impressed with his answers. He’s a nice fellow and all, but I don’t think he’s a fit for our Party and certainly shouldn’t be our presidential nominee.

When asked about the Iraq War, Goode never walked that back at all. If anything, he gave me a muddled answer which didn’t really address my original question. He talked about how he wants to end foreign aid, bring our troops home from overseas, and that Congress ought to make a declaration of war before going to war–all good things, to be sure–but this wasn’t a real answer. Not once did he come close to saying that the war itself was a mistake. But I’m honestly not surprised given Goode’s previous promotion of our intervention into Iraq.

Regarding the Patriot Act, Goode did say that it was a mistake to subject American citizens to the Patriot Act. But he voted for it–twice. Once for the original legislation and again to make it permanent. He said that he was fine with applying the Patriot Act to non-citizens. Okay. I’m not sure if this can be considered a walking back on this particular issue, but at least his answer on this was more straightforward than when I asked him about the war. Even so, for someone who claims to uphold the Constitution, voting “no” on the Patriot Act should have been a no-brainer.

At any rate, I sincerely hope and pray that the Constitution Party does not wholeheartedly embrace Virgil Goode–unless he publicly repudiates the aforementioned votes. Delegates, now is the opportunity to make yourselves heard. Now is not the time to shrink back and sacrifice our Party’s principles in the name of having a “big name” on the ballot. Whatever happened to “principle above party”? We already have one Republican Party and we certainly don’t need another.

13 Comments »

If you think you can keep your head from exploding, check out Americaneocon today. He’s blaming Obama for Iraq’s spiral into sectarian chaos. In response to yet another suicide bombing of Shia pilgrims, he snarks: “Hey, great job Barack Hussein. That precipitous withdrawal is working exactly as planned.”

Whoa. He’s got some heavy, jaw-dropping obliviousness going on here. We’re supposed to believe the instability in Iraq isn’t George W. Bush’s fault. It’s not the Neocons’ fault. And Americaneocon and the countless other laptop bombardiers who cheered on the Iraq invasion are equally blameless.

No. Because Obama is sticking to Bush’s timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, it’s Obama’s fault that Iraq is fracturing along sectarian faultlines – something the omniscient Neocons dismissed prior to the invasion.

My head hurts.

3 Comments »

Some wars end with a bang (Hiroshima) and others just burn themselves out (Korea). And some end in a rather bizarre manner as the U.S. troops withdrawl from Iraq suggest.  As said troops arrived in Kuwait this morning, we find out that apparently the military was pretty careless with some of its files kept during the occupation. Along with broken surplus military equipment discarded at local junkyards throughout Iraq, also disposed in manner one would take recyclables to the local dump, were thousands of pages of classified documents.  There must have been the rationale among the personnel responsible for disposal, in the mad rush to get rid of things before  before final departure, that Iraqi  junkmen wouldn’t make head or tails of such documents and burn them anyway along with the rest of the trash. But they didn’t reckon with an intrepid New York Times reporter finding this stuff before it headed to the burn file.

What the documents entail was the deaths Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in an incident in the village of Haditha. There will be those disappointed few persons were held accountable for their actions in Iraq and many more were acquitted in variety of trials. Yet in reality, even if there were more convictions in military courts, these persons would have been privates and corporals, not generals nor the policy makers responsible for putting said troops into the middle of hostile territory and expecting them to respect the rules of civilized warfare when the enemy would not play by those rules in order to have any kind of advantage against such forces and expecting them to do so in day to day struggle for survival. This is why no one will really know how many civilians died in Iraq because many such incidents probably went unreported because they’ve became so common place: person or a family not stopping at checkpoints getting blasted by on-edge soldiers or any manner of misunderstandings which resulted in tragic deaths. Persons reading the reports on what happened at Haditha may be appalled by the attitudes of some in uniform towards what happened in such cases, and certainly it’s disturbing. But it’s also understandable from an individual’s own determination not to wind up like of buddy of theirs who got blown up by a insurgent hiding amidst the crowd. You can’t ask a soldier to become a cop. That’s not what they are trained to be or do.  And in doing so we ensured there would always be a steady supply of  insurgents avenging the deaths of family members shot by U.S. troops whether accidently or not.

Of course this really wasn’t a “war” by then but an occupation and rebellion in response to this occupation. The “war” phase ended when U.S. forces captured Baghdad. I can still remember the soldiers saying “the quicker we get to Baghdad the quicker we get home.” That never happened and it never happened because the fantasy thinking of the policy makers and the military brass as to what was going to happen and their inability to adjust or even admit what was going on went things didn’t go according to plan.. The end result was a lot of needless deaths which ultimately left behind a broken country which is no longer the bulwark against Iran it was when Saddam was in charge.  Perhaps the neocons should ponder this when celebrating “victory” and clamoring for attack on Iran.

For a good summary of the aftermath of Iraq please read this article by Andrew Bacevich in today’s Washington Post.

5 Comments »

Jeffrey Lord still has his panties in a wad over the Monroe Doctrine, and Jim Antle replied. Roger Kaplan, who posts infrequently, chimed in with an attempt to clarify. While Kaplan makes some important points, I also think he attempts some deliberate misdirection. Read his post for context. Below is my reply.

Mr. Kaplan, there is some truth here, but I am afraid some misdirection also.

First, the First Gulf War may have been an exercise in international border enforcement, but it wasn’t our fight. Nowhere is it written in stone by the Hand of God that the US must lead or participate in such ventures. We went to war because the Bush I Administration, with the slobbering acquiescence of Republicans and Democrats alike, took it upon this country to play global enforcer, something I see nowhere in the job description of the US government called the Constitution. Likewise with “get-the-varmints” warfare. Don’t see that in the job description either.

Second, I agree that people throw around the word neoconservative too casually. Many hyper-interventionists (John Bolton for example) are not neoconservatives proper. They are a type of bellicose, militaristic nationalist, and are less motivated by spreading democracy than they are by stomping out perceived (and always alarmingly exaggerated) threats.

I also agree that there is a difference between the “first generation” of neoconservatives, Irving Kristol for example, and “second generation” neoconservatives, Kristol the Younger for example. The second generation is more fixated on foreign policy as you indicate and more grandiose and less cautious with their rhetoric and plans. But it is clear that the seeds of neoconservative thought that grew into the Jacobin radicalism of “second generation” neoconservatism were there from the beginning.

But while I agree that we need to be more careful with the use of neoconservative, confining the term only to those with a direct lineage to the originals is precision with the intent to mislead. Rumsfeld and Cheney may be more Bolton like, but Wolfowitz not a neoconservative? Come on now.

In most cases the term neoconservative is not meant to indicate only people with a direct lineage, but the ideas they promulgated. Kristol the Elder didn’t write a book called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea for nothing. Unfortunately, neoconservatives ideas suffuse the whole “conservative” interventionist paradigm making it very hard to sort out.

I think most “conservative” interventionists are primarily concerned with what they see as our national interests and suppressing imagined threats, and less concerned with democratization projects, but the tension still exists as was illustrated here in the AmSpec blog regarding Egypt and Libya. But these bellicose nationalists have a very hard time disentangling themselves from neocon ideas and rhetoric especially when pressed on national interest questions. They quickly resort to classic neocon formulations of US as necessary enforcer of world order and bringer of light complete with all or nothing Jacobin–like good guys vs. bad guys scenarios.

There are a few illiberal interventionists who recognize neoconservatism as the post-Enlightenment liberal ideological dogma that it is and still maintain their interventionism (Ron L who comments here at times is one), but they are few and far between. In my experience neoconservative presumptions suffuse the thought processes of the average run-of-the-mill “conservative” interventionist to the point where it is very hard to make distinctions.

For example, Newt Gingrich’s (is he or is he not a neoconservative?) latest book is on the necessity of American Exceptionalism. (It is interesting that he felt the need to write that as his campaign book instead of something on the economy.) Romney (is he or isn’t he a neoconservative?) babbles incessantly about American Exceptionalism and sings pitch perfect from the neocon hymnal. American Exceptionalism, as it is (mis)understood by “conservatives” today, is an entirely neocon infused idea. Both the militant nationalists and the neocons share the presumption that American has a special role to fill in the world and since there are no more naked Imperialists (let’s invade country x so we can pump their oil) this is always prefaced on a notion of America as benign hegemon. It is conceivably possible to be a militant nationalist without having pretensions of being responsible for the whole world. A militant nationalist might conceivably be concerned only about his own “sphere.” So the world hegemon thing is a neocon baby whether you like it or not.

3 Comments »

A follow-up of note to an earlier post on Iraqi refugees arrested in Kentucky, comes news that Senator Rand Paul:

has secured a hearing through the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee to address concerns about visas and political asylum following the arrest of two Iraqi refugees on terrorism charges last month in Bowling Green. BG Daily News June 25, 2011…

“So my question is, ‘Was someone asleep at the switch here?’ ” Paul said earlier this month about the men successfully gaining refugee status.

“Is it happening because we’re spending time searching millions of innocent Americans and wasting time on that and not doing a thorough job on those who are coming from these Middle Eastern countries, who I think need to be thoroughly vetted before they enter our country?” Paul asked.

The hearings are scheduled for July 13.  Senator McConnell’s call to send them over to Gitmo, and keep the refugee racket going for his supporters looks like the misdirect it is, in light of Paul’s reaction.

2 Comments »

The Evil Empire has launched yet another illegal war:

The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.

Where does Obama think he got the authorization to launch this attack? Like George W. Bush, Obama pretties up his illegal acts with piles of self-congratulatory double-talk:

“Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency,” President Barack Obama said in Brasilia, Brazil, on the first day of a three-country Latin American tour.

I suppose the people of Libya are more important than the people of Yemen and Bahrain, whose governments are killing them, too — but the US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, and President Saleh of Yemen is a US puppet, so don’t expect DC to do anything about those dictators. Some dictators are better than others.

An overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to US intervention in Libya — but then, our betters in DC ignore us on other issues, such as illegal immigration.

Isn’t it wonderful to live in a peaceful democracy?

8 Comments »

Apologies from Bush, von Rumsfeld, and all the other pro-war propagandists should come any minute now …

8 Comments »

I’ve long argued the Evil Empire promotes the worship of Martin Luther King, Jr. because King’s image sanctifies the projection of DC’s power at home and abroad. We’re supposed to believe the central government’s “wars of liberation” in Iraq and Afghanistan are extensions of the hallowed Civil Rights movement. Condi Rice even made that explicit when she denounced opponents of the Iraq War as “racist.” (What a handy word!)

Now another apparatchik has made my case. Yesterday, the Defense Department presented a “certificate of appreciation” to Jeh C. Johnson, the department’s general counsel, at the 26th annual observance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the Pentagon. What critics would call illegal invasions, he assured his audience, are actually noble, selfless acts of kindness:

Volunteers in today’s military, he said, “have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people.

“Every day, our servicemen and women practice the dangerousness — the dangerous unselfishness Dr. King preached on April 3, 1968,” Johnson told the audience.

Yep — the Pentagon is the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with cluster bombs.

7 Comments »

We’ve been warning for years that DC’s policy of Invade the World/Invite the World was a perfect formula to guarantee continued attacks on Americans here at home. But the War Hawks insisted that invading and occupying Muslim countries was the only means of keeping us safe.

One of the War Party’s leading pom-pom girls claimed back in 2008 that the Neocon Wars were keeping America safe. But now that al-Qaeda has issued threats to attack during Christmas, that same blogger now worries the terror threat has indeed worsened:

My bet is that we’ll indeed see “Mumbai-style” attacks in the U.S. at some point. The national security focus remains overwhelmingly on air travel, and the jihadi extremists will simply develop new approaches.

But — Obama escalated the Afghanistan War! He’s sent an additional 50,000 troops. US troops have been “fighting them there, so we won’t have to fight them here,” as the Neo-jingoist cheer went out at the inception of those wars.

Could it be we paleos had a point when we warned DC’s illegal and immoral invasions would only enrage more Muslims?

7 Comments »

Does speaking out against a war constitute terrorism? These government goons think so:

FBI agents searched eight homes in Chicago and Minnesota on Friday as part of an investigation the law enforcement agency said related to “the material support of terrorism.” No arrests were made related to the raids, FBI spokesmen in Minneapolis and Chicago said….

The FBI did not release the names of the targets and said the search warrants were under seal.

Minneapolis peace activist Mick Kelly’s apartment was searched, and agents confiscated computer hard drives, his cell phone, writings, and his passport, Kelly and his lawyer said.

“It’s harassment at the highest level of those of us who have spoken out and tried to build an anti-war movement,” said Kelly, who helped lead marches during the 2008 Republican party convention in Minneapolis.

“It’s an attempt to trample on our right to speak out against U.S. intervention abroad. It’s outrageous on every level,” he said.

There’s a precedent for accusing critics of providing material support to the enemy — and of course, Abraham Lincoln set it:

After Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio charged Lincoln with waging war “for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism” and “restrain[ing] the people of their liberties,” General Ambrose Burnside arrested him for “disloyal practice[s] affording aid and comfort to Rebels.” The arrest triggered a substantial outcry from Lincoln’s opponents and supporters alike….

Lincoln defended the arrest because he believed that Vallandigham “was laboring, with some effect, to prevent raising of troops [and] to encourage desertions from the army.” “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts,” Lincoln asked, “while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induced him to desert?”

In fact, Vallandigham had confined himself to general criticism of the war and of Lincoln and had not urged his audience to disobey the law.

To Lincoln, speaking out against his war was treason. We saw that same attitude in the early days of the Iraq War when Neocon David Horowitz demanded that anti-war protesters be prosecuted as saboteurs.

If we are to resist modern-day tyranny, we must repudiate Lincoln’s legacy, which claims the primary allegiance of all Americans is to the central government.

33 Comments »

Last year on the anniversary of 9/11 I published my memories of the tragic events of that day. On 9/11/01 I was stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, and I responded to the Pentagon the following day. I was asked to write my thoughts on 9/11, but I didn’t have a lot of time so it was a bit of a rush job. (I’m also not used to writing stuff other than political polemics.) I have never been entirely happy with the result, but on re-reading I think it holds up pretty well. Next 9/11 I plan to try and republish it in edited form so your honest feedback would be appreciated. Also feel free to share your 9/11 memories.

On “11 Sep 01” I was stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. (Former military will recognize the dating convention.) For those unfamiliar with Andrews, it is in Maryland on the outskirts of Washington, DC and is most famous for housing Air Force One. “Ah, now it rings a bell,” you say.

I was in charge of our base’s alcohol and drug rehabilitation services, and 11 September started out an uneventful day like any other. The patients (in my business the more politically correct term is “clients”) had gone down for a smoke break. Almost all recovering addicts smoke. Go figure. They came back frantically instructing us to turn on the TV. An airplane had hit the World Trade Center. Needless to say, not much more rehabbing got done that day.

We were all, clients and staff, watching live as the second plane flew into the South Tower. What had been speculated about and suspected, terrorism, was confirmed. What happened after that could best be described as ordered chaos.

Continue Reading »

3 Comments »

The pro-war, any-war crowd is glomming onto a Congressional Budget Office report that shows Obama’s ill-fated stimulus has cost more than current appropriations on the ill-fated Iraq War.

Now that’s a devastating argument: “Our boondoggle cost less than your boondoggle!”

Americaneocon gloats:

“And how’s that “stimulus” working out? Well, the worst is yet to come.”

Of course, the same is true of the Iraqi War. von Rumsfeld said it would cost $50 billion, but projected costs, including caring for the horribly wounded, will be closer to $3 trillion.

And that’s not even counting the cost of future reprisals in revenge for what US forces have done to Iraq.

So when do the Iraqis begin construction of George W. Bush Square? They must be mighty grateful to their liberator, who has wrecked the Iraqi nation, including its economy. That project could provide work for Iraq’s 5 million orphans.

3 Comments »