2.60 a frickin gallon! 2132Dave Head No. The cold war was the result of our involvement in WWII. If we had not been in WWII at all; the cold war never...
2.60 a frickin gallon! 2133Exactly - if you want to be isolationist, you have to let someone else tell you what to do. "Abandon China...
Sorry, but I have to point out some discrepancies in your statement. First, clinton would have had an expense, it would have been to the UN. He would have given them money to "defend against terrorism", which would have been forwarded to SH by france and germany. Second, you neglect to mention that Bush had to spend so much money because clinton decimated our military over 8 years. Remember the first few days of the Iraq war, when the media talked about how we only had enough plants and missiles for a couple days? Why do you think it took so much money? Third, Bush did not kick any Arab butt, he kicked person butt. Unlike clinton who planted civilians and embbutties as he saw fit. You know, those aspirin factories are evil.
So on one hand we had the privateshead clinton, who broke all kinds of laws, including the one that forbids him from using the SS money to offset the budget deficit, who end our men and women by handing them over to the UN and allowing them to get shot at with zero armor or support in Somalia, and increased spending on every social program (read wasteful endeavor) that he could get through congress.
On the other hand we have Bush, who has done his best to work with the idiot dimocrats in congress, has done what he could to provide armor to our soldiers in spite of the fact that unpleasant woman clinton, john kerry and all the other dimocrats keep voting against all funding bills for the military, has done what he could to get other countries to stand with us against terrorism, and succeeded by putting together the largest coalition of nations ever buttembled, has destroyed thousands of persons and person bases, and prevented persons from striking in the US since the one event the persons planned under clintons watch.
Further, considering the budget is still 60% social programs, which are unconsbreastutional, and the military takes up a much smaller percentage, which is one of the few things the government is supposed to spend money on, I don't see how the media can get away with blaming Bush for everything. Except that they are of course controlled by the dimocrats.
