By JOHN F. KERRY – Published: June 28, 2005 – New York Times
TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It’s long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course – a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration’s choices have made Iraq into what it wasn’t before the war – a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself – and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day – in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won’t be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.
Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way – coupled with a strategy to succeed.
So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in “the last throes” leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We’re doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.
He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.
Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one – something that our generals now say could take two more years – it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.
The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel – an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill – will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.
The next months are critical to Iraq’s future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html?
I had something I was working on to preempt Bush’s speech…then I read this editorial.
He would have made a great President, honesty being as scarce as it is otherwise.
Hey Chris, just wanted to let you know that my brother made it home from Japan a couple weeks ago, and we were riding around, and he told me likes seeing the yellow ribbons on the cars of citizens…I know you are against such things…but thought you might like to know that one marine, who’s been to iraq, and will probably go again, appreciates the symbolic support, and doesn’t understand why he doesn’t see any in california.
Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
Everything else in this artile is just point of view wxcept this little exerpt. Understand, one and all, there is no eroding support for the islamic assault on the world. Nothing will make the muslims happy until every Jew is dead and the world is run by sharia.
The concept that we can appease the people who strap bombs to women, the mentally retarded and children, blow up people and buildings in the most cowardly manner available and have a blood lust and hatred not seen since Adolph Hitler is a total fallacy. There was no appeasing Stalin, there was no appeasing Hitler and there is no appeasing Islam.
I don’t see how the intent of the Jihadists has anything to do with it. This is about Iraq, not defeating Islamist Jihad. They’re two seperate issues.
Kerry’s point about ensuring it’s clear that we are not planning to establish a permanent presence is something I mentioned a few weeks ago, and something Bush could do himself a favor by discussing. The perception that we’re there indeffinitely fuels the Iraq side of the insurgency.
A consistent repeating of the cliches ‘stay the course’, ‘hard slog’, etc…won’t do any good. He has to actually SAY something tonight for anything good to come from it. It’s difficult to trust anything he or his people say concerning Iraq. The Cheney-Rumsfeld statements concerning the insurgency in recent weeks highlight this. They’re short on credibility.
That, and the plan hasn’t worked thus far. We need to change up.
This is about Iraq, not defeating Islamist Jihad. They’re two seperate issues.
Not to them it isn’t. In the larger view of things the Jihadists don’t care if we left tomorrow, they will continue to assault the new government. They will continue to assault Isreal and will continue to assault all non-sharia countries.
Kerry’s point about ensuring it’s clear that we are not planning to establish a permanent presence
This goes to prove Kerry didn’t know what was going on, our permanent presence on this planet is what has the muslims all fired up. As long as there are Jews and democracy Islam will not rest until they are crushed.
A consistent repeating of the cliches ’stay the course’, ‘hard slog’, etc…won’t do any good.
But that is all there is and it’s true.
He has to actually SAY something tonight for anything good to come from it.
I know one good thing, maybe the only good thing is that this war isn’t being fought in downtown Las Vegas.
The Cheney-Rumsfeld statements concerning the insurgency in recent weeks highlight this. They’re short on credibility.
What do you mean, have they been proved wrong? All I have to the contrary is one statement by one general who was giving his opinion but followed up that we are doing the right thing and need to keep going as we are. I saw that panel discussion on TV.
That, and the plan hasn’t worked thus far. We need to change up.
What hasn’t worked? Have we had any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil lately? How about Canada or Brittan or Australia? I think the plan has worked great!!!!
That’s not our problem. Bush said it was in tonight’s speech, but once the Iraqis have the troop strength to police their own country, we need to get out. It is not the duty of America to wipe out religous extremism, nor should it be our goal. You’ll never eradicate that element within humanity. As long as there’s religion and human beings together on this planet, people will use it as an excuse to hurt their fellow man in some way. It’s happened for thousands of years.
What does that have to do with Iraq? What does extreme Islam have to do with Iraq? Yea, they’re flocking to and training in Iraq now, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Spinning it to equal a good thing is what’s happened in recent months, but keep in mind it’s been spun in that way by the same people who were wrong about the fact that an insurgency would ensue in the first place.
Just because it’s politicaly prudent to say something, it doesn’t make it true. These people have been wrong about a lot of things, while proving that they’ll say whatever they have to say to put a good face on something.
No – I disagree, there are elements of strategy, changing our course in some way. He did mention that our soldiers would be residing with, eating with and fighting with the Iraqis – rather than simply fighting with them than parting ways. That’s the type of idea, the type of information I value. The same old cliches is what leads to the negativity over time.
Saying the insurgency was in it’s ‘last throes’ was incorrect. Cheney either didn’t know what he was talking about, or he was just lying – and that’s not beyond him to do.
Right – at what cost? So what you’re saying is, 1700 deaths is alright because we haven’t been attacked? This is where the right-wing confuses the goals and for the sake of making an argument, lumps everything together. The FBI and CIA prevent attacks on our soil – Homeland Security…the infantryman on the ground in Iraq is a completely different situation.
I’m not against such displays of support, but take offense to those who slap up the sticker and from then on close their eyes.
Anyone who has a sticker on their car, but didn’t take offense to the VA budget falling short this year…after legislation was presented that would have fixed it over a month ago…doesn’t really mean what the sticker says.
I’ve been in the Army and know full well that when a sticker goes up, but compassion is driven not by what the sticker reads – instead by political allegiance, it’s empty. I may not agree with others politically, but feel that we should all do everything we can to ensure that politicians don’t exploit these troops or shirk their responsibility to take care of them once they return.
I’m advocating on their behalf, regardless of the political inclinations of whoever is or isn’t in charge.
Thank your brother for his service for me! You guys must be having fun. My brother got out of the marines a few months ago, and it’s comforting to know the two of us are over and done with it both safe and sound.
Then why don’t more california’s who ‘care’ have them on their cars? Is it a political thing?
Or are they just not as proud of the troops? My family flies a USMC flag right along side our American flag, every day of the year, is that somehow precieved as empty support because of my political affiliation? I would support the complete dump of social welfare programs or PBS, in order to properly pay, equip, and take care of our soldiers…but politics won’t allow such reckless abandon to support the troops, democrats would allow money to come out of the unneccessary programs that they support, then maybe their would be enough money to ‘support the troops’ and cut the deficit. Otherwise, we just keep trying to have our cake and eat it too.
Micheal:
I would support a complete dump of the Haliburtin welfare act to help get the troops what they need. It is not all about throwing money at the situation, fraud and mismanagement are a large part of the problem as well.
Every spending bill for the war has passed, and the milatary still does not have the equipment that they need maybe their are other problems.
That’s not our problem. Bush said it was in tonight’s speech, but once the Iraqis have the troop strength to police their own country, we need to get out. It is not the duty of America to wipe out religous extremism, nor should it be our goal.
You talk as if we had a choice, religious extremism is looking for us and we can either go out and face it or have it follow us home and attack us here. This is so 1937 all over again except with a decentralized, fanatical enemy.
What does that have to do with Iraq? What does extreme Islam have to do with Iraq?
That is my point exactly, no matter where we are in the world Islam is coming for us and our allies. Whether or not we have a permanent base in Iraq or whether or not we leave soon, the goal of Islam is to establish sharia across the globe. I’d rather have Iraq be the “training ground” for jihadists, if such a thing even exists, over the training ground being in my home state.
Saying the insurgency was in it’s ‘last throes’ was incorrect.
I disagree but only time will tell.
Right – at what cost? So what you’re saying is, 1700 deaths is alright because we haven’t been attacked? This is where the right-wing confuses the goals and for the sake of making an argument, lumps everything together. The FBI and CIA prevent attacks on our soil – Homeland Security…the infantryman on the ground in Iraq is a completely different situation.
Death is never alright but we have an army just for this purpose, to fight a war? Are you saying that no Americans should die in war? Should we just disband our army because it’s too dangerous to protect our homeland?
All these agencies work together to protect America and the infantryman on the ground in Iraq is at the center of it. Every terrorist who gets KIA in Iraq is one less threat to America and it’s allies. You bring up the 1700 killed and ask was it worth it.
Would it be worth the 1700 if you could have prevented 9/11?
Would it be worth it if these 1700 prevented a nuclear attack scheduled sometime in the future?
Every service man and woman who died serving their country was worth it, every bit of it. The right doesn’t arbitrarily lump everything together, it IS together. It’s all one fight with many participants. This is where the Left looks for every miniscule bit of information and make it bad and spin it for the worst.
I would support a complete dump of the Haliburtin welfare act to help get the troops what they need.
How would dumping the military’s supplier get more supplies to the troops? You want to see examples of fraud and mismanagement, just look at Social Security.
That’s what was said about communism, and most of it was trumped up. I just don’t buy it. There was an attack against us by a man we had a history with. It wasn’t just radical Islam that caused 9/11, and we can’t pretend that’s not the case. All the facts need to be looked at, not just the convenient ones.
We moved into their neighborhood, that’s why they can get to us now. I’m not buying into the fact that we’re in danger if we didn’t invade Iraq. And the piece of logic that escapes the argument is that we’re creating more terrorists by the day.
So to fight them effectively, it can’t be in a way that continuously creates more of them. That’s an illogical approach.
The military commanders don’t agree with that assessment. I think it’s been established at this point that Cheney was talking out of his ass.
If the bottom line after two years of fighting is nothing has been accomplished besides the beginnings of a new government in Iraq…if the enemy has only managed to grow stronger by us being over there – then it’s a crapshoot at this point whether or not the 1700 lives were lost in vain. The Army is there to defend the country, but that doesn’t mean we can use them as guinnea pigs.
We could have prevented 9/11 in a lot of ways that wouldn’t have cost 1700 lives. Starting a war in the middle east won’t prevent the next attack. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iran in the 80s led to 9/11.
There’s no evidence that this is the case at all.
9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.
That’s what was said about communism, and most of it was trumped up. I just don’t buy it. There was an attack against us by a man we had a history with. It wasn’t just radical Islam that caused 9/11, and we can’t pretend that’s not the case. All the facts need to be looked at, not just the convenient ones.
Look at Vietnam, China, Central and South America and Korea. Communism may have been a lot of show but there was no way for us to know that and they were making pretty good progress. Our history with Osama is the same with Kadafi, Arafat, Kohmeini and all the other islamic terror sponsors.
Trying to separate these guys into microcosms just complicates the reality of the situation and gives false hope when one of them falls. I don’t want to call anyones bluff and find out it’s no bluff.
We moved into their neighborhood, that’s why they can get to us now. I’m not buying into the fact that we’re in danger if we didn’t invade Iraq. And the piece of logic that escapes the argument is that we’re creating more terrorists by the day.
It’s not their neighborhood, it’s the Iraqi’s neighborhood and these insurgents are trying to impose a terrorist islamic state, ala Iran. Again, the terrorists are already there, were not creating anything, if it isn’t us they attack it would just be someone else. What is happening is we are finding and eliminating the hidden terrorists every day.
The military commanders don’t agree with that assessment. I think it’s been established at this point that Cheney was talking out of his ass.
One guy said he thought the growth was stagnant and that was his opinion. Have others said they think the insurgency is growing? It’s only a matter of time before this insurgency is done, if only we can hold the liberals back for a little longer.
If the bottom line after two years of fighting is nothing has been accomplished besides the beginnings of a new government in Iraq…if the enemy has only managed to grow stronger by us being over there – then it’s a crapshoot at this point whether or not the 1700 lives were lost in vain.
Well, Kuwait and the other neighboring countries are stabilized, dictators like Kadafi have seen the light and are tearing down their weapons programs. The insurgency is spending a lot of capital to throw at us that isn’t going towards operations in the U.S. and the ability for these clerics to wage future holy wars will be hindered because Allah obviously isn’t on their side. These 1700 people helped change the world for the better and we all need to start acknowledging that, especially Durbin.
We could have prevented 9/11 in a lot of ways that wouldn’t have cost 1700 lives. Starting a war in the middle east won’t prevent the next attack. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iran in the 80s led to 9/11.
Well aparrantly we couldn’t because it happened. As for Afganistan, we helped them in the 80’s and we helped them again in 2001-2002. Our support for Israel, democracy in Egypt and the rest of Africa and the wahibi islamists trying to start a war with the moderate islamists for control of islam led to 9/11.
There’s no evidence that this is the case at all.
And there never will be because how can you prove something didn’t happen? But, the more we engage the enemy over there the less chance of them getting over here. We are litterally whittling down the people who would otherwise be launching future attacks. We lost 1700 to wipe out how many enemies? Thousands? These thousands could have been suicide bombers who kill 10-20-30 at a time. There is no way to prove who a terrorist would have killed had he been alive to do it, but that is no reason to wait for the next attack, like Kerry wanted.
9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.
That’s the narrowest view the left usually takes to try to separate the war on terrorism into component parts that can be used against our conservatives.
The left argues that since there is no smoking gun then there is no crime. Sure, Saddam Huissein didn’t personally fly a plane into the WTC. Sure, Osama didn’t invade Kuwait. Hitler didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor and Yamamoto didn’t invade Poland.
The war on terror encompasses all these terrorists groups. The war on drugs isn’t fought only in Columbia so why should the war on terror be fought only in Afganistan? Hamas isn’t in Afganistan, Osama probably isn’t there either. Did Arafat ever go to Afganastan? How about Kadafi? Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?
you’ve accussed me of burying my head in the sand a few times, well now it’s my turn to say right back atcha. Islamic terrorism seems to be the only terrorism and it’s global and it’s coming for us and you can’t say that Palestinian terrorists are ok but Afgani terrorists are back and Libyan terrorists are on the shit list, etc.
It’s all connected, it really is.
Michael: Then why don’t more california’s who ‘care’ have them on their cars? Is it a political thing?
It may be. California is generally a very liberal state. Depending on what part of the state you were driving in plays into it as well I’d imagine. Like all states, there are concentrations of certain types of voters.
Michael: Or are they just not as proud of the troops? My family flies a USMC flag right along side our American flag, every day of the year, is that somehow precieved as empty support because of my political affiliation? I would support the complete dump of social welfare programs or PBS, in order to properly pay, equip, and take care of our soldiers…but politics won’t allow such reckless abandon to support the troops, democrats would allow money to come out of the unneccessary programs that they support, then maybe their would be enough money to ’support the troops’ and cut the deficit. Otherwise, we just keep trying to have our cake and eat it too.
The money that goes to PBS is a drop in the bucket compared with the missile defense shield…there’re always places to cut from, but while you might not enjoy the programming on public TV or radio – I happen to like it. The children sure like it…I remember quite well the daily episodes of Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers.
It serves a purpose. I don’t see how this has anything to do with fully funding the VA or acknowledging the fact that veterans from the first Gulf War were exposed to chemicals and depleted uranium that has caused health issues for them and their children. I’m a liberal, and a former soldier…and those two things don’t mean anything when I’m advocating for funding for the war and veterans.
Be sure to bring in those flags when it’s raining! Pet peeve of mine…we’ve got our flag out every day as well.
It may be. California is generally a very liberal state.
That shouldn’t have anything to do with it unless liberals really don’t support the troops as much as they advertise.
The money that goes to PBS is a drop in the bucket compared with the missile defense shield…
I think he meant that the stuff that goes directly to the troops, a missle defense shield doesn’t fall into this category. The PBS funding would cover a huge load of stuff for the troops but libs would loose a political platform funded by the gov’t.
The VA thing does bother me, being from a military family. If we could have private social security accounts money could be diverted to the VA but that is a long ways away even if we started tomorrow.
The VA, being Medicare for the military, is in about the same shape as the Senior’s program. Something has to give and I agree that the the non-essential programs have to give way to the essential programs even if for just a short period of time.
I’m a liberal, and a former soldier
[insert smart-ass comment here]
That’s a generalization – I know from my time spent in California that there are a lot of minorities in some areas that don’t even speak English – let alone participate in politics in any way. Also, political liberalism or conservatism changes depending on the region of the country you happen to be in. You and I are political junkies whose beliefs are shaped within the community here on the net…the community with no borders. Not everyone participates in the discourse in this way, and whether or not a car bears a sticker saying ‘support the troops’, there’s no way of knowing whether the inhabitants in fact support them or not.
I don’t have a sticker on my car, but anyone who’s read my work knows that my heart is with the troops. Having a sticker or not having a sticker doesn’t mean anything in terms of my convictions.
The VA thing does bother me, being from a military family. If we could have private social security accounts money could be diverted to the VA but that is a long ways away even if we started tomorrow.
The VA, being Medicare for the military, is in about the same shape as the Senior’s program. Something has to give and I agree that the the non-essential programs have to give way to the essential programs even if for just a short period of time.
Less money goes to PBS than went into the state of Alaska in pork last year. Less than we sent to Egypt in aid. There are plenty of ways to trim the fat, but aiming our focus in a political way won’t get anything accomplished. Clinton was able to balance the budget because he reached compromises with Congress. You have to approach it like a negotiation. As we’ve seen, Bush isn’t likely to negotiate, but instead insist he gets what he wants. The result? Less passes into law. That’s just the way the world works…people have to come together and compromise so everyone gets what they need.
That’s a generalization
I know but you said that California is a very liberal state implying that had something to do with the lack of support that Michael was talking about.
There are plenty of ways to trim the fat, but aiming our focus in a political way won’t get anything accomplished.
You can’t cut any social program without it being political. Since Democrats have positioned themselves as the “stewards” of social programs shouldn’t it be them to suggest where the first cuts will come from?
Why not divert money from PBS, Alaska, Art Appreciation for the Homeless, France and Egypt to the VA for a year or two?
I also said that having a sticker or not having a sticker is not the deciding factor of whether or not one supports the troops. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that if you counted the amount of stickers in the parking lot of a Nascar race down south, there would be more than in the parking lot of Dodgers game. That doesn’t equal less support. Anyone can slap on a sticker – but there are a lot more ways to show support than with a sticker. I’ve got an American flag outside of my house, but no sticker…so does that make me less patriotic or mean I support the troops any less than my neighbor who has a flag and a sticker?
Why not? How will we decide where we pull the money from and what remains fully funded?
A better question though would be – why is the VA the one underfunded in the first place? I watched it happen on CSPAN…Pat Murray proposed an ammendment that would have paid for the budget, and Republicans shot it down.
A better question though would be – why is the VA the one underfunded in the first place?
The pessimist in me says the Democrats don’t expect to ever get the military vote so they don’t care and conservatives are trying to force down the budgets of bloated social programs and using the VA as leverage.
Why not? How will we decide where we pull the money from and what remains fully funded?
Easy, take about 30% from it all. In a few years they can apply to get it back. I like the theatre and art museums as much as the next guy but but in times of sacrafice we can do without fancy new buildings for a couple of years.
DI: A better question though would be – why is the VA the one underfunded in the first place?
RT: The pessimist in me says the Democrats don’t expect to ever get the military vote so they don’t care and conservatives are trying to force down the budgets of bloated social programs and using the VA as leverage.
Wrong on that Right – Pat Murray proposed an ammendment to fully fund the budget and it was shot down by Republicans.
DI: Why not? How will we decide where we pull the money from and what remains fully funded?
RT: Easy, take about 30% from it all. In a few years they can apply to get it back. I like the theatre and art museums as much as the next guy but but in times of sacrafice we can do without fancy new buildings for a couple of years.
So cut 30% of those jobs. Will the economy suck up those unemployed workers?
Pat Murray proposed an ammendment to fully fund the budget and it was shot down by Republicans.
One junior Democrat with an ill-thought out plan to just write a blank check to the VA hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement.
So cut 30% of those jobs. Will the economy suck up those unemployed workers?
If Egypt and France loose 30% of their jobs I’m ok with that to pay for the VA. Cutting the pork won’t doom our economy like you think. A lot of the specail programs go to political friends anyway so going a couple of years without unnecassary gifts to constiuents to pay for the VA is still a good idea.
It wasn’t a blank check Right. What do you mean by this? She pointed out that the program was underfunded, proposed an ammendment to fill the gap, and Republicans insisted that everything was fine.
What does ‘junior’ have to do with anything?
I never said cutting foreign aid would doom our economy.
DI: I also said that having a sticker or not having a sticker is not the deciding factor of whether or not one supports the troops.
Thats why I told you that my brother liked seeing them, the vast majority of troops have never seen your site…but every one has seen a yellow ribbon. The common thread in all american language is support the troops…what better way to show it then by symbolic gestures that the troops can actually see? Not a word was spoken aboutthe VA budget between me and my bro, news isn’t something he follows, but a simple “Support the troops” ribbon caught his attention…i guess the simplicity of such an approach looses its worth to you.
What does ‘junior’ have to do with anything?
Politically, she is a nobody within the DNC. Why isn’t this coming from Biden, Kennedy or Schummer, democrats with real power?
It wasn’t a blank check Right. What do you mean by this?
Tax and spend. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t fix it.
I never said cutting foreign aid would doom our economy.
You implied that a 30% reduction in jobs is not a good thing. If our unemployment rate goes from 5% to 35% due to the loss of frivilous government programs it’s best to just move to another country because there will be nothing to salvage here.
what better way to show it then by symbolic gestures that the troops can actually see?
That’s a great way to put it.