# \*Shakes Head\* Sigh, Bush what in the hell are you thinking? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 8, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237 "2003-09-08T05:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kyuzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@Kyuzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyuzo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/21 "2003-09-08T23:25:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by smiling bandit:_\*\* > Secondly, I say this is cheap at twice the price.\*\* It’s not cheap at twice the price if it just gets added to our skyrocketing deficit. I agree we cannot pull out now. However, I want Bush to pay for it, and not put it on our credit card. If this is such a crucial duty of the American people, maybe we had better postpone or rescind the tax cuts he gave to the richest 1% to defray some of this cost. Besides, I am of the opinion that the costs will spirial even further without international help. Bush is already asking for twice what he asked for at first. Has the administration shown any inclination that it really knows what the costs will end up being? They don’t have a clue, and they’ve underestimated what is necessary almost every step of the way. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by smiling bandit:_\*\* > I have a hard time understanding why all the “compassionate” liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the “evil” conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant. > > Hypocrites, every last one of ya’. > \*\* Hypocrites, huh? Well, fuck you. How many brutal tyrants are in the world right now? How many are not being invaded? (Hint: lots.) How long did Bush let people suffer and starve in Liberia before an extremely limited force was sent? (Hint: a brutally long period of time.) It is such bullshit to put even a part of this in humanitarian terms. Do you know how many countries are controlled by brutal tyrants? I guess you support invasions into all of them? Or are you the hypocrite? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by smiling bandit:_\*\* > Asking for some aid from other nations is simply a recognition that (a) a couple of them will be openly outed as the baldfaced liars and selfish bastards they are: France and Germany…\*\* I’ve got news for you…you can’t insult other countries and expect them to help you out when things arent going the way you want any more. I hope we get the help we desperately need. I feel for the soldiers in our two wars that are dying every day as the chickenhawk Rumsfeld tries to prove his theories on new warfare(on the cheap) with the blood of our Armed Forces. I want to do things right. That’s why Bush needs to give up his precious monopoly over Iraq control and share of profits. He needs to go to the U.N., hat in hand, and contritely apologize and give up whatever he needs to to get help. He is never going to get help otherwise, and more of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will suffer and die every day while Bush fundraises and vacations. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/22 "2003-09-08T23:36:32Z")
Yeah, I thought it was hilarious how Bush basically forgave “our friends” (France and Germany) for disagreeing with him and how he gave them this golden opportunity to … agree with him now. Cowboy. He’s making our country look like a pack of arrogant cowboys. “I know you didn’t want us to be here, but that doesn’t matter. It is now your duty to give us your money and your troops and we’ll tell them what to do and decide where the money goes, okay. Good, now shut up and start agreeing.” Arg. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/23 "2003-09-09T00:10:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyuzo \* > Besides, I am of the opinion that the costs will spirial even further without international help. You mean like this ? > [@](#): > > Rebuilding Iraq could cost as much as $75bn (€68bn), even without counting military spending, the White House said on Monday. > The estimate, which came with the Bush administration’s detailed accounting of its request for emergency spending next year of\_ $87bn to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the first time the White House has put a figure on the rebuilding efforts. [Washington says Iraq costs could climb further](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479654915&p=1012571727088) (Financial Times September 8, 2003) The president probably just _forgot_ to mention this picky detail last night. Rather than dotting I’s and crossing t’s, Bush is more into the “big picture” style of leadership. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/24 "2003-09-09T00:58:00Z")
21 billion now for reconstruction is a joke. A very bad joke, at that. We’re in it up to our necks, and what we need now is a leader who will actually lead - you know, level with us about how much it will cost, pick the most competent people on the planet to get the job done, and then get it done. Instead, we’ve got the Shrub. Of course, a leader is what we needed after 9/11 too. Afghan reconstruction ain’t going too well either. And in case you missed it, a piece of this pie is going there, to ratchet up the reconstruction of that country. Of course, we should’ve at least finished that job first. But that would’ve meant actually thinking about what we’re doing to the extent of setting goals and accomplishing them within the limits of our resources and the time we have before our enemies can take advantage of our dilatoriness (if that’s a word) and persuade the people (of Afghanistan and now Iraq) to go over to their side. Sigh. I would give, oh I don’t know, something substantial, just to have a real leader with a brain and a heart in the White House. Just for as long as it takes to clean up this mess. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/25 "2003-09-09T04:08:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chefguy \* > \*\*And now we have the spectacle of the gov’t naming a ship after a mediocre one-term failure of a president. What’s next, the U.S.S. Ashcroft? \*\* “No sir, we’ll be landing on the USS Walter Mondale. It’s a laundry ship. They’ll take you the rest of the way.” /Bart vs. Australia ---
**Author:** ![RobertP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8e8cbc/32.png) [@RobertP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobertP)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/26 "2003-09-09T10:43:00Z")
Makes me laugh… Bush thinks we are helping _quell_ the problems in the Middle East? They don’t look very _quelled_ to me. Oh, and the other thing: _terrorists_ in Iraq? Since when is someone defending their country from foreign invaders considered terrorism? The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan. Why the hell doesn’t someone in the American public wake up to this?? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/27 "2003-09-09T11:44:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobertP \* > \*\*Makes me laugh… Bush thinks we are helping _quell_ the problems in the Middle East? They don’t look very _quelled_ to me. > > Oh, and the other thing: _terrorists_ in Iraq? Since when is someone defending their country from foreign invaders considered terrorism? The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan. > > Why the hell doesn’t someone in the American public wake up to this?? \*\* Too busy watching Joe Millionaire. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/28 "2003-09-09T11:56:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RobertP \* > **…The US is an illegally occupying force in Iraq, with neither a UN mandate or even a real plan…** The United States and Great Britain are recognized as the legitimate authorities in Iraq, by UNSCR 1483. It is endlessly amusing that you UN-fanboys ignore that little fact, as if to show that you are all rah!rah! for the UN, unless it isn’t in your interests to do so. ‘Hypocricy’ comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/29 "2003-09-09T11:57:32Z")
Legitimate or not we are looking like a bunch of asses right now. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/30 "2003-09-09T12:21:44Z")
Before the 2000 election I was posting “Vote Republican … lose all your money.” Boy, was I right. Looks like I’ll be able to make the same point in the 2004 election. Sadly, the media is so deep in Dubya’s lap that even in 2004 I doubt it’ll help. Sheeple or people. The 2004 election will show which one the American people are. Sadly, the smart money is on “sheeple.” Still, I can always hope I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![RobertP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8e8cbc/32.png) [@RobertP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobertP)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/31 "2003-09-09T12:25:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*The United States and Great Britain are recognized as the legitimate authorities in Iraq, by UNSCR 1483. It is endlessly amusing that you UN-fanboys ignore that little fact, as if to show that you are all rah!rah! for the UN, unless it isn’t in your interests to do so. ‘Hypocricy’ comes to mind. \*\* Umm, if I’m not mistaken, UNSCR 1483 came _after_ we took over the sovereign nation formerly known as Iraq. It’s constitutes particularly shameless kissing of American ass by the UN and is a clear contradiction of their earlier opposition to the invasion. Nope, the UN is not immune to my scorn either, but at least they do occasionally try to stand up to the global bullies. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/32 "2003-09-09T12:34:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > **Boy, was I right. Looks like I’ll be able to make the same point in the 2004 election. Sadly, the media is so deep in Dubya’s lap that even in 2004 I doubt it’ll help.** The _media_? Blaime the fools who vote for him in 2004. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/33 "2003-09-09T16:11:13Z")
Enjoy the irony of the President who skipped out on his remaining National Guard duty extending the terms of others in the National Guard and the Reserves to serve in Iraq. Maybe if they come serve on his re-election campaign (and their daddy is the Texas governor) they don’t have to serve their country as well? [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=2&u=/ap/20030909/ap\_on\_go\_ca\_st\_pe/iraq\_us\_military](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=2&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_military) > [@](#): > > The subject of U.S. troop rotations has been a sensitive one in the Iraq campaign, with some active-duty soldiers and their families complaining bitterly about delays in their homecoming. Members of the 3rd Infantry Division, for instance, fought their way to Baghdad in late March and were told they’d be going home, only to remain in Iraq for months afterward because of continuing problems the coalition has encountered in ending the violence there. > > The extended tours may not be any more welcome among guardsmen and reservists, called “citizen soldiers” because they have civilian jobs they must be away from while they serve in the military. Currently there are 181,500 on duty from all services — including some 129,000 in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve — and they are serving overseas as well as on homeland security missions. And for our resident “pulling stuff out of my ass and calling it facts” military _expert_: > [@](#): > > Earlier in the summer, the Pentagon spent weeks struggling to come up with a troop rotation plan because the Army has become so stretched during the Bush presidency, with major commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq in addition to peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo and long-standing deployments in South Korea, Japan, Germany and the Sinai peninsula. > > The Army, the largest of the armed services, has had portions of every major active-duty combat unit committed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, with the exception of the 2nd Infantry Division, which is in Korea. So, if you don’t know what the hell your talking about, you may want to stick with pointless personal insult based drive-bys. :rolleyes: But how could have poor little George known that this would cost so much in American lives and money? Well, maybe read the damn intelligence reports beings sent to him, rather then using Cheney to cook up a bunch bogus WMD and Al Queda ties claims: > [@](#): > > Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies’ reporting was that “Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West,” one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports, according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence, was that the postwar period would be more “problematic” than the war to overthrow Hussein. > > As U.S. military casualties mount and resistance forces wage a campaign of targeted bombings in Iraq, some administration officials have begun to fault the CIA and other intelligence agencies for being overly optimistic and failing to anticipate such widespread and sustained opposition to a U.S. occupation. But several administration and congressional sources interviewed for this article said the opposite occurred. They said senior policymakers at the White House, Pentagon and elsewhere received classified analyses before the war warning about the dangers of the postwar period. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45455-2003Sep8.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45455-2003Sep8.html) Once again the chickenhawks only listened to reports they liked, and did not distract them from their idiotic “pie-in-the-sky” promises regarding Iraq and Afganistatan. Experts: > [@](#): > > However, the prevailing view within intelligence agencies, including the DIA, was that there would be resistance. Officials said this explained the thinking behind Shinseki’s congressional testimony earlier this year. A DIA memo last fall said postwar Iraq would be “highly complex and driven by political and religious factions,” according to one former Pentagon analyst. “They [Defense Intelligence Agency analysts] said it would be hard to keep the lid on and to keep the various areas of the country from falling apart.” Chickenhawks: > [@](#): > > Speaking of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, White said, “Their view of the intelligence was much different. Their notion of it was resistance would run away as the few remaining Saddam loyalists were hunted down.” > > White said on NBC’s “Today” show Thursday that the postwar planning assumptions approved by senior Pentagon civilians were based on U.S. troops being “greeted in the streets by a euphoric public, glad of being rid of Saddam Hussein, and consequently we could very rapidly draw down the force structure.” Gee, guess who was right, _again_. Reactions “lukewarm” to latest “come bail my ass out” speech by Bush. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45485-2003Sep8.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45485-2003Sep8.html) What $87 Billion costs, relatively (not too mention his idiotic and ill-concieved tax cuts): [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.htm](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.htm) Even the horrible (for the most part) Democratic candidates are finally calling Curious George out (not as well as John McCain, of course): > [@](#): > > Yet as the projected federal budget deficit for 2004 exceeds $500 billion, officials have not changed their assessments of the United States’ fiscal health or the White House’s economic plans. Just days before he disclosed his Iraq spending request Sunday, the president demanded that Congress pass hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax cuts. Gee, you think this might be an issue? > [@](#): > > Bush administration officials said yesterday they see no contradiction between pursuing a massive but temporary increase in defense spending and pushing for tax cuts that they believe will revive the moribund job market. > > But Democrats are already planning to exploit what they see as a policy “disconnect” to damage the president politically and secure funds for their domestic priorities, even as they concede they will ultimately fund Bush’s request. > . . . > > “We’re into a guns-and-butter scenario here, and I think it’s appropriate the president has recognized the policy he’s led us into has had far greater consequences than he wanted to present at the outset,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is flirting with a presidential bid next year. “The administration is now going to have to produce a budget that has some realism in it.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45117-2003Sep8.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45117-2003Sep8.html) ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/34 "2003-09-09T16:19:30Z")
For [once](http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1036207,00.html) ([twice](http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1038512,00.html) actually), Steve Bell sums up how I feel on this issue. There’s an even better one from yesterday (not online) - Bush is holding UN toilet paper, saying “wipe my ass”. ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/35 "2003-09-09T16:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **originally posted by smiling bandit** > I have a hard time understanding why all the “compassionate” liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the “evil” conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant. > > Hypocrites, every last one of ya’. In other words, the ends justified the means. :rolleyes: According to [Iraq Body Count](http://www.iraqbodycount.net) the civilian deaths stand at a minimum figure of 6118 which doesn’t include all those left maimed and orphaned. I guess the question is “How many people get to be sacrified for our version of humanitarianism?” Who decideds what an "acceptable amount’ is? It all sounds suspiciously like the rationale of some villianous corporate bean counter who claims that such and such and amount of deaths is balanced by the bottom line. The people killed, many of which were children, were unable to make conformed consent to take the risk. There’s a name for that kind of high-handed unilateral decision making: Imperialism. And there is a name for one-sided utilitarian thinking that ruthlessly applies the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number”: Fascism. You can see how the very idea is almost, by definition a tyranny. Who gets to decide if having that sort of casual attitude towards slaughter, for the “greater good” or not, is actually worse than the problem you are trying to solve? I think for the Iraqi dead the solution was worse than the problem. And we didn’t have the right to make that decision for them. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/36 "2003-09-09T17:04:51Z")
[More “perspective” on the meaning of $87,000,000,000](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.htm) in this budget: Homeland Security: $41.3b Health and Human Services, including $27.7b for NIH: $66.2b Education including $29.5b for K-12 education: $53.1b State Dept and foreign aid: $27.4b Highway and road construction: $29.3b Bush’s proposed tax cuts: $107.3b Something’s gotta give, George. One item really sticks out there, too, doesn’t it? Or do you propose to pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren instead? ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/37 "2003-09-09T17:31:57Z")
Lots of links and reactions to the Bush speech here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47145-2003Sep9.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47145-2003Sep9.html) As well as a discussion the the Bush teams growing fear of Dean. > [@](#): > > Which brings us to how Bush’s big-bucks pitch on Iraq is playing. “Members of Congress said today that President Bush would get the $87 billion he requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, but that he would have to walk through a bit of fire first,” says the New York Times. "Lawmakers said they expected sharp questioning of the request and a renewed debate about the effect on federal spending, taxes and the record-setting deficit. > > “Many members predicted pressure will immediately build on non-defense programs, including the proposal to add a drug benefit to Medicare. Lawmakers noted that the amount requested in this single bill represented a fifth of all money to be spent next year on non-defense programs like education, housing and veterans affairs, many of which are already being squeezed by a deficit that will reach $480 billion.” > > Looks like the White House background briefers were out briefing, according to the Boston Globe: > > “One day after President Bush gave the nation a cautious view of rebuilding efforts in Iraq, senior administration officials for the first time acknowledged that they vastly underestimated the damage to the country’s infrastructure and greatly overestimated the amount of oil revenue that could be used to help rebuild the war-torn country.” > > And the Wall Street Journal finds one fat target: “Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz faces a growing fury among Democrats and some conservatives at the optimistic projections he gave lawmakers just months ago. Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and strong ally of Mr. Bush’s father in the Gulf War, said flatly, ‘Wolfowitz is gone.’” and with regards to Dean: > [@](#): > > Now even some conservatives are saying: watch out. And there’s a Web site called Republicans for Dean. > > The new perspective may be driven in part by Bush’s declining popularity (45 percent, says Zogby) as Iraq turns from glorious victory to albatross. But it also reflects a realization that Howard III is hard to pigeonhole as an unabashed lefty. > > Yes, he was against the war, wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and approved gay civil unions in Vermont. But he also governed as a fiscal conservative, won business support and got high marks from the NRA. The article is huge with lots of cites and links. Take a click! ---
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/38 "2003-09-09T17:45:22Z")
**Lord Ashtar** > [@](#): > > IIRC, Bush was saying that he believes his administration has done a lot to quell the problems in the Middle East. Since many of the countries in the U.N. will benefit from this, he thinks they should pitch in. Isn’t that like your cable company giving you a service you never wanted, needed or asked for, ignoring your pleas to remove it, and charging you up the ying-yang for it? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/39 "2003-09-09T17:52:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cowgirl \* > \*\ ***Lord Ashtar** > > Isn’t that like your cable company giving you a service you never wanted, needed or asked for, ignoring your pleas to remove it, and charging you up the ying-yang for it? \*\* What?!?! You have Cablevision too? ---
**Author:** ![ArrMatey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrmatey/32/3522_2.png) [@ArrMatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArrMatey)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237/40 "2003-09-09T18:04:40Z")
Okay, so am I the only one who’s thinking, “Hrm. Huge spending bill. Unpopular, but politically dangerous not to back at the moment. Let’s see how many other ‘little’ projects get suddenly piggybacked onto this one!”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shakes-head-sigh-bush-what-in-the-hell-are-you-thinking/200237.md?page=3)