Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

That's the old "no innauguration ceremony during wars rule." The utter fiend!

You guys are just mad because you weren't invited.

Brandon9000
As a Bush lemming you won't understand this however there such a thing as respect and empathy. The question is not whether Bush should have his day in the sun but rather whether based on the tragedy that he has caused it should be an opulent and obscene affair. Maybe it should be used to give aid to the American servicepeople and their families that are being shortchanged.

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
As a Bush lemming you won't understand this however there such a thing as respect and empathy. The question is not whether Bush should have his day in the sun but rather whether based on the tragedy that he has caused it should be an opulent and obscene affair. Maybe it should be used to give aid to the American servicepeople and their families that are being shortchanged.

1. Your use of the word lemming assumes facts not in evidence. I am not merely following Bush, I am supporting him because he does things I already wanted before he arrived on the scene.
2. Bush did not cause a tragedy to any greater extent than any other president who has fought a war. Indeed, he started the war as part of a program to avert a tragedy incalculably larger and worse than the war in Iraq, specifically WMD events in American or allied cities. You, of course, never see that side of the equation.3. The fact that someone is sufferring somewhere does not mean that no one may enjoy themselves anywhere, particularly if the latter are donating large sums of money to aid the former.

Go right ahead and waste all of your time magnifying Bush's real and imaginary faults so that my side can continue to trounce yours in elections.

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
As a Bush lemming you won't understand this however there such a thing as respect and empathy. The question is not whether Bush should have his day in the sun but rather whether based on the tragedy that he has caused it should be an opulent and obscene affair. Maybe it should be used to give aid to the American servicepeople and their families that are being shortchanged.

1. Your use of the word lemming assumes facts not in evidence. I am not merely following Bush, I am supporting him because he does things I already wanted before he arrived on the scene.
2. Bush did not cause a tragedy to any greater extent than any other president who has fought a war. Indeed, he started the war as part of a program to avert a tragedy incalculably larger and worse than the war in Iraq, specifically WMD events in American or allied cities. You, of course, never see that side of the equation.3. The fact that someone is sufferring somewhere does not mean that no one may enjoy themselves anywhere, particularly if the latter are donating large sums of money to aid the former.

Go right ahead and waste all of your time magnifying Bush's real and imaginary faults so that my side can continue to trounce yours in elections.

Oh we see it, we just don't believe it, just as you see but don't believe that it is an oil profit, real estate grab, keep 'em pissing their pants in fear and remain in power exercise disguised as a war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
As a Bush lemming you won't understand this however there such a thing as respect and empathy. The question is not whether Bush should have his day in the sun but rather whether based on the tragedy that he has caused it should be an opulent and obscene affair. Maybe it should be used to give aid to the American servicepeople and their families that are being shortchanged.

1. Your use of the word lemming assumes facts not in evidence. I am not merely following Bush, I am supporting him because he does things I already wanted before he arrived on the scene.
2. Bush did not cause a tragedy to any greater extent than any other president who has fought a war. Indeed, he started the war as part of a program to avert a tragedy incalculably larger and worse than the war in Iraq, specifically WMD events in American or allied cities. You, of course, never see that side of the equation.3. The fact that someone is sufferring somewhere does not mean that no one may enjoy themselves anywhere, particularly if the latter are donating large sums of money to aid the former.

Go right ahead and waste all of your time magnifying Bush's real and imaginary faults so that my side can continue to trounce yours in elections.

Oh we see it, we just don't believe it, just as you see but don't believe that it is an oil profit, real estate grab, keep 'em pissing their pants in fear and remain in power exercise disguised as a war.

But, not going to war to assure your own safety didn't seem to work too well for a number of countries in 1939. But we shouldn't bring that up since that does not support the point you wish to make. Ah well.......

Going to war to assure your own safety seems counterintuitive.

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses
Other Security Projects Would Lose $11.9 Million
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page A04

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's office released the letter yesterday.

Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said.

"We want to make this the best possible event, but not at the expense of D.C. taxpayers and other homeland security priorities," said Gregory M. McCarthy, the mayor's deputy chief of staff. "This is the first time there hasn't been a direct appropriation for the inauguration."

A spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which oversees the District, agreed with the mayor's stance. He called the Bush administration's position "simply not acceptable."

"It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind. How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?" said Davis spokesman David Marin.

The region has earmarked federal homeland security funds for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers. [..]

The $17.3 million the city expects to spend on this inauguration marks a sharp increase from the $8 million it incurred for Bush's first. [..]