Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

As the world's technology advances, and things once difficult to construct become less difficult, the real prospect of a WMD being used in a populated area and killing and wounding millions all at once is more than sufficient to cause justifiable fear.

I find the whole premise of this thread rather silly. Yes, the US government, like any other, should give all it can; yes, President Bush, being a very rich man, should give all he can; neither means there can't still also be an inauguration. There will be, there would be.

What strikes me though is that noones remarked on what does seem the real outrage, to me - this one:

Quote:

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. [..]

I guess I'm a simpleton, perhaps infinately naive, but I do believe there exists such a thing as peaceful coexistence.

And that has what to do with invading Iraq?

If merely the desire to see America go to hell and the possibility of obtaining the technology to do it is cause for fear and pre emptive war then why are we only at war with Iraq? How about N Korea? How about China? How about France for that matter?

If countries that have demonstrated their willingness to drop nukes on others and bomb the **** out of others and invade others at the drop of a hat and have the technology and desire to use it need to be eliminated then maybe we better commit mass suicide here at home...because we are one of the largest purveyors of it. We kill everything that f*#king moves whenever we decide to .

Brandon9000
Your reasoning is beyond reason. We should take out those nations that we think are attempting to develop WMD's and forget about those that already have them. I guess those that have them, their bombs do not kill. Iran based on your formula must be invaded ASAP. There is little doubt that they despite denials are well on the way toward the developing a nuclear capability. As for chemical and biological weapons almost anyone that wants to can develop that capability.
It is as if you had ten guys pointing pistols at you and you take out the one that has no bullets.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As the world's technology advances, and things once difficult to construct become less difficult, the real prospect of a WMD being used in a populated area and killing and wounding millions all at once is more than sufficient to cause justifiable fear.

I guess I'm a simpleton, perhaps infinately naive, but I do believe there exists such a thing as peaceful coexistence.
Bush doesn't seem to have an ounce of compassion in his conservatism, contrary to his ability to state this fact straight faced.

I do firmly believe there are peaceful resolutions to these grand conflicts, but normally, it's self-interest that propels a nation into these perilous situations, not a deeper sense of altruism or concern for the global community.

So Brandon I suppose what you're saying is that the people who are already loaded with WMD's are sort of grandfathered in?

It's like the mafia, they've closed the books to new members?

And in the name of keeping the peace we may have to kill you?

I get it now.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

So Brandon I suppose what you're saying is that the people who are already loaded with WMD's are sort of grandfathered in?

It's like the mafia, they've closed the books to new members?

And in the name of keeping the peace we may have to kill you?

I get it now.

You don't appear to get much of anything. I am saying that it is not practically possible to attack someone who has the power to kill millions in the first moments of the conflict. This is self-evident.

Brandon9000
Your reasoning is beyond reason. We should take out those nations that we think are attempting to develop WMD's and forget about those that already have them. I guess those that have them, their bombs do not kill. Iran based on your formula must be invaded ASAP. There is little doubt that they despite denials are well on the way toward the developing a nuclear capability. As for chemical and biological weapons almost anyone that wants to can develop that capability.
It is as if you had ten guys pointing pistols at you and you take out the one that has no bullets.

Quote:

I guess I'm a simpleton, perhaps infinately naive, but I do believe there exists such a thing as peaceful coexistence.

I guess that's true ...

How do you suggest we achieve peaceful coexistence with terrorists? They tend to like to disturb the peace with truck bombs and by flying airliners into skyscrapers.

Brandon9000

Unless we find a way to live in harmony with of the world. I do not mean only the US but, all the nations of the world. Or if we reach the point of detante as in the cold war which is more realistic. Someday the inevitable will happen and there is very little we can do about it. Bombing the $hit out of nations we do not like will solve not a thing.

I am saying that there will be cases where some group's possession of WMD would appear to possess a clear and present danger of their use. Groups of this type must be dissuaded even by force, if necessary, from obtaining them. Iran probably does pose such a danger of the use of WMD in American cities, although I think that there is still some potential to get them to stop through negotiation.

So maybe instead of walking around grabbing our big dicks and bragging about what bad mother f*#kers we are we would be better off using our heads and intelligence ( you may want to look that one up) and preventing attacks by paying attention to intel and better yet behave differently and less arrogantly. In a dangerous world, good manners are your best defense IMO.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am saying that there will be cases where some group's possession of WMD would appear to possess a clear and present danger of their use. Groups of this type must be dissuaded even by force, if necessary, from obtaining them. Iran probably does pose such a danger of the use of WMD in American cities, although I think that there is still some potential to get them to stop through negotiation.

I guess it's tough to see what the rest of the world thinks about the US as the World Policing Agency through your red-white-and-blue glasses.