Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party's Blog

Bush Downplays the Defense Dollars

Posted by Matt Ortega on April 10, 2008 at 02:40 PM

Adam Blickstein, blogging at Democracy Arsenal for the National Security Network, commented on the President's speech about defense spending this morning.

Bush just stated in his speech that spending on defense as a percentage of the U.S. economy was around 4 percent, and cited that this is historically low as compared to World War Two and Vietnam. That is true, but unfortunately doesn't account for current American spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, funded mainly through the "off-budget" emergency supplementals that hide the true costs.

According to the New York Times, defense and war spending combined are about 6.2 percent of GDP, more than double spending eight years ago.

Comments (2) «

But the money Congress gave to WWII and Vietnam was largely audit-able. But we cannot trace the emergency funding Congress has given Bush for the Illegal Invasion and Occupation in Iraq.

Despite the insanity of the Vietnam involvement, and the nastiness of the Gulf of Tonkin and Bombing of Cambodia -- Congress still participated.

But the Iraq Tragedy is a total scam, an illegal war that the houses of Congress have not had the will to undo!

Let's get real here!

We can end our complicity in the Bush crimes if we can reject the Bush Gang's use of language!

Let's discuss the use of the word 'war'...

In a sane world based on laws and international compliance, Bush has never conducted a 'war' in Iraq, but rather an 'illegal war' -- making Bush not a 'war president' but rather an 'illegal war president'!

For four years I've blogged on this misuse of the word 'war' by Usurper Bush and his minions, and I want so much for everybody to get on this and reject this word war, or, for that matter, ANY vocabulary the Bush Gang foists on us. The Bush Gang has never used language as a means to truthful communication. Instead the Bush Gang has always used language for propaganda ONLY. They are not creative about this, by the way; they are merely copycatting the precedent set by the Roman Empire (which used propaganda to kill the Roman Republic) all the way to the twisting of language beyond recognition by current word thugs like Newt Gingrich et al, thus making any navigation in our American politics and government like a part in an Alice in Wonderland nonsense verse.

The Bush Gang uses words lawlessly -- that is, they totally disregard words' actual definitions, whether via a dictionary or the words' legal meaning in a world made sane by THE WORD OF LAW that encompasses LEGAL DEFINITIONS.

The job of governments (which are legal entities) is to use LEGAL TERMINOLOGY in all dealings internationally. Usurper Bush and his Gang prove they represent a ROGUE GOVERNMENT because they REFUSE to use LEGAL TERMINOLOGY!!!

There was NEVER a 'war' in Iraq; there was an 'illegal war'. Usurper Bush conducted an illegal invasion (doesn't "Shock and Awe" equal "Blitzkreig"?) and now Usurper Bush continues an 'illegal occupation'. All acts of the Rogue Bush Government are EXTRA-LEGAL and always have been.

As long as people fall for this word 'war', Bush will continue to use it in an attempt to give legitimacy to his illegal invasion of Iraq, his use of torture and domestic spying, and the unending Iraq/security funding he extracts from Congress for his uncounted money laudering schemes.

We all need to stop using the 'war' word, too. It's 'illegal war'!

This torture think is more of the same. Bush would have us believe the word 'torture' is synonymous with the word 'interrogation'. Reject the Bush Gang's twisted jargon!

P.S. The U.S. -- as a nation of citizens -- will NEVER be able to retake its place in the world of laws unless we make clear that the Bush Administration conducted a ROGUE Administration and that we REJECT the schemes, trickery of Congress, and crimes Bush and his minions conducted in the eight years of his improper regime!

1
nora on April 10, 2008 at 06:28 PM

Since the Neocons, reactionaries that they are, looked to the ancient Roman Empire for inspiration, we should look deeply at how the end of the Roman Republic has meaning for them!

The Neocons continue to expect to make the 21st Century an age of 'Pax Americana'. [Indeed, the so-called American Embassy is STILL being worked on in Iraq with nary a protest from Congress and the two Dem presidential hopefuls.] The Neocons coined this phrase from the term "Pax Romana". The "Pax Romana" was the Roman Empire's belief that they instituted an era of peace (pax) after the ascent of the Caesars (dictators) after the Roman Republic was extinguished (in 42 BC if one considers the Battle of Philippi (defeat of Brutus and Cassius) as the determining event, or 31 BC (the defeat of Cleopatra and Mark Antony) if one considers Octavius' ascention the determining moment of the Roman Republic's last gasp).

Note the precursor event to the Pax Romana: The Roman REPUBLIC was EXTINGUISHED and replaced with dictatorship!

What do you think is happening RIGHT NOW to the U.S.A. under the Bush Administration?

We often hear that the Roman Republic died in a civil war: those loving the Roman Republic pitted their lives against those, like Julius Caesar and Octavian, who sought to become UNITARY EXECUTIVES Roman-style. Actually, if certain Roman senators and lovers of the Republic had not made the hard choice to oppose the dictators, Julius Caesar would have accomplished his take-over via treachery and propaganda alone, plunging the republic into the deep sleep of death one dose of sleeping potion at a time. But there was opposition to seeing the Republic die after about 500 years, so the death of the Republic did occur on the battlefield of Philippi (or the waters at Actium where Cleopatra and Antony were defeated). My point being: frontman Bush is accomplishing the end of the American Republic as Julius Caesar would have, via conniving theft and propaganda and ripping off the republic's treasury alone, if lovers of the Roman Republic had been as cowardly and/or complicit as our 'representatives' are today!

We must learn from history.

P.S. The Pax Romana sounds to me to have been mere propaganda. The Roman Empire was a ruthless imperialist force that continued to extract tribute from conquest and to control its own people via force, and the only peace was that DICTATED by its Emperor-dictators. A "Pax Americana" is more of the same propaganda dusted off to once again be used to camouflage the death of a Republic and the rise of unchallenged despotism!

2
nora on April 10, 2008 at 06:39 PM


« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.