Military Spending.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

President Bush has apparently decided to increase US military spending by $48 billion. FORTY-EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS. $48,000,000,000.

24,000 children die of starvation every day.

2,700 children die of measles every day (which, by the way, is a disease which has been almost entirely eradicated in "developed" countries due to inexpensive vaccination progams)

1100 million people don't have access to clean water.

1200 million people live on less than a dollar a day.

100 million children don't have access to even the most basic education.

Poor countries still pay over $59 million a day to their creditors.


You know...there are enough weapons in this world to destroy it several times over. Why are governments still investing money in this? WHY? WHY do we want to cause destruction? Why spend money on hurting people, killing people, destroying people's homes. WHY? Why can't we spend that money on helping people, on saving lives, on building homes, on providing food, on giving children education, on providing healthcare. WHY NOT?

I know that's a ridiculously simplistic analysis and this whole post is prompted by the fact that I'm watching the news, hearing about $48 billion on military spending and thinking that there has to be an alternative to this, it doesn't have to be like this, it shouldn't be like this. And I hate that it is like this. And that all I'm doing about it is bitching and ranting on an internet message board.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
And that all I'm doing about it is bitching and ranting on an internet message board.

Well, educate yourself when you vote for your representitives for the House and the Senate. Write your rep a letter with these questions, you'd be surprised at how many times people get personal thought out responses.

[melon]

Don't forget that over 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

I think the trouble is definitely on priorities. I understand that we are supposedly fighting a war, but $48 billion is obsessive. It seems like the belief is that the more money you throw at something, somehow the better it is. Where are our fiscal conservatives to call this "wasteful" spending of our tax dollars? Welcome back to Reagan-era military excess. I don't think the Democratic Senate pushed Bush to do this either .

In the meantime, I feel like our own infrastructure is being neglected. It is only too bad that $48 billion didn't get infused into a "war on poverty." Or to help rebuild our neglected cities. Man...just think how money like that would help...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[sulawesigirl4]

Wouldn't John Maynard Keynes be proud?

[Lemonite]

Thanks for the Stats Fizzing.. Always a treat to read.. Let's have a nice list of afghans who have shaved their beard, or women who have had multiple partners after the Taliban was roused out.. yes i did write rouse..

Anyways, It was written that 'We Have enough weapons to destroy the world seven times around'.. or something to that sort.. We're not just making more AK47's or more bombs.. We're in the process of developing a state of the art Defense system that may very likely one day save you, from having a Nuke warhead drop in your beer mug and shatter that nice little cup your kid made for you in first grade.. nevermind your entire body being burned in a fraction of a second..
... Not to mention the cost it takes to disarm our Nukes..

We also do not 'want to cause destruction' .. as was posted... fact is, War is sometimes the only option to make a point, get rid of a horrible situation.. I highly doubt that Bin Laden would be privy to chattin' around a cup of Fecical Latte at the nearest Starbucks... He'd probably be checking out all the scantily clad poem readers anyways..

Priorities you ask?.. Were you watching the news back in September.. Two planes smashed into two towers and terrorism killed 3000 people (Yes I realize.. a bad attempt at sarcasm) ... All of a sudden that's just going to be the priority... It's a shame that it was posted we are 'supposedly' fighting a war.. Here.. I'll send you two hundred dollars to ride the next plane hijacked into the ocean.. or maybe the one hit with the next missile fired by an F-16... Then you'll wish that we had disrupted terrorism in the world.

But it's not the only priority.. What has Bush been pushing with great force especially the past month and a half.. The Economy.. It's jsut that your liberal friends are blocking any attempt at actually helping the economy and helping get people back on their feet with things like 'more unemployment'.. But that's for another thread..

Like I wrote at the top of the post, I'm in the process of looking up more facts, but this thread is at the moment in its infancy I'll assume, with people dropping opinions...


Shitting in my Sink,
L. Unplugged

[speedracer]

I tend towards the conservative side of things. I will say that I think we could perhaps trim a bit off that $48 billion and use it to help repair Afghanistan.

[hippy]

Originally posted by melon:
Don't forget that over 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

I think the trouble is definitely on priorities. I understand that we are supposedly fighting a war, but $48 billion is obsessive. It seems like the belief is that the more money you throw at something, somehow the better it is. Where are our fiscal conservatives to call this "wasteful" spending of our tax dollars? Welcome back to Reagan-era military excess. I don't think the Democratic Senate pushed Bush to do this either .

In the meantime, I feel like our own infrastructure is being neglected. It is only too bad that $48 billion didn't get infused into a "war on poverty." Or to help rebuild our neglected cities. Man...just think how money like that would help...

Melon

Right on Melon! That's what I was gonna point out too. That $48 billion could very well be used to increase the quality of life for all people. *sigh* Too bad I wasn't old enough to vote in this last election.

Speedracer, I definitely like your idea too! I would love to see the United States become an example to the world of the good things that can be done...instead of what it is now.

------------------
And love is not the easy thing...the only baggage you can bring is all that you can't leave behind.

BONO: FOAD, Lawrence. Just FOAD. (LOL, Mona)

Create Light, Create Unity, Create Joy, CREATE PEACE!

[This message has been edited by hippyactress (edited 01-23-2002).]

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by speedracer:
I tend towards the conservative side of things. I will say that I think we could perhaps trim a bit off that $48 billion and use it to help repair Afghanistan.

There's actually a 4.5 billion five year project of aid to Afghanistan... In the First Year alone we're giving 296 Million to Afghanistan.

Ambassadors to Good Will, and Of What Can Be Done, We Truly Are!

Congrats America.

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]

[Anthony]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Wouldn't John Maynard Keynes be proud?

What do you mean, sulawesigirl14?

Ant.

[Lemonite]

Here's The Article in Question..

It answers a lot of speculation that will probably be made without reading what the report actually is....

It was posted above that an alternative for the money would be to improve the quality of life.. How About Maintaining the Quality of Life we Have First.. We ARE at War you realize..
A few more bandages for a civilian aren't going to stop a Box of anthrax from being dropped into one's cereal during breakfast.

Again, In reading it.. I don't know why people are still out there saying Bush is only getting hardon's with just getting his agenda through.. The majority of People just aren't believing it.. It's a tried tactic, but It just doesn't carry weight with this president.. He has character. He cares for America.... He cares for you...

ANyways.. on to the article

L.Unplugged

________________________


Bush Proposes More Defense Spending


By Sonya Ross
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 23, 2002; 6:20 PM

WASHINGTON �� President Bush on Wednesday proposed the biggest increase in military spending in 20 years, nearly $50 billion more next year, and said America "will not cut corners" in the war against terrorism.

He pledged he would not seek political advantage from that war.

The president outlined the military part of his fiscal 2003 budget proposal in a luncheon speech before the Reserve Officers Association. He said his highest budget priority is twofold � the military abroad and safety at home � even though that will create financial strain for the federal government.

"I have a responsibility to prepare the nation for all that lies ahead," Bush said. "There will be no room for misunderstanding. The most basic commitment of our government will be the security of our country."

Bush spoke a few hours after a closed-door session with House and Senate leaders at the White House, in which he gave an update on the anti-terrorism effort and told the lawmakers, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue. There is no daylight between the executive and the legislative branches."

According to congressional and White House sources who related the scene to The Associated Press, Bush's pledge drew no response. Among those present was Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who incensed Democrats last week when he told a GOP conference that the Republican Party is better suited for carrying out the war on terrorism.

A senior White House official said Wednesday that Rove was reflecting on the viewpoint of partisan and independent pollsters � that Republicans are considered stronger on national security than Democrats. The Democrats turned the speech into a political issue by accusing him of politicizing the war, the official said.

If approved by the House and Senate, the $48 billion would be the largest increase in military spending since President Reagan held office two decades ago. Bush said the extra money would go toward missile defense, pay increases for service personnel and acquisition of precision weaponry, unmanned vehicles and high-tech equipment.

On Capitol Hill, some Democrats greeted Bush's plan with skepticism. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, defense chairman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said lawmamber of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said he believes Congress ultimately will support Bush. "Clearly the people of the United States understand the terrorist threat poised at this nation, and will accept and indeed applaud the president's initiative," Warner said.

Bush said the $2 trillion budget he will submit to Congress next month will devote $380 billion to the Pentagon, an increase of $48 billion. That includes a $10 billion "war reserve" for active military operations overseas, said White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels.

Bush's budget will project deficits of $106 billion for this year and $80 billion for the 2003 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, Daniels said. He said Bush anticipates a return to surpluses in 2005, with $61 billion in black ink.

Bush said that acquiring more modern weaponry may strain the budget, but "we will not cut corners when it comes to the defense of our great land."

"The tools of modern warfare are effective, they are expensive. But in order to win this war against terror, they are essential," Bush said.

Retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, national security spokesman under President Clinton, agreed that it is necessary to increase defense spending, given the operations in Afghanistan. But he said that Bush may run into problems sustaining high funding levels over time.

"Defense spending works most effectively when there are steady increases that allow the military to plan," Crowley said. "Given that we have seen surpluses change to deficits, if this defense program ends up going in fits and starts ... we'll spend a lot of money but not translate that into increased military capability."

For the budget year beginning on Oct. 1, Bush also is expected to substantially increase the amount allotted for homeland security, currently at $13 billion. He said Wednesday that he wants to put forth a "sustained strategy" that calls for hiring 30,000 airport security workers and 300 extra FBI agents, buying new equipment to improve mail safety, expanding bioterrorism research and upgrading public health labs nationwide.

"We'll ensure that state and local firemen and police and rescue workers are prepared for terrorism. And we will do more to secure our borders," Bush said. "In order to make sure we're safe in the long run, we must find the terrorists wherever they think they can hide and, as I like to say, get 'em."




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by Anthony:
What do you mean, sulawesigirl14?

Ant.

Oh, not a whole lot. Just thinking outloud. Random thoughts like...government spending boosting the economy...Keynesian economics...The Great Depression...World War II. See, told you it was sketchy. lol. Pay me no mind.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
There's actually a 4.5 billion five year project of aid to Afghanistan... In the First Year alone we're giving 296 Million to Afghanistan.

Ambassadors to Good Will, and Of What Can Be Done, We Truly Are!

Congrats America.

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]

I think the UN requested $15 billion over the next 5 years. Some countries, like the US, haven't yet committed anything beyond this year--I think the US isn't allowed to do so (?)

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-23-2002).]

[Knute Rockne]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Thanks for the Stats Fizzing.. Always a treat to read.. Let's have a nice list of afghans who have shaved their beard, or women who have had multiple partners after the Taliban was roused out.. yes i did write rouse..

Anyways, It was written that 'We Have enough weapons to destroy the world seven times around'.. or something to that sort.. We're not just making more AK47's or more bombs.. We're in the process of developing a state of the art Defense system that may very likely one day save you, from having a Nuke warhead drop in your beer mug and shatter that nice little cup your kid made for you in first grade.. nevermind your entire body being burned in a fraction of a second..
... Not to mention the cost it takes to disarm our Nukes..

We also do not 'want to cause destruction' .. as was posted... fact is, War is sometimes the only option to make a point, get rid of a horrible situation.. I highly doubt that Bin Laden would be privy to chattin' around a cup of Fecical Latte at the nearest Starbucks... He'd probably be checking out all the scantily clad poem readers anyways..

Priorities you ask?.. Were you watching the news back in September.. Two planes smashed into two towers and terrorism killed 3000 people (Yes I realize.. a bad attempt at sarcasm) ... All of a sudden that's just going to be the priority... It's a shame that it was posted we are 'supposedly' fighting a war.. Here.. I'll send you two hundred dollars to ride the next plane hijacked into the ocean.. or maybe the one hit with the next missile fired by an F-16... Then you'll wish that we had disrupted terrorism in the world.

But it's not the only priority.. What has Bush been pushing with great force especially the past month and a half.. The Economy.. It's jsut that your liberal friends are blocking any attempt at actually helping the economy and helping get people back on their feet with things like 'more unemployment'.. But that's for another thread..

Like I wrote at the top of the post, I'm in the process of looking up more facts, but this thread is at the moment in its infancy I'll assume, with people dropping opinions...


Shitting in my Sink,
L. Unplugged

What the domer said.

-Knute

[pax]

Here.. I'll send you two hundred dollars to ride the next plane hijacked into the ocean.. or maybe the one hit with the next missile fired by an F-16... Then you'll wish that we had disrupted terrorism in the world.

Was that not a bit uncalled for?

[melon]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Priorities you ask?.. Were you watching the news back in September..

A missile shield, if in place, would not have prevented this. Here we are spending all this money on "technology," when the terrorists are fighting a low-tech war. $48 billion in new missiles and toys aren't going to prevent someone from going in and setting off a small tactical nuclear device ("dirty bomb") in the middle of Times Square. $48 billion in new missiles and toys aren't going to prevent someone from putting plastique in his shoe and trying to blow up a commercial airliner in the middle of the sky.

Bush himself even stated that this is a new kind of war, and, yet, we are playing it by the same old rules. This, my friends, is simply a placebo; that by throwing $48 billion into military spending, it looks like we are doing something. Amass enough arms and somehow it will go away on its own.

And, Lemonite, your posts are the most incoherent posts I have ever read. Our "liberal friends" are trying to help the economy, but they don't think that just handing out tax cuts for big business are going to help those who are unemployed, considering that 30 out of the Fortune 500 paid no taxes anyway. Didn't Bush hand out a $1.8 trillion tax cut before that? I trained monkey can hand out tax cuts; a president should have more ideas.

And, yet, Bush has been spending worse than a so-called "liberal." $100 billion for New York. A few hundred billion for the airline industries. $200 billion in new fighter jets. $48 billion in increased military spending. Add that to $1.8 trillion less to work with and a recession that will bring in less tax money, not to mention the costs of running the country domestically. Or did we forget that he is the President of the United States, rather than just the Commander-in-Chief? Considering that paying off Reagan's amassed debt takes up 13% of our yearly budget (yes, even the government has to pay it's debts sometime), I will hate to see how much Dubya's debt combined will cost us. I wouldn't be surprised if it will eventually take up 25% of our budget by the end. How fiscally conservative of him...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

It's never been said that a missile defense system would have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening... That is something that has been in Bush's agenda since before he was president.. This Military spending should be no surprise to anyone.. It was known we were going to pursue this, and it was known that it would cost a lot.. That's all.

I've enclosed a portion of the article that I posted above again to specifically address Money that is going to fighting this 'New Kind Of War' that Bush Has referred to.
_________________
For the budget year beginning on Oct. 1, Bush also is expected to substantially increase the amount allotted for homeland security, currently at $13 billion. He said Wednesday that he wants to put forth a "sustained strategy" that calls for hiring 30,000 airport security workers and 300 extra FBI agents, buying new equipment to improve mail safety, expanding bioterrorism research and upgrading public health labs nationwide.

"We'll ensure that state and local firemen and police and rescue workers are prepared for terrorism. And we will do more to secure our borders," Bush said. "In order to make sure we're safe in the long run, we must find the terrorists wherever they think they can hide and, as I like to say, get 'em."
_________________________


It's sad to see that Bush is now being criticized for being compassionate and working to get the country back in order.. which the liberals have ripped him.. or republicans in general for not being... Giving 100 Billion to New York.. That is something any president would have done, It's shameful to think that this is now something liberals can use to 'Label our President' as spending all our money away. That inclusion in a post above was sad as a patriotic and caring American to see...

The same goes for the Money given to the Airline industry... There would have been something wrong if there was no money allocated to the airlines.. It follows the same policy given to Farmers (I'm assuming you know the policy with the farming industry).. You do like corn don't you? Hahaha.. what a horrible joke

I'll post an article right under this Illustrating what is happening in the Economy issue at the moment..

But I will quickly address the issue that people are ranting over how Bush is Destroying the SUrplus.. Actually, There's a projected Surplus in an independent report that comes out every year, of some wheres on the odds of 1.6 trillion in the future, down from the initial 3.8 trillion.. BUT IT's STILL A SURPLUS. (I don't have the article on hand, but I'm sure the majority of ya'll already have read this).

______ Here's a little snippet of it just in case_____ "From 2002 through 2011, the CBO projected that the surplus would be $1.6 trillion..."

Greenspan just reported that he forsees the country coming out of the recession soon. News enough that Bush's plan is working.. But again, just wait and see.. the economy will come back.




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-24-2002).]

[Lemonite]

Here's an article to Digest on the Economy Issue.. I'm sure in time there'll be an appropriate thread for the economy issues.. BUt for now.. THis'll work.

L. Unplugged


______________________
EIB:

Tom Daschle has blinked, ever so slightly, on the stimulus package. He's written President Bush a letter proposing to stop obstructing plans for economic growth. He's promised to stop trying to drag out the recession. He's promised to stop trying to pass out unemployment checks, so people are kept stuck at home. He's promised to start helping Americans get jobs, which is what they really want.
Of course, Daschle didn't say these things in this way, but that's what he has to mean when he says he wants a non-partisan stimulus bill. This is not a sincere effort. In fact, the more he speaks, the more Daschle proves he's not really up to leading a party, or a country, or running a 7-Eleven, much less running the Senate or for the presidency.

The Daschle letter's four provisions don't consist of an economic stimulus bill for Americans and the economy. They consist of an economic stimulus bill for the Democratic Party. We replayed our famous "Don't Shop, Don't Spend" PSA to demonstrate how much the Democrats want the American people to sit on their hands, and not get us out of this economic slump.

These four points prove what we so brilliantly illustrated in that PSA. Here are the points: First, extension of the 26-week unemployment benefit by another 13 weeks. Remember, you'll never roll that back. It will have to be that long forever. This is great for Democrats, because it keeps more people from looking for work.
Second, payroll tax rebates. Now, cutting the payroll tax will do nothing to reduce income tax rates, which are the key to an economic stimulus. That's where the real money is, after all. We know the small percentage of Americans that are paying the lion's share of taxes. This graph illustrates that brilliantly. And, by the way, if you cut payroll taxes like Social Security taxes, doesn't that "cut" the amount of money going into the so-called Social Security trust fund?

Third, allowing businesses to accelerate tax deductions for equipment and money to help states. Fourth, money to help states pay off budget deficits. Notice that the whole Daschle idea here is heavy on more government spending. It's heavy on taking money, by force, from the taxpayers of America and spreading it around. It's heavy on asking us to work more hours, days and weeks as slaves for the government. That's how you have to look at these things.

This is why Daschle wants to delay your tax refund, which is what the Bush tax cut was. The surplus represented over taxation. It represented the government taking more money from us than it needed to run - and Bush sent a tiny portion of that overpayment back. The American people understand that, and so do the people in South Dakota. He's had to buy radio and TV commercials to defend himself from issue ads by the Club of Growth. All this tells you why Daschle is blinking, and trying to look like he's coming to the table - even though he's really not.

There's a Picture also in teh article, but I dont' know how to post it.. But it is picturing the portion that specific brackets of Income .. the portion of income taxes they pay.

47.5% is payed by 200 K +
23.6% is payed by 100-200 K
11.8% is payed by 75-100 K
11.1% is payed by 50-75 K
7.6 % is payed by 20-50 K

[melon]

You know, I wouldn't honestly even be slagging Dubya on his increased military spending had it not been for his $1.8 trillion tax cut he made prior to it. Say "hello" to increased military spending. Say "goodbye" to such things as Social Security solvency. Not only was it irresponsible to project that we'd maintain the same Clinton-era prosperity for another decade, but I don't know of any business that would reduce its income before paying off most of its debts. If you maxed out your credit cards, would you try and pay them off or buy a $1 million car on credit? But, as usual, that's government for you.

Lemonite, hold off on the histrionics. The point of itemizing the hundreds of billions he has spent since Sept. 11th was to point out the irresponsibility of his tax cut, which gave little room for emergencies or a change in the economy. You talk of "overtaxation," but we have to make up for the "overspending" of past presidents. 13% of our national budget is dedicated to paying off the debt, and that barely made a dent. Handing out $1.8 trillion isn't going to fix that. Once our debt is paid off, then we should be talking about tax cuts.

BTW, I don't know where you got your "surplus" figures, but even the Bush Administration is projecting a $100 billion deficit for 2002 and an $80 billion deficit for 2003.

STING, I realize the necessity for military improvement, but I only wish we would put the same emphasis on domestic improvements. Where is Bush rallying for a $48 billion increase to see that everyone has health insurance? No, to hell with that. We've got "terrorists" to chase world-wide...whomever that may be.

And, on the debt, Reagan went into office with a $200 billion debt and left with a several trillion debt. Adjusted for inflation? But we've been told for 20 years that there hasn't been much inflation...so what is it?

I would accept this $48 billion increase only if I knew it would be temporary. But I doubt it. Why I bitch is that this cycle of drastic tax cuts and drastic spending increases is irresponsible. Contrary to what people believe, I am very much in favor of fiscal conservatism. It is only too bad that no president has actually done it.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:

BTW, I don't know where you got your "surplus" figures, but even the Bush Administration is projecting a $100 billion deficit for 2002 and an $80 billion deficit for 2003.

Maybe you got lost in my post.. The surplus that I was talking about was projected by an independent organization that yearly does 10 year projections...

It projects that by 2011 there would be the 1.6 trillion surplus that I referenced.. though that surplus would not start to become manifested until the latter half of the decade... Hence the deficits in the first two or three years or so...

But The whole reason the surplus is down as far as it is, is due to the Terrorist Recession.. It's not cuz of the tax cut.. there's only been something like 50 billion that has been dropped for the tax cut.. I'll look for an article on this... But the reason the economy is not as good as it should be at the moment is because of the attacks.. Not the tax cuts.

L. Unplugged




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-29-2002).]

[wolfwill23]

Melon,
The September attacks cost $500,000. And yes, a defense shield would have done dick to stop those planes. However, let me paint a scenario for you. China, as we speak, is working its ass off to point missles at the US. Iran and Iraq also can't wait to be able to point nukes at us. That's what the shield is for. Now, no matter how much you hate America's politics, it would be bad for the whole world if one of those rougue countries was able to fire a nuke at us. It's possible that it could even mean the end of civilization.

And please, don't tell that the 9/11 attacks happened because of the way the US handles its foreign policy. I don't completely agree with everything our government does. However, it seems like some people are making the killers out to be the victims here, not the innocent people laying under 220 stories of rubble right now.