>I never heard this from the administration. I think they were pretty above-board about it, that is, they simply didn't know what it would cost. The net cost won't be known for years, since there are certain benefits (in the form of expense relief and trade) that will come, as well.
Ummm... right before the war, Wolfowitz said that there was "no history of ethnic strife in Iraq," which was only one of the comments that made me realize that this administration didn't understand what it was getting itself into. There's more of it -- I remember that I was posting a lot on SI at some point before the war and I documented my thinking on the subject pretty well.
>I have no idea what Congress might have done; there were certainly members of Congress who supported the war (Biden, for example) who made some of the points you mentioned. But I surely don't think the cost of a war should be determinative. If it is righteous (and I believe it was, for many reasons) then it is regardless of cost. The same can be said regardless of the number of troops it requires, and to some extent, regardless of the number of lives it takes. Obviously, the last two items are subject to practical and political restraint; but conceptually, if there is something worth fighting over, it is folly to consider the cost of it IMO -- this is more of a Bill Clinton sort of rationale, rather than that of a true leader.
We're going to have to agree to disagree -- I guess that's why I'm a liberal and you're a conservative...
Pistols at twenty paces, instead? ;)
-Z |
