I told you.
Excuse me?.. you "told" everyone that we've ALREADY spent $4 Trillion in Iraq. You've stated this over and over again when this subject (unfortunately) comes up.
900 billion dollars is too much for this war, let alone the actual costs which are well over 2 trillion.
Maybe if folks of your ilk had actually taken the threat from Al Qai'da seriously in the late 1990s (and that includes Bush pre 9/11) we'd have avoided $1 TRILLION in economic damage that resulted of a 2 hour attack that took the lives of 3,000 civilians (and could have killed 25,000 had the attack occurred only one hour later when the towers were fully populated).
And that $900 Billion, if anything, PARTIALLY RESTORES the 40% Defense related budget cuts that were part of the Clinton "peace dividend" during the '90s. Thus, if anything, we're back to 1990 level military expenditures, where we were when Saddam invade Kuwait.
Finally, on the topic of Iraq.. We overthrew Saddam and Al Qai'da and it's Salafist/Jihadist sympathizers COUNTER-INVADED in an attempt to seize power there. So far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter where Al Qai'da allied forces are located.. Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan.. etc.. They are our enemies until such time as they decide to cease their Jihadist war against this country. They haven't surrendered to us, so WHY DO YOU WANT TO SURRENDER TO THEM??!!
Now.. Why don't you investigate how much entitlement spending has increased over those same years??
The greatest threat to this nation is rampant and unfettered entitlement spending. When you create an entitlement, you've obligated the national taxpayer to fund that FOREVER (until Congress has the balls to actually rescind it)..
THAT IS WHERE YOUR TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL spending is occurring.
Hawk |
