Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui
One can argue that spending on containing terrorism may be considered vital importance. Even if the argument is that Iraq wasn't a problem and was contained (though Republicans can say plenty of Dems didn't think so at the time either), you can easily say that after taking out Saddam Hussein, a power vacuum developed, which was filled with terrorists, and thus more spending had to be pumped in to continue that fight. Or else you just leave replacing Hussein with a terrorist state.
Furthermore, they may strongly believe in a War on Terrorism to protect outside forces from killing Americans and think that in order to better pay for it, we can't be spending like drunken sailors at home. And spending more domestically will imperil spending on fighting terror abroad.
|
One could say these things, sure, but they amount to a very weak argument.
Let's forget about the money purely on military operations. What about the money squandered in failed or vanished reconstruction projects? What about money shipped over to pay miscellaneous expenses of the Iraqi government that just vanished? What about money for projects later destroyed by Iraqis? What about money that ended up siphoned off to Swiss Bank accounts?
Where were the GOP objections over all of this waste? A waste of money, in the midst of profligate deficit spending, that could have worked wonders at home? Heck, money that, if re-directed to tax relief, could have
really brought down some tax rates?
Quote:
|
After all, the Dems voted in good numbers to invade Iraq. To decide to not fund and pull out after we've gone in and made a mess would have really, really, really been bad for the country and the world.
|
That's not the point. The GOP felt it was A-OK to continue to shovel money into Iraq in an unaccounted-for fashion in some nebulous hope that it would make things all better. Then they turn around and vote against a rigidly defined and accounted-for plan to shovel money into their own country. How, exactly, is this anything but a complete about-face on principles?
But maybe you're right. Maybe the GOP feel/felt that the reconstruction of Iraq was the greatest challenge to face the United States in its history, and required the suspension of any fiscal reality to make it a success, or else the consequences would just be so dire. Judging by their later actions, then, one has to conclude that they feel the reconstruction of the United States is nowhere near as important as that of Iraq.