tieguy said:
The litmus test on the spending issue should be what if there had been no 9/11 , no war and no need to reorganize and improve our national security.
Keep in mind that the democrats supported the war and demanded the improvements in national security when it was politically advantageous to do so.
I agree that the war in Afghanastan added to our expense. However, it does not come close to explaining the increase in expenses under Bush. Bush has spent a considerable amount on domestic expense (The Alaska Bridge to Nowhere, Prescirption Drug Program, Aid to Africa and so on). The prescription drug program especially has cost, and will continue to cost significant amount of money in the future. The initial estimae to the CBO was about half a trillion dollars...and this this increased significantly since the estimate was made in 2004 to over 1.2 Trillion dollars when studied again in 2005. You may recall that many Republican lawmakers were stunned and expressed anger at this cost. There is no fiscal discipline and we may pay a heavy price in the future for the lack of discipline.
I, for one, opposed the Iraq war. Although we could debate this point, I believe that many democrat leaders opposed the war and passed the initial resolution with the hope that it could be used to bully the Iraq government into compliance with the UN sanctions. There were few democrats who were enthusiiastic about a war. I don't believe we can speak to other's position. We can state with certainty that it was Bush who made the decision to go to war and he has full responsibility for that action. I can say that I opposed the war from the start. I will explain my position.
I supported the war in Vietnam. I was young, draft age and I thought it was a good idea. Like many people, I think I got caught up in the enthusiasm. It was interesting because I think that everyone thought that war would be won easily...and hence weren't making serious judgements about the decision. As the war went on, it became clear that it wouldn't be an easy win. It wouldn't be an easy demonstration of US power that would cower our adversaries. It was difficult. It would cost a great deal..both in money in lives. As the cost became clear people abandoned their support for the war. To be frank, my opinion, then and now, is that as long as someone else's son was going to die it was a war worth fighting. But when it becamse their friends or family in harms way, a different standard was applied. Protests started and people did not support the war. As long as it was someone else's son, the war was worth fighting. When it was them in harm's way, it was a differnent matter. I think the term chcken hawk originated then, and it aptly describes those folks who drew the line at their own door.
That expereince made me start to evaluate wars and conflicts differently. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning because I didn't think it was worth our troops lives. I don't think that the American public's early support was well considered. I think, just like Vietnam, the public evaluated this as a fireworks show (shock and awe) and not a serious, life threatening event.
In retrospect, we found no WMD and the war has diminished, instead of enhancing our national security on many levels. That is from someone who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. What I did learn from the Vietnam experience is that these decisions have got to be made early...before anyone loses their life...because it's wrong to delay serious consideration of a potential war just because it's someone else in harms way.
