0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions' - Edit 1
Before modification by Isaac at 27/05/2010 08:39:54 PM
Obviously, this is a bit of a challenge since Wotmania is no more, but to refresh your memory, I stopped supporting Bush in 2003 when he pushed through that financial disaster called Medicare Part D.....FLUSH goes our money.
so you stopped supporting him on November of 2003 when Medicare Part D was passed but not in March 2003 when he invaded Iraq and started this unnecessary and EXPENSIVE war in Iraq that we cant ever get out of and is burning billions in tax dollars as we speak? nice.
Um, ask them before Obama took office though....
I for one have not seen any figure that doesn't do things like include our normal military operating costs that puts the price tag for Iraq at even a trillion dollars, most reliable figures have it at about 700 billion to date and likely to cost 1 trillion tops when all is said and done, adjusting for inflation WWII cost us about 5 trillion dollars, Vietnam just under a trillion, and the Korean War 1.5 trillion - not including the continued price of leaving multiple divisions there for 60 years.
I'm not fond of a lot of the deficit spending under Bush but don't tack it up to the war, nor act like that money was unjustly spent. More than half the dems voted for the invasion, and have voted for the funding. This war has not been that expensive nor has it's funding been a controversial fight between the GOP and the Dems, the latter of whom continued funding it once they gained power in '06 - need I remind you that they have had control of congress for half the time this war has been going on and racking up its tab? Don't blame our deficit woes on the war, when the deficit is well over a trillion and the annual spending is in the trillions, the hundred trillion or so we're spending specifically on Iraq each year is not the primary source of our deficit woes.