Has Bush not claimed that Iraq is part of the 'War on terror', though (I think that is a mistake, myself)?
How is the cost of the 'war on terror' calculated? Afghanistan, I guess, plus aid to Pakistan, etc. Homeland security spending? I've no idea and, as MstrG alludes to, there will be disagreement between the administration and some others as to what expenses actually do belong in the 'war on terror' column.
In political terms, the Republicans benefit from the blending of the two (since Bush scores so much higher on his ability to fight the war on terror, while Iraq is looked on less favorably). It has been the Democrats' strategy to keep them as separate as possible, until the unfortunate speech made by Kerry a few days ago (see my sig).
quote:Originally posted by MstrG damn that "Iraq" != "War on Terror" thing
That was the only real cost that was much disputed (i.e. nobody said, that I recall, "we're spending way too much on Homeland Security and the War in Afghanastan!"), and since it's ENDLESSLY being equated with the War on Terror, that's what I assumed squee was referring to. I have no idea though. I suppose I could just ask him.
It's still a moronic comparison, but I don't know what 6 billion squee's referring to.
quote:Originally posted by mkomitee You dont see a difference between voluntarily paying money to see a movie and being forced to pay money to fund a war you dont want which you think is harmful to the nation and perhaps the world?
Not paying your cable bill and getting your CNN pulled.That would be real harmful.
Iraq has never equalled the war on terror?
Then what the fuck are we doing there then?
(I am sooo out of the loop. One second they're terrorists, next second they're insurgents, second after that they're enemy combatants, now they're... Aw fuck. Just can't keep track no more.)