View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 10:09 PM   #111
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123


Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So you're just going to keep extrapolating those numbers out as we go and pretend like everything in the budget that changed since 2001 is part of Bush' Iraq/Afghan war effort? Even though Bush hasn't had any say on spending decisions since 2008? DHS's budget was never higher than Obama's first two years when he had an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Yet you not only count DHS dollars completely unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan, you keep tallying Democratic budget increases in that department under the "Bush did it!" column. There's nothing rational about this approach.

Another point of contention:

The Senate vote for authorizing use of force in Afghanistan was 97-0. We were going to war in Afghanistan whether Bush was president or not. In fact Obama talked at length in 2008 about how the war in Iraq took resources away from the 'good' war in Afghanistan. So if we take him at his word, had we not invaded Iraq, he would've spent even more in Afghanistan. In what fantasmical alternate universe was war in the Afghan theater not going to happen? Think back to 9/11. War somewhere was predetermined. And that can't be blamed on Bush.

Bull****. This conversation was specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan. Read back. Bringing in DHS spending is changing the subject. Not to mention, again, DHS' budget was never as high under Bush as Obama. You can't pretend like absolutely everything we've done since 2001 was Bush's decision, or that it would've worked out any different with anyone else. How about all those body scanners in airports? What's the story there? Those were a response by Obama's DHS to the Christmas Day bomber in 2009. Were those expenses removed from your study? Of course not. They're still filed under the "Bush's fault/War on Terror" column. Because this "study" lacks any credibility.

Do you honestly believe under another President after 9/11, there would've been no push for increased airport security budgets? Hint: DHS was formed with a 90-9 vote in the Senate. Again, your fantasyland projection here assumes that none of this money would have been spent if not for Bush. That's certifiably insane, given the reality of what happened back then.

No blame at all was cast in this particular instance -- the only true point of contention here is you think all the warmongering costs less than a year's deficit, and you cherry pick direct funding numbers to try to support that..

Nice try at a red herring though. I see you've done from trying to defend your absurd position into full out distract with logical fallacies mode.

But really that's all just a nice distraction on your part.
The only one coming up with huge lengthy distractions is you bub (see the entirety of your post quoted here).

Because this conversation was all about and only about Iraq and Afghanistan. Fun game you've got going here though... ignoring the clear CBO report on what those two wars cost so you can bring in some study that doesn't even pretend to be studying the same thing.
You continue to pretend that the direct appropriations to the wars (the $1.4T) are the only costs associated with those wars. Completely idiotic. You want to pretend that the interest doesn't count, that caring for the vets doesn't count, that paying to rebuild the **** we destroyed doesn't count, that replacing all the equipment and training new troops doesn't count, etc.

Complete. Utter. Bull****.

"Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive because of airport baggage scans and interest payments!" -Fed
Oh look, an appeal to ridicule, based on a straman. How quaint.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote