Take all the pork-barrel spending from the beginning of the war and compare it with war costs, and I think it would be very interesting.
Pork barrel, earmarks and so forth. Here we have a war that is being fought in the interests of US national security.
This is one of the legitimate responsibilities of government.
If you start placing a cost on freedom, you’re going to lose it.
If you put a limit on how much you will spend on freedom, you are going to lose it.
All you have to do is go find not just the pork, find the waste, the fraud, the multiple redundancies of programs in the federal government and point out to people like Harry Reid, “Senator, how is it that you never complain about cost overruns on any other government program other than the war in Iraq?”
But I think even fighting this comparing dollars to dollars, accepts their premise, and I think that’s where so many of us get wrong in arguing with these people is accepting their premise.
When we accept the premise and argue on their terms, it’s a waste of time.
What we need to point out is why they’re making the argument and what the purpose of it is.
They are attempting to engage this country in defeat. They are trying to secure it.
They’re doing everything they can to turn public opinion against it because we’re winning. The word “victory” is coming out of more and more mouths now about what’s happening in Iraq, and that’s the worst political outcome for the Democrats possible.
So comparing dollar amounts would be interesting and so forth, but just accepts their premise.