Three to One budget miscarriage
"As a measure of the Bush administration?s priorities in the war on terrorism, it has spent about $3 in Iraq for every $1 committed to homeland security, experts say."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
Considering how unhelpful the war in Iraq has been so far, how do people feel about this budget inequity?
New York State was ravaged on 9/11, yet the Bush administration has given relatively little to help them recover. The economy has been poor and that 3 to 1 budget imbalance sure seems less helpful than it could have been. I mean, even if we didn't use those $3 for Homeland Security we could have had a greater tax return or more evenly balanced budgets.
No WMD, prolonged expensive war, I don't see the benefits. If another terrorist attack occurs against the US, I can't see how Bush wouldn't be held responsible. It's irresponsible to leave Homeland Security ineffectual while wasting that money on a relatively worthless war.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
Considering how unhelpful the war in Iraq has been so far, how do people feel about this budget inequity?
New York State was ravaged on 9/11, yet the Bush administration has given relatively little to help them recover. The economy has been poor and that 3 to 1 budget imbalance sure seems less helpful than it could have been. I mean, even if we didn't use those $3 for Homeland Security we could have had a greater tax return or more evenly balanced budgets.
No WMD, prolonged expensive war, I don't see the benefits. If another terrorist attack occurs against the US, I can't see how Bush wouldn't be held responsible. It's irresponsible to leave Homeland Security ineffectual while wasting that money on a relatively worthless war.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
i hear the "iraq is a part of the war on terror" brigade starting their marching songs...
I can see that as a long term threat, Iraq wasn't safe. That is, if left alone someone could say that Saddam ultimately would have been able to help terrorists if he wanted to. But there's no evidence that he was trying.
In terms of short term threats I don't think even the most partisan conservatives around here would argue that going after Iraq was money better spent than Homeland Security.