Don’t ever again complain to me about the money spent on Iraq

Being against war is one thing. I was against going into Afghanistan in the first place. But I believe once you start something, you should finish it, especially if it was for a real economic reason. Iraq was an economic war as well as a liberating war for the people of Iraq.

Consider that the Iraqi war cost was $709 billion spread over seven years, compared to last years stimulus which was $862 billion in one-third the time, and these are CBO numbers.

For years under George W. Bush, you, the leftist media and the Democrats have cried rivers of crocodile tears over the money being spent to first liberate, then stabilize Iraq. You have claimed so often and so loudly to be worried about the debts incurred and the deficits run. The media convinced the electorate that the Dummycrats would actually be better stewards of the public's money, and indeed they gained control of Congress in 2006.

Well, have a look at this:

In less than two years, the Democrats have made spending on the war in Iraq look like pocket change! From the new media:

As President Obama prepares to tie a bow on U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009.

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

The U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2010 is expected to be $1.3 trillion, according to CBO. That compares to a 2007 deficit of $160.7 billion and a 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion, according to data provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

In 2007 and 2008, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 1.2 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.

That's $709 billion spread over seven years, compared to $862 billion in one-third the time.

In return for our money and hard losses of troops, in Iraq we overthrew a brutal, murderous dictator and helped establish what has a good chance to become the first stable Arab democracy ever in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that could, with luck, patience, and skill, become a strong ally against terrorism and the plans of the religious fascists in Tehran. We also crushed al Qaeda in Iraq, forcing it to waste lives and resources there, and exposing its brutality for all the Arab world to see.

In return for the stimulus package, we got… unemployment higher than promised and that may turn structural, a feeble economic "recovery" that threatens to go into another recession, mind-boggling deficits and debt to foreign powers, and, by admission from the President's own economic adviser, a failure. But hey, we bailed out countless state and local governments who were also wasting the people's tax money, and we bailed out the public unions, who already make way more than private free market workers like me and we gave those public unions even bigger golden retirement packages (I have no pension) at a time when businesses are cutting jobs, lowering or freezing wages (I've been frozen for 3 years!) and increasing health care insurance out of pocket expenses.

You tell me which money was better spent. If you say neither, that's a better response than the stimulus. We need to bring our deficit down to ZERO and soon!

And I don't ever again want to hear either of you ever again complain about the costs of "Bush's war," or about fiscal responsibility in general since you give Obama and the Dummycrats a pass on the stimulus while complaining about the cost of the war.