Homeland Security vs Iraq: Are we really getting the attention at home like Iraq is getting?
Of course not. There's more concern with overseas oil, than the domestic situation.
It's far easier to launch a war spend billions of dollars overseas. But ask for a few dollars to cover costs in America.
Suddenly the fat idiots in Congress can't find their brains.
Excellent. And they ask that we explain to them why there are little incentives to continue as CEOs in America. Forget the high pay. Who wants to be in charge of a bunch of whiny people whose government refuses to treat them with respect.
It is amazing that despite this government's arrogant attitude toward "those who pay the bill," that there hasn't been a greater backlash against this arrogance.
It is amazing that when it comes to Iraq, suddenly 'all the rules that apply to everything else" don't apply.
To explain away the "lack of funding for Homeland Security," the Iraq-apoligists say, "Oh, there are no measures of success; it is unclear what the program success criteria are; and we cannot be sure what the approach is. IT's all so confusing."
That's right. The same crew that "can't explain the success criteria for Iraq, and can demonstrate no plausible link to plans or anything," dares to complain that Homeland Security suffers flaws. Calling the kettle black!
But who would be surprised. It's easy to understand why there is a double standard for Iraq. It's easy to get money when there's oil at stake; but when there's money to be allocated to defend the American people and the constutiton: Suddenly "it's all so confusing and unclear."
Gee, why isn't the same "all so cofusing" argument gaining any strenght in re Iraq? No answer. Just spend more money.
So, it's been 3 years. More reservits called into action. The number of terror attacks are rising. We ahve less combat troops available. And there's less money available for domestic needs.
And the Iraq-Apologists want us to believe "if we hadn't spent the money in Iraq, it would be alot worse." Yet, where's the evidence? "Oh, we don't have that..."...yet the "Oh, we don't have that"-argument doesn't seem to work when it comes to back-up spending for domestic needs.
More double standards. More arguments selectively applied. And fewer things that relaly make sense.
If Clinton in 2001 had failed to respond after 9 months of warnings, there would be an outroar; this President gets more hoorays.
If Clinton in 2004 had failed to allocate money for domestic seucirty, had launched a war in Iraq against non-AlQueda targets...there would be cries of fraud and abuse.
If Clinton had given a tax cut, then increased appropriations, "Oh, can't have that."
And now, calls that the tax cuts be rescinded to pay for "discretionary items like unrequired wars in Iraq"...."we can't do that."