Well, I was one of the ones who understood when they said "WMD's", that not only were they concerned about WMD's, but there was a whole host of long, medium, and long term benefits of getting rid of Saddam - and Sons. I know they shortened it to WMD's, because frankly, the US mood at the time was Nuke'Em, the 'Em being Everyone over in the ME region. Bush trying to make a rational case of removing brutal regimes who are allowing their countries to not self govern, and hence not self question, hence never cut through their own BS (Israeli's putting killer fish in the ocean - just think the depth of brainwashing and uneducation it takes for that to even be uttered), would never have gone over with our populace. So repeatedly asking "Where are the WMD's, Where are the WMD's?" as if that means anything in the grand scheme of Iraq is.....pointless in Reality.
I have no problems with taking the MIC and chopping it by about 1/2, within 10 years - solely for the purpose of retasking those employed to other jobs/careers/locations. After the 1/2 cut is implemented, we could go from there. However, if we cut 1/2, no spending increases. None. Zero. Take that money and use it to balance the budget and pay off our debt.
Chuck
I have no problems with taking the MIC and chopping it by about 1/2, within 10 years - solely for the purpose of retasking those employed to other jobs/careers/locations. After the 1/2 cut is implemented, we could go from there. However, if we cut 1/2, no spending increases. None. Zero. Take that money and use it to balance the budget and pay off our debt.
Chuck