Liberal use of military force _is_ liberal spending.
You would be wrong, even if it were true that military force had been used liberally - which it demonstrably has not.
It has been pointed out to you more than a dozen times on this thread that military spending is well beneath historical norms.
So your statement - intended to justify your deceptive bait-and-switch - is ridiculous on its face.
In fact, last cycle's ubiquitous argument was that the administration had skimped on the use of military force - that it did not deploy enough men, or enough materiel, or sufficiently expensive and fancy materiel to the job.
This cycle the spin is that we are spending too much, despite the hard facts of what has actually been spent in the historical context.
Treason apparently breeds madness. It definitely breeds inconsistency.