"which was was Kerry's more intellectually honest vote: to authorize war OR his no vote on authorization to fund it? And why? "
Potentially neither ! To properly assess the intellectual honesty, one must first get some insight into Mr. Kerry's intentions. His set of beliefs is not that apparent.
"What was more intellectually dishonest: that vote, or the Bush admnistration's understanding that they're asking for less money than they'll really need for Iraq? "
Ahh, you obviously have tapped a source of knowledge not available to us simple conservatives. Which member(s) of the administration revealed their dishonesty to you? And, did you believe them?
To: (use semi-colons to separate multiple recipients)
Your Reply: (HTML auto-detected, see help for more information)
Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):
Spell Preview Post I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.
Word Wrap: ON
Loose lips sink ships.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde, Big Otto wrote:
"which was was Kerry's more intellectually honest vote: to authorize war OR his no vote on authorization to fund it? And why? "
Potentially neither ! To properly assess the intellectual honesty, one must first get some insight into Mr. Kerry's intentions. His set of beliefs is not that apparent.
"What was more intellectually dishonest: that vote, or the Bush admnistration's understanding that they're asking for less money than they'll really need for Iraq? "
Ahh, you obviously have tapped a source of knowledge not available to us simple conservatives. Which member(s) of the administration revealed their dishonesty to you? And, did you believe them?
-----
That would be Josh Bolton:
Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz promised that Iraq "can really finance its own reconstruction," USAID Director Andrew Natsios promised Iraq operations would cost just $1.7 billion total, and the White House budget office said "Iraq will not require sustained aid." Those estimates proved far from accurate. Then last year, the White House fired top economic adviser Larry Lindsey after he acknowledged the cost of Iraq would be between $100 and $200 billion (experts now estimate it will cost over $300 billion). Budget Director Josh Bolten said on 7/29/03 that "we don't anticipate requesting anything additional for [Iraq for] the balance of this year." Six weeks later, the president asked for another $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total to $166 billion. And this year, in an effort to obscure the worsening deficit picture, the White House omitted all costs of ongoing operations in Iraq from its budget, even as military planners said more money would be needed. Now, the White House has requested another $25 billion.
Meanwhile here's a pretty decent source on hidden costs for Iraq:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-16-04bud.htm
bttt.