BoPL

From a post at Gateway Pundit that makes some reasonable points, a couple of mistakes. First, an easy lie about money.

And, the cost of this war– something the Democrats are focusing on now that Iraq is stabilizing– is lower than Vietnam or the Cold War:

Lets say I pay you $10 a day, and charge you $1 for food. Then one day I raise the cost of your food to $2. Would you say that the cost of your food was lower? Of course not. But how about if I increased your pay to $30 a day. Now the cost of your food is lower, right? Again, no. It’s certainly more affordable, which is great, but it’s higher, not lower.

Well that’s what the Pundit is trying to sell you; something costs less if you earn more. I can’t scare up the site, but I read recently that, allowing for the natural uncertainties in costing such things, this is now the second most expensive war in US history, after WWII. Expensive as in ‘cost is higher’. It’s more affordable than some others because of the strength (to now, at least) of the US economy, which is a great thing. But it’s an easier sell to lie and say it’s cheaper, than to tell the truth and say it’s more affordable.

The second lie is less obvious, but surprisingly similar. The stated aim of the ‘surge’ (or escalation, as it ought to be known) was basically to advance and consolidate the political stability of Iraq. There are two facets to that. The first is making space for the politicians to do their thing, and in that the escalation has done an impressive job. The problem is that without the second part – actually making things happen – it has failed almost entirely. And without that second step the statement that “Truly- The Surge Is Historic in Its Success” is as much of a lie as the lower costs of the war. It’s a good and noble thing to cut civilian and military casualties, but sadly it’s a long way from ‘mission accomplished’.