You ask: what was the benefit of the Iraqi War? You wonder, "Did Bush really spend as much as Obama?" We have the answers to these questions, here.

The chart to the left, from the Congressional Budget Office, verifies a couple of points.

First, some Democrats have been consistent in arguing that the revealed or admitted Bush spending numbers did not include the cost of the Middle East war(s). After a review of the included chart, we see that this is sheer propaganda without an ounce of truth to it.

Secondly, Obama often claims that Bush was spending 1.6 trillion a year, himself; that this "fact" proves it to be most unfair to criticize Obama "for continuing the same policy." Kind of silly, don't you think? I mean, who is most vocal in his criticism of the Bush spending "addiction?" Obama!! But, more than this, the claim is simply not true. 500 billion does not compare to 1.4 trillion; you will see what I mean as you finish reading this post.

Understand that fiscal year 2009 belongs to George Bush because that fiscal budget was formulated and put into effect in 2008 (Fiscal Year 2009 ran from October 1 of 2008 through the end of September, 2009). The $700 billion TARP bill is part of Fiscal 2009 but was added to the Bush budget after the fact. More than this, the Obama Administration supervised the vast majority of this bill's allocations. Bush got the blame and Obama got the benefit. Sweet.

In addition to TARP, that part of the $787 Stimulus that was spent in Fiscal '09 (about 150 billion dollars through September of that year), is part of the chart's 2009 bar graph, as well. Understand that this chart shows 2009 spending at approximately 1.4 trillion dollars. Take TARP and Obama's Stimulus out of the mix, and the Bush spending "frenzy" averaged less than $500 billion per year compared to Obama's average of 1.4 trillion for '10, '11. and, now, '12.

A third point is this: the Iraqi war is not the reason we are in the financial mess in which we find ourselves. The Average cost of that war wound up being around $100 billion per year, using congressional appropriations as our standard. Understand that the annual cost of the war, reached its highest per-year expenditures under Obama. That is not to "blame" Obama for anything, but, certainly, Obama's complicity must be a considered fact. Most of you all have forgotten Obama's campaign promise (see the video, below), that we would be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of the year, 2009. I didn't forget. I thought it was B.S, the moment I heard this promise. As far as I am concerned, he owns the expenses for those wars for 2010 and 2011 and much of 2009, not to mention his war in Afghanistan . . . his words, his wars.

Point of post: to counter the myth that Bush's spending levels were anything similar to those of Obama's and to put into perspective, the cost of the Middle Eastern wars. Before leaving this post, I want to answer the question as to the benefit of having waged these wars: the answer? 40,000 dead terrorist. "Thank you very much" to the greatest military to have ever walked the face of this earth.

See the video campaign promise below . . . . . . . . . .