"They said...?" Now I can admit that at least I understood that Chan. Merkel was not a follower of either the Chicago or Aurstrian theories of capitalism and free markets but I also knew that compared to the SDU her being in the same neighborhood was good enough. Maybe I am having a senior moment because I found that most of the conservative periodicals at least talked about her adherence to fiscal rather than economic policy. I also have to say aside from some general allusions to how really conservative a conservative party in Europe isn't there were very few criticisms of her and comparing her to the Democrats. In fact for a brief moment, about five minutes, conservatives in the US pointed out that many of the most vocal opponents of invading Iraq had been replaced by a more subtle crew. But she has kept this idea even today in rejecting calls for any change in monetary policy and also rejecting any, well almost any, policy that would inflate the money supply.

Most of the criticism, especially from The Weekly Standard, was on high taxation practices of Germany and the Salome-like dance to approve a new European constitution. Those veils are still coming off but the Europeans are no closer to getting a peek at that document today than in 2005.

That's a rather interesting take on the deficit considering that after the 2006 it was the Republican conservatives that were most vocal in rejecting even more spending. Quite a few conservative Republicans in a variety of media were quite opposed to the extra spending. It was a majority of the Democrats and some liberal and moderate Republicans that claimed that they were doing the "adult" thing and increasing spending. Most conservative Republicans have been hollering about the deficit for years but being somewhat sotto voce because they saw some of that spending going to the two war efforts and the bill for trying to repair the economy after an almost 25% contraction after 2001.

I think my entire comment is self-expalnatory. Most moderate Republicans, practically all the Democrats and a few conservative Republicans supported the rise in deficit spending during the period after 2001. Remember that in the US the president does not have to face a vote of confidence and call new elections is one of his bills is defeated. This is one of the checks placed on the congress in that they do not elect the president and if the numbers are correct members of the minority party and parts of the majority party can consistently vote against these bills. Your comment specifically referred to conservative Republicans as being tongue tied which is not an accurate description as enough of the rest of the party had no problem with extra spending. Any back issue of the National Review, Commentary, American Spectator or the Weekly Standard would reveal dozens if not hundred of anti-deficit arguments which contributed to a below average turnout in 2006 because many conservatives simply pulled a Nader.

But as I said most conservative Republicans were extremely unhappy about the rising deficit spending but were out voted consistently by a soldi bloc of Democrats and a majority of the rest of the Republicans. Traditionally I would agree that cutting spending in some areas to pay for a war effort was the norm but throughout the years the spectacular rise in the GDP and tax revenues made passe that old bromide.

I certainly wasn't arguing that the deficits were not done with Republican approval but to state as you did that conservative Republicans supported the deficits is simply wrong. As to the two sources you cited one is primarily a leftist site, antiwar, and Buchanan's rag is just that a rag. But you have changed your initial point from deficit spending to support for the war. It should also be pointed out that the majority of Democrats also voted for deficit spending in all those years and now that they have both branches of government are spending even more on the war effort and tripling the deficit. Blaming the Republicans, moderate, liberal or conservative, at this point is like trying to explain a speeding ticket for going 200 mph by blaming one of the cars you passed that was going at 85 mph. They sped first?

BTW, Medicare D has ended up costing 1/3rd less than predicted and it is currently projected to cost $395 billion over ten years compared to a one year deficit under the current administration of $1.75 trillion. Drop in the bucket especially since this program will be reimbursed by the individual states for some 75% of the costs. Deficits, aside from a small spike after 2001, had been trending down the last five years and then doubling during the political and economic panic of 2008 after the first full year of Democratic control of the legislature by 2008.

I can't respond to every point you make simply because they are not pertinent to your original claim that conservatives sat silent in regards to the deficit. But I find your claim of support for the shock and awe doctrine somewhat funny as that concept didn't even survive the first bombing of a restaurant targeting Saddam Hussein. From that point on the initial bombing campaign went from strategic to primarily tactical and ground support While the land campaign was primarily one of manoeuvre vs a numerically superior static force, or so it seemed. The mad dash into Baghdad was accomplished by an RCT on two different days and not once did either unit have logistical or numerical advantage over the defenders of Baghdad. Just because a news magazine puts out a cover declaring shock and awe doesn't mean that is what happened.

One mor caveat, doubling the debt sounds horrible but the national debt was steadily declining as a percentage of GDP every year since 2002.