Bloggers here and elsewhere wondered why they did not get "it", it being that the American majority was against the wars.
It seemed to us that the Democrats were under the mistaken impression that the neoCon base of the right wing Republicans were who voted those dems into office.
I explained what was meant by "how much would the wars cost" the Democrats:
I mean in the upcoming elections, since they have shown, up until this point, that they will pay any amount for war, but very little for domestic needs.(Democrats Pay How Much For War?). A study on the polling shows the majority has been sick of the wars for longer than WW I and WW II lasted:
The people have polled against the wars for years now, to no avail. The people overwhelmingly voted the neoCon republican hawks out, to give the democrats a chance to do what the people want.
Nevertheless, the wars continue, now having lasted longer than WW I and WW II combined.
Although some polls show Americans have already decided against a second Obama term in 2012, there remains much time for recovery, although the economy shows signs of even further weakening and war losses are growing.(LA Times). Obviously those in the U.S. government who promisingly lie during campaigns could care less what the people think or want, so the question arises, "Who are these people?"
Langer sets June 2004 as the first time a polling majority (52%) decided the Iraq war was not worth it. And numbers went downhill from there, not coincidentally, as casualty figures rose. The Afghan war, which was tied so closely to Sept. 11 and its planning, has gone on more in the background.
However, recent polls show dissatisfaction mounting.
That was explained in the post Circle W Cowboys.
UPDATE: For an example of the antithesis to The Circle W Cowboys, I offer a response by Noam Chomsky, who has remained humane in the face of government depravity:
I had taken dozens of journalists, peace activists, diplomats, experts and others out to camps of refugees who had fled U.S. saturation bombing. Chomsky was one of only two who wept openly upon learning how these innocent villagers had seen their beloved grandmothers burned alive, their children slowly suffocated, their spouses cut to ribbons, during five years of merciless, pitiless and illegal U.S. bombing for which U.S. leaders would have been executed had international law protecting civilians in wartime been applied to their actions. It was obvious that he was above all driven by a deep feeling for the world’s victims, those he calls the “unpeople” in his new book. No U.S. policymakers I knew in Laos, nor the many I have met since, have shared such concerns.(Truthdig, emphasis added). We have all chosen sides in the recent wars that continue to do the same thing. Weep if you are humane, but if you can't yet, keep trying.