Not if it is pure factual. I mean, an actual, legitimate dollar cost of the war can't be slanted. Oh, you can say it is going for a good cause, blah blah, or you can say he is stealing it from the Social Security fund, but those statements require context and are clearly partisan on their own.
No problem with this - in the end, even if it does have a political slant, it is a political ad, so no big deal.
Personally, I supported the war, but I find it ridiculous that we can spend all that money in Iraq, and then be told that there isn't enough resources to expand our border patrol and start going after companies who hire illegals. If they can get the money for one, they sure as hell could do it for the other...
This is the most near-sighted and selfish administration, fiscally speaking, that I've ever known. They're bankrupting the United States, and the next administration, and the one after that, and possibly the next one too will be left cleaning up the mess and putting the US's house back in order. That means tax rises. It means painful cuts, perhaps even to the -gasp!- military. Spending over $400 Billion a year to maintain the world's finest warfighting machine is all well and good, but when you have social security heading towards insolvency within a generation, when you're running a $450 Billion deficit, when you have 36 million Americans living in poverty and some 40 million without any type of health insurance then you've got an untenable situation. The status quo won't do.
Of course, these chickens won't come home to roost until long after W's second term -?- ends.
Politics at it's best.....buy the electorate, make someone else pay the bill.
Regarding the nuclear option I do wonder though, if they had hit 10 seperate targets, and pulled a body count of say 25,000 to 30,000 people, does anyone think Bush could have resisted pushing the button?