[Chris] WALLACE: If he's able to define Iraq in terms of where do you spend that $12 billion, on the battlefield over there or on infrastructure and social programs here, doesn't Obama win?
[Karl] ROVE: Well, Obama -- it's a good argument for Obama, but I'm wondering where it goes, because it really is a very neo-isolationist argument. It basically says, you know, "We should not be involved in the world because of the consequences to the budget here at home."
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9/11, and look what happened. Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9/11.
If we were to give up Iraq with the third largest oil reserves in the world to the control of an Al Qaida regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200 a barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy? (emphasis added)
Amazing, isn't it? We, who had been bombing Iraq, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, sending billions in foreign aid around the world, dropping bombs on Serbia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army; weren't involved in the world prior to 9/11. What planet do these people live on?