Tweet
What was then in Dec 2002...
and well here comes 2007...
well regardless whether 1.5 trillion or "just" 800 billion...
How do you feel now about the government initial estimate of 50-60 billion, and can they be trusted with anything at all, given that they have missed more than 10x (at least) with the estimate at the time when it mattered?!?
I mean even if they went in with a closer to reality 1/2 trillion cost (still likely to be far to low), would the American people have been for the war than?
What would you say - outright incompetence, plain deceit, or other (pls explain) in 2002 from your point of view?
The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.
In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.
Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.
Mr. Daniels cautioned that his budget projections did not mean a war with Iraq was imminent, and that it was impossible to know what any military campaign against Iraq would ultimately cost.
''This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning,'' Mr. Daniels said from his home in Indianapolis, where he was reviewing the fiscal 2004 budget at his kitchen table. ''At this point there is no war.''
In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.
Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.
Mr. Daniels cautioned that his budget projections did not mean a war with Iraq was imminent, and that it was impossible to know what any military campaign against Iraq would ultimately cost.
''This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning,'' Mr. Daniels said from his home in Indianapolis, where he was reviewing the fiscal 2004 budget at his kitchen table. ''At this point there is no war.''
and well here comes 2007...
Democrats say the wars have cost $1.5 trillion - almost twice the requested $804bn (£402bn) - because of "hidden costs", the Washington Post reports.
That figure would amount to $20,000 for a regular US family of four, it adds.
.
.
.
It adds that the amount could rise to $46,300 over the next decade, the Washington Post says.
That figure would amount to $20,000 for a regular US family of four, it adds.
.
.
.
It adds that the amount could rise to $46,300 over the next decade, the Washington Post says.
How do you feel now about the government initial estimate of 50-60 billion, and can they be trusted with anything at all, given that they have missed more than 10x (at least) with the estimate at the time when it mattered?!?
I mean even if they went in with a closer to reality 1/2 trillion cost (still likely to be far to low), would the American people have been for the war than?
What would you say - outright incompetence, plain deceit, or other (pls explain) in 2002 from your point of view?
.
)
Comment