Remember back then, when we were hearing about the dire war costs spiraling into the high 50 billion dollars range. Wow, how things have changed four, long frickin' years later... .
As Steve Henn reports, the war costs are approaching 500 billion dollars now and these numbers are just mind-boggling. Here is the report from Marketplace on NPR:
National Public Radio
I have a $100 computer, but I'll sell it to you for $1,000. Hmm, not expensive enough. I have a $50 billion war, but I'll wage it for $500 billion. Expensive enough but not dire enough. I have a presidential adventure that I would like to cost 3,351 precious American lives. Now, there's the Bush we know. Anyone recall someone named Larry Lindsay?
For the record, Lindsay was President Bush's first economic policy adviser. He was fired after he said the war in Iraq could cost more than $100 billion.
[snip]
At the time, the official White House line was this war would be a bargain at $50 billion. Today, we've spent nearly 10 times that.
I guess even back then, towing the line was important to Bush. How could he start his war when the pricetag didn't mesh, being the fiscal conservative he is... ha.
Joseph Stiglizt served as President Clinton's economic policy advisor. He's also a Nobel Prize winner in economics. He remembers this blast from the past:
Paul Wolfowitz actually said that the war would pay for itself.
And then, the real thought-provoking part:
The number half a trillion dollars is clearly a mind-boggling number.
[snip]
For just a little bit more than $500 billion, you could have fixed the Social Security problem for the next 75 years.
I can't even wrap my mind around that. For me personally, I would spend some of that money on the flat National Institutes of Health budget, and some more on universal health care, and a bit more on veterans' benefits... and the list goes on.
Or, how about this:
Or you could have doubled foreign aid to developing countries -- not just aid from the U.S., but all development aid, period.
But Robert Hormats, the author of "The Price of Liberty" -- a new book on paying for America's wars -- says in comparison to past conflicts, the war in Iraq is a steal. The Second World War cost more than $5 trillion when you adjust for inflation, and Vietnam cost about $650 billion.
'We're definitely trying to fight the war on the cheap. And I think that's one of the things missing in this war -- that Americans have not been asked to make any sacrifices.'
Hormats argues the only ones sacrificing are the troops -- who in some cases, despite this war's price tag, still aren't getting what they need.
At the risk of sounding obvious, Bush did what he had to do. He made it so that this war was convenient for all Americans, except for the troops. As long as we were "winning" the war, he knew people would not be opposed to the occupation. After all, he had the MSM in his pocket. And because he wasn't asking Americans to give up their butter or bread or football or baseball, he could count on average people putting up with the spreading of our Armed Forces across the globe. So he made his war; he used it for his own re-election; he furthered used it to increase Executive Power; and now he wants to pad his legacy.
But now, he'll have to contend with something else. Our Democratic Congress will force Bush to pay for his war in the federal budget. No more paying through little supplemental bills while claiming that he is lowering the national debt and decreasing the deficit. It's a start, until Bush leaves office in disgrace.