Hardball Tonight: Cost Of Iraq War 100 Billion? wtf?

[leftchick]

There was a promo on just now for tweety's show, "The War in Iraq Three Years later. Thousands Dead and 100 Billion Dollars Later, Is it worth it?"

Excuse me? 100 Billion? Tweets is grossly underestimating the true cost, try 247 Billion and counting. And Thousands dead? Try Hundreds of Thousands DEAD! And why do they always say "War in Iraq?" Why not Iraq War?


http://costofwar.com/wrappedindex.html

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

[salin]

1. Obfuscation for Bush?

Have to admit there is a cost... and its a big number - the public knows that... but after that make realities obscure -easier to still "debate" with the deflated numbers. Oh, and to Matthews - deaths of non Americans don't seem to count.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. Yes, he deals with white people.

Blown-up brown people . . . guess that's their shitty luck.

It's a good thing I don't watch this guy. I'd be shootin' TV's like Elvis . . .

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. That is just absurd bullshit!

I remember hearing 70 billion--after the FIRST YEAR!!!

:hurts:

[leftchick]

7. "A Conservative Estimate of Over 2 Trillion"! Remember this?

It would be nice if this made it to our TVs....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist

· Economists say official estimates are far too low
· New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian


The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

The report came during one of the most deadly periods in Iraq since the invasion, with the US military yesterday revising upwards to 11 the number of its troops killed during a wave of insurgent attacks on Thursday. More than 130 civilians were also killed when suicide bombers struck Shia pilgrims in Karbala and a police recruiting station in Ramadi.

The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, is likely to add to the pressure on the White House on the war. It also followed the revelation this week that the White House had scaled back ambitions to rebuild Iraq and did not intend to seek funds for reconstruction.

Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution. "Our estimates are very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq or the UK." In 2003, as US and British troops were massing on the Iraq border, Larry Lindsey, George Bush's economic adviser, suggested the costs might reach $200bn. The White House said the figure was far too high, and the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq could finance its own reconstruction.

[Peter Frank]

4. Also - Consider the Billions of Taxpayer $$$ that go to Haliburton, n/t

[ixion]

5. It should be called: "The illegal invasion of Iraq", technically speaking

'cause that's what it was. :-(

[Inland]

6. It's "War in Iraq" because don't know who is fighting who over what.

It's not a war against Iraq. It's between Iraqis, it's outsiders against Iraqis, it's both against an occupying force. So it's just "war in Iraq" as a state of being, like "powerty in America" or "snow in Iowa"; it's a condidtion and a state of being, rather than "between" or "against", something that can be defined in one dimension that can be ended with two sides making peace.

I've noticed the sort of passive headline too, obviously.

[Rockholm]

8. 100 Billion a MONTH, maybe?