- President Bush and his aides have spent the last year
and a half telling the American people that the war in Iraq would cost
little. A new report by Defense News, however, says the president will
propose another $50 billion, in addition to the $166 billion already spent.[1,2]
According to the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
the request "won't come until after the Nov. 2 presidential election"
- effectively concealing the spending request from public scrutiny.
-
- In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the president's staff
conducted a PR campaign aimed at quelling public concern about its cost.
Then White House Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, said Iraq "will not
require sustained aid"[3] and that the war cost would "be in
the range of $50 billion to $60 billion."[4] The president's top reconstruction
official at the State Department told Nightline that "The American
part of [reconstruction] will be $1.7 billion and we have no plans for
further-on funding of this."[5] The president's top economist, Glen
Hubbard, said that "costs of any such intervention would be very small."[6]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz "dismissed articles in several
newspapers asserting that put cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion
to $95 billion."[7] And Bush had his new Budget Director tell the
Senate that "we don't anticipate requesting anything additional for
the balance of this year" - six weeks before he announced a request
for an additional $87 billion.[8] When White House economic adviser Lawrence
Lindsey admitted that Iraq could cost up to $200 billion in the fall of
2002, he was summarily fired for his candor.[9]
-
- Days after the $87 billion request made by the president,
the Administration was questioned by skeptical Republicans and Democrats
in Congress about the rising costs of continued involvement in Iraq. But
even then, the president dispatched Wolfowitz to answer the charges with
a flat-out denial. Despite the public record leading up to it, Wolfowitz
told Congress that "No one said we would know anything other than...this
could be very expensive."[10]
-
- Sources:
- 1. Washington Post, 09/09/2003.
-
- 2. DefenseNews.com, 01/19/2004.
- http://www.defensenews.com/channel.php?C=thisweek
-
- 3. "U.S. says oil in Iraq to pay for rebuilding",
Houston Chronicle, 03/28/2003.
- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842094
-
- 4. "White House Cuts Estimate of Cost of War With
Iraq", Iraq Foundation, 01/02/2003.
- http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html
-
- 5. "Assistance for Iraq", Nightline, 04/23/2003.
- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030424-usa
id.htm
-
- 6. CNBC, 10/04/2002.
-
- 7. "Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation
Force's Size", New York Times, 02/28/2003.
- http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq
- /attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
-
- 8. Presidential Address, 09/07/2003.
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030907-1.html
-
- 9. "For Bush, rosy scenerios meet reality in Iraq",
Reuters, 09/08/2003.
- http://in.news.yahoo.com/030908/137/27nhc.html
-
- 10. Testimony, Senate Armed Services Committee,
- 09/09/2003.
-
- http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df01202004.html
|