I found this article on CNN.com which I found interesting. Click the Evite picture on the right for a quick laugh…
“Bush has so far avoided answering questions about the possible costs of war and rebuilding in Iraq, saying he believes the costs of not acting to disarm and remove Saddam from power outweigh the costs of doing so.
Democrats have criticized Bush for his reticence and warned that the costs of war could dramatically worsen the federal budget, which is already expected to record the highest deficit in history this year.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that White House officials working on that supplemental request might ask Congress for up to $95 billion to cover two months of war, post-war costs through September and aid to other countries in the region.
White House won’t talk about cost either. Administration officials have occasionally hazarded guesses about the costs, but the administration has been quick to distance itself from those guesses.
In September 2002, former Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey said war could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, speculation that was immediately dismissed by White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels.
Daniels himself said in December that war could cost between $50 billion and $60 billion, but quickly clarified that it was impossible to tell how much the war might cost and that he was simply trying to compare a new war with its only close historical precedent, the first Gulf War, which cost about $60 billion.”
Some would argue that the missing evidence for a case on waging war on Iraq is an indication of alterior motive. That alterior motive has also in some commentary been suggested to be the economy – to take the attention away from the slumping economy and possibly even to boost it with the increase in spending on military and the rebuilding effort – but with the estimates on the cost of war from various sources this effort may put the US far deeper in debt than it has ever been before.
I think this goes back to personal revenge for the hit put on GW Sr. (aka “Whore-heh”)... this is personal.
SAFW Says:
I still vote for Bobafet. Bobafet sometimes disguises himself as a cruise missle.
Those who argue that the cost of the war has not been quantified fail to propose what the cost of not having a war might be: Endless inspections. Maintenance of an armed force to enforce inspections. Possible development of undeterrable form of force by Saddam (see N. Korea) in spite of inspections.
While we’re at it, most fail to consider that an immediate benefit of regime change in Iraq is the release of the stringent sanctions that 1) keep a substantial amount of money out of Iraqi civilians hands, 2) has increased the infant and child mortality rate two-fold, and 3) reduces the overall global oil supply causing, driving worldwide prices up.
The so-called peace that was maintained up until a few hours ago comes at a price. Did any of the critics bother to calculate how much?
JoeyB Says:
Sam, give me a pound dog. Inverse pound, yeah!
Dane, you shouldn’t trust CNN, I hear they like to lick donkey ballz.
Thad, Saddam is bad. Chocolate ice cream good. Need I say more?
Blame Canada!
I don’t subscribe to the argument that war helps the economy. Wouldn’t spending $90 billion dollars in our own country (freeways, bridges, dams), do more to spur the economy than spending the same amount in the Middle East? World War II pulled our economy out of the depression, but the scale of military build up in that war dwarfs the expenditures planned today. We aren’t scapping our manufacturing lines to build planes and tanks for this war, we’re just using what we have.
When Clinton attacked Iraq in ‘98, people said he was trying to deflect attention from Monica. If you are looking for an alterior motive, or believe that the government is trying to pull the wool over your eyes…you’ll probably find what you seek.
On the other hand, I believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, that Clinton wasn’t following “Wag the Dog” in ‘98, and that removing Saddam from the planet is for the best.