Off the Mark on Cost of War, Reception by Iraqis

[radfringe]

Off the Mark on Cost of War, Reception by Iraqis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6338-2004Mar18.html
By Dana Milbank and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A01

A year ago tonight, President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq with a grand vision for change in the Middle East and beyond.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East.

---snip---

On April 23, 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

That turned out to be off by orders of magnitude. The administration, which asked Congress for another $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction five months after Natsios made his assertion, has said it expects overall Iraqi reconstruction costs to be as much as $75 billion this year alone.

The transcript of that interview has been pulled from the USAID Web site, the agency said, "to reflect current statements and testimony on Iraq reconstruction." The earlier $1.7 billion figure was "the best estimate available at the time, based on very limited information about the conditions inside of Iraq."
==========

as my partner quipped the other night - "Iraq is costing alot more than we were led to believe - but it's costing our troops real arms and legs...."

[ima_sinnic]

1. so we went to war "based on very limited information"

is anybody surprised?

[Racenut20]

2. Should be pResident

[Barrett808]

3. kick