Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's take a walk down Memory Lane

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 02:24 AM
Original message
Let's take a walk down Memory Lane
I am cleaning out my hard drive. Sorry, I have no idea where this came from

quote........
Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate “no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here’s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:



Budget Director Mitch Daniels



Ø On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion



Ø “When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said.”



Ø “There’s just no reason that this can’t be an affordable endeavor.”



Ø “The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld



Ø “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”



Ø “I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.”



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz



Ø “I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are.”



Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard



Ø “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.”



Budget Director Josh Bolten



Ø “We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.”



Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepit production systems leave the country “unable to make any significant contribution.”

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.”

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense… funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.
end quote.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. This should be on the Home Page k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeh.....was this intentional?
Did they rape the US Treasury to destroy the US? How can this be a miscalculation? We are importing Iraq oil at almost the the pre-war level. Sooooooooooooo, why are they not re-paying the US Treasury?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. "Shrink the government down to size where it can be drowned in a bathtub"
-Grover Nordquist. So, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yep....the next will be
www.OMBWatch.org/sunset
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yep - as RFKjr says, treating this country like a company in liquidation.
Next the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I have been in sales/marketing my entire professional life
Companies HATE to spend money on advertising UNTIL they need to advertise their 'going out of business'sale. Then they do a great job....go figure.:crazy:
This administration and 30% of america are acting like we have another life, country and planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. All part of the marketing ploy
They had a product to sell and they lowballed it.

Just as they have done with every other financial issue that has arisen.

As in the case of the Medicare bill, any figures appraching reality would have insured defeat in Congress.

And idiot told Robertson that he expected no casualties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. .........BUT, BUT
The 'sold' it below 'manufacturing cost'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohinoaklawnillinois Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Not only should these statements be on DU, they should be
plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the US and the lead story broadcast on every network and cable station...

Thanks for posting these. K&R and bookmarked...

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. CSMonitor's article compares all wars costs from 1776 to now...
Edited on Fri Apr-28-06 10:38 AM by EVDebs
More costly than the war to end all wars
by David R. Francis
August 29, 2005 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0829/p15s01-cogn.html

""This conflict has already cost each American at least $850 in military and reconstruction costs since October 2001.

If the war lasts another five years, it will cost nearly $1.4 trillion, calculates Linda Bilmes, who teaches budgeting at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. That's nearly $4,745 per capita. Her estimate is thorough. She includes not only the military cost but also such things as veterans' benefits and additional interest on the federal debt.""

The Bush regime needs to ask itself, 'isn't it time to redeploy, as Murtha has proposed, or is the military still behind the Commander-In-Chief ?'

We Americans are a pragmatic bunch. If we are asked to sacrifice, we will. But so far, no coherent rationale for staying in Iraq has been given. If going in in the first place was going to 'create more terrorists', then shouldn't that have been considered BEFORE the fait accompli of the oilmen ?

Truly if this administration doesn't redeploy soon, impeachment is the only option in the short term. Voting out Republicans from each and every district in the land will come next.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Wait..The medical
costs will make this the most expensive war in history IF they report it honestly. The 'good and bad' news is kids are NOT dying! Their medical/PTSD treatment will make this a fortune.I read an article that dollars adjusted for inflation could send this to over $1 TRILLION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Right, and that article is already getting stale after 8 months too
Looks like the CSMonitor will have to update. They've done a great job of coverage over there and at home. CSMonitor has covered some of the 'permanent bases' stories which is what really needs to be concentrated upon.

If Iraqis want a US presence, it should be an invited one. Self-determination was supposed to be part of the UN's Arab Human Rights plans.

Bushco has soooo bungled everything it has touched. They can't even take Murtha's advice which right now is the only thing that can save their bacon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I don't think my blood pressure
Edited on Fri Apr-28-06 11:11 AM by serryjw
can take an update.It's one think talking about it but I see the consequences daily while petitioning. People are hurting and it's going to get worse.Our seniors are scared. They feel betrayed. They are trying to make ends meet and they can't.

I found the article
quote.........
During 1980-1992, of the 384,262 suicides in the United States, 74,675 (19%) occurred among persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years. From 1980 to 1992, the number of suicides among persons in this age group increased 36%, from 4537 to 6160; in comparison, rates for this group increased 9%, from 17.6 to 19.1 per 100,000 population aged greater than or equal to 65 years. Suicide rates decreased for persons aged 65-69 years and 70-74 years but increased substantially in older groups (75-79 years {11%}, 80-84 years {35%}, and greater than or equal to 85 years {15%}). Men accounted for 81% of suicides among persons aged greater than or equal to 65 years; the rate for men increased 10%, from 34.8 to 38.4. For women, the rate decreased 0.7%, from 6.04 to 6.00 (Table_1).

From 1980 to 1992, the largest relative increases in suicide rates occurred in the 80-84-year age group (35%, from 18.2 to 24.6) and in men (10%, from 34.8 to 38.4) (Table_1). For both men and women, the highest increase occurred among persons aged 80-84 years: the rate for men increased 35% (from 43.5 to 58.6), and the rate for women increased 36% (from 4.7 to 6.4). In addition, the highest suicide rate (24.6) occurred in 1992 among persons aged 80-84 years
end quote.......

The last recorded year is 1992? I'm trying to find more current info. The financial/health related problems have grown even more dire in the last 5 years
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039937.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. K, R, and bookmarked for future reference. Great post. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
11. put this in the research forum for posterity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. Found the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC