Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Iraq
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: [QB] Yet more news: [QUOTE][URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601902.html]House clears $70 billion mostly for Iraq war[/URL] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday gave final approval to a massive funding bill for the Pentagon that provides another $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate was expected to pass the final version of the $447.6 billion bill by this weekend, sending it to President George W. Bush for his signature. The House passed it 394-22 with virtually no debate as lawmakers worked to complete business before breaking to campaign for November elections that will determine control of Congress. In a slap at Bush, the bill would bar the administration from using money from it to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to exercise any control over Iraq's oil sector. Both the House and Senate have approved that language before, but until this bill Republicans had stripped it in House-Senate conferences. Democrats and many Republicans say the Iraqi insurgency has been fueled by perceptions that the United States has ambitions for a permanent presence in the country. They have called on Bush to make a policy statement that the United States has no such plans. [b]With this bill, Congress will have approved more than $500 billion for the wars, with the bulk of that spent in Iraq.[/b] Lawmakers called the $70 billion a "bridge fund" to last about halfway through the next fiscal year, which starts on October 1. About $23 billion of that is to replace and refurbish equipment worn out in the harsh environments of the two conflicts. The bill provides $377.6 billion for the Pentagon's core programs, $4.1 billion less than Bush wanted but $19 billion above current levels. It funds a 2.2 percent military pay raise, and provide $557 million more for the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard than Bush sought.[/QUOTE]*Emphasis added. So, $500 billion...was it supposed to cost the American people that much money? Let's look at what some of the key people had to say in the early stages of these conflicts. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) compiled some important statements: [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: [b]Budget Director Mitch Daniels[/b] - 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 [Source: WSJ, "Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion," Davis 09/16/02; NYT, �Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced, Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, �Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war cost below $200 billion,� 09/18/02] - �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.� [Source: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, �Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02] - �There�s just no reason that this can�t be an affordable endeavor.� [Source: Reuters, �U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,� Entous, 4/11/03] - �The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.� [Source: Washington Post, 4/21/03] [b]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld[/b] - �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.� [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03] - �I don�t know that there is much reconstruction to do.� [Source: Reuters, �U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,� Entous, 4/11/03] [b]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz[/b] - �I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are.� [Source: House Budget Committee, 2/27/03] [b]Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard[/b] - �Costs of any such intervention would be very small.� [Source: CNBC, 10/4/02] [b]Budget Director Josh Bolten[/b] - �We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.� [Source: Congressional Testimony , 7/29/03][/QUOTE]*Emphasis added. Additionally we have the following from a Senior Administration Official: [QUOTE]For Immediate Release March 24, 2003 [URL=http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/speeches/senior_admin032403.html]BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL[/URL] Presidential Hall Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building 6:10 P.M. EST SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're still the on-time administration, but we were just at the congressional leadership of both parties, and they were unexpectedly inquisitive. Q Unexpectedly? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I said unexpectedly inquisitive -- I just mean it was a really good exchange and they asked a lot of questions. And so somebody underestimated the time it would take to get here, and I apologize for that. Let me -- obviously, we're here to discuss the supplemental request that the President will make tomorrow to fund the cost of the war in Iraq, along with relief and reconstruction, along with support for our diplomatic coalition partners, as appropriate, and protection of the other front of the war, which, regrettably, involves the protection of the American homeland. For all those purposes, the President will be asking for $74.7 billion total. And this will, we believe to the best of our ability to estimate this, cover all costs from now to the end of the fiscal year, so six months or a little more. Actually, more in the sense that many of these costs have already been incurred and will be covered in this bill, or in the case of some of our coalition partners, reimbursed. [b]Six months, as I say, contemplates a conflict, a period of stabilization in Iraq, and the phased withdrawal of a large number of American forces within that six-month window.[/b][/QUOTE]*Emphasis added. So, in the talk to Congress and the American people stages of "let's go invade Iraq for the WMD," the cost was $50 to $60 billion and we were supposed to be in and out in 6 months. Things do not appear to gone quite so swimmingly in reality. It would seem that they might have been trying to paint us as pretty a picture as possible to bamboozle us into meekly going along. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3