Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

napi21

(45,806 posts)
28. I believe there's another error in his figures.
Wed May 21, 2014, 01:19 AM
May 2014

Bushie was paying for the Iraq war "Off the books" and when Obama was elected, he said he was ordering that cost to be "on the books" because the American people should KNOW the cost. I don't recall exactly how much that was, but I found this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I have only one thing to say: mountain grammy May 2014 #1
Maher to D'Souza, " You may be going to prison, and share a cell with Michael Grimm." SummerSnow May 2014 #2
Note how D'Souza immediately exaggerates so as to defend his "documentary".... xocet May 2014 #26
I believe there's another error in his figures. napi21 May 2014 #28
Thanks for bringing up that article. xocet May 2014 #36
Very good clear piece in the cost of the Iraq War. Thanks for posting it. n/t freshwest May 2014 #41
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. nt babylonsister May 2014 #3
he thought he was soooo sharp bigtree May 2014 #4
I guess he won't be gushing giddily from Bunkerville for a while struggle4progress May 2014 #5
A little advice for Mr. D'Souza Cirque du So-What May 2014 #6
"..Just because".. Rofl Cha May 2014 #8
Justice is blind Cirque du So-What May 2014 #11
It Screams.. "Poor Choices"! Cha May 2014 #15
Thank you, bigtree.. I think this thread was Cha May 2014 #7
The only thing he "deeply" regretted is getting caught. calimary May 2014 #9
His lawyer looks like a televangelist. nt okaawhatever May 2014 #10
I was thinking he looked like Beethoven. Aristus May 2014 #25
Lolz. nt okaawhatever May 2014 #27
Brafman is a very well-known NYC criminal defense lawyer. Jim Lane May 2014 #31
Revel revel Cirque du So-What May 2014 #12
I'm reveling enough for the both of us. Hassin Bin Sober May 2014 #13
he is neither a SCHOLAR or a film maker MFM008 May 2014 #14
I love reveling in things like this. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2014 #16
Yay! shenmue May 2014 #20
Yay! Mean! vlakitti May 2014 #21
, blkmusclmachine May 2014 #17
Once dated The Wizard May 2014 #18
The two of them together ewwww. YOHABLO May 2014 #24
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #19
The fact that he accepted a year in a plea agreement... JohnnyRingo May 2014 #22
I think that part of the report is misleading. Jim Lane May 2014 #32
I only have one thing to say; 47of74 May 2014 #23
I don't like reveling much myself, but.... Iwillnevergiveup May 2014 #29
I'm sorry to say he's from Mumbai Recursion May 2014 #30
He was born in Mumbai but is ethnically a Goan. Jim Lane May 2014 #33
Probably not; D'Souzas are thick here Recursion May 2014 #35
The fact that the ReTHUG scumbag is no longer smiling malaise May 2014 #34
It takes hard work and ddication... Orsino May 2014 #37
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast May 2014 #38
Yep, I publicly admit my wrongdoing in privately revelling. ancianita May 2014 #39
Always reminded me of Mr. Bean. yellowcanine May 2014 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I don't like reveling in ...»Reply #28