U.S. war costs could be under $170 bln - Pentagon

[maddezmom]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - The Pentagon's budget chief on Tuesday said she expects the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2009 to be less than the $170 billion estimate given earlier this year by Defense Secretary Robert Gates when pressed by U.S. lawmakers.

"I expect it to be less," Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas told Reuters after a speech to a conference sponsored by Jane's Information Group.

Jonas said she would meet with Gates later on Tuesday to discuss whether to give lawmakers a total estimate for war spending needs. The Bush administration has already requested $70 billion in war funds for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, and says it will need more.

Asked about the prospect that Congress might combine fiscal 2008 and 2009 war spending, Jonas told the conference she was confident that lawmakers would "come to some accommodation."

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22374950.htm

[Warpy]

1. Yes, and a pink and purple polka dotted hippo

could fly up into the air and shit down my stovepipe necessitating a premature call to the chimney sweep, but that's not going to happen, either.

[izquierdista]

11. It could be possible

Maybe this budget analyst is factoring in President Obama speeding up the withdrawals immediately after Inauguration Day. :-)

[Javaman]

12. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[DrDan]

2. well - in all honesty, if my calculations are correct, it would work out to

nineteen and a half million dollars per hour.

Could be considered a bargain in some warmonger circles.

[saigon68]

3. Our children's future given to the Halliburton Criminals

[Zynx]

4. What a bargain.

/sarcasm

[mikeytherat]

5. I guess the headline writer got his/her Rovian kickback.

Actual article headline:
U.S. war costs could be under $170 bln - Pentagon

Correct article headline:
U.S. war costs could be under $170 bln FOR FISCAL 2009 - Pentagon

How many read the headline and move along? Plenty, I'll bet.

mikey_the_rat

[Phred42]

6. Anyone Care to BELEIVE these guys? lol

[Roland99]

7. Mitch Daniels was shown the door for saying the whole thing would be $100b-$150b

We're already three times past that.

[Zorra]

8. Why do they even bother? By now everyone knows they're lying.

Because they never once told the truth.

[Bigmack]

9. That's $6.8 million per Iraqi!!

Check my math... it's not my strong suit and all the zeros make my head hurt, but it looks right.

Has anybody thought to ask each Iraqi if they would take a couple of million, and in return they all just learn to get along? It's still cheaper than the war.

Shit, how about we just fucking bomb the country with dollar bills and ipods.... and porn? It would perhaps keep them so busy they wouldn't fight.

If you count the price of each dead "terra-ist", it must be something like a couple of hundred million per dead bad guy.

Something is totally fucked up in the accounting on this thing.

[Bigmack]

13. Self delete... nt

[whistle]

10. In the beginning the entire war was to cost no more than what...$74.7 billion

March 25, 2003
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Today I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president's request includes $63 billion for executing the war, including transport of forces to the region and maintenance of equipment; $8 billion for relief efforts and reconstruction in Iraq-- $5 billion of that amount would be aid to countries affected by the war, such as Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. Finally, the package includes $4 billion for homeland defense.

<link> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/budget_3-25.html



But now over five years later the war's total costs may exceed $4.0 trillion with no end to the red ink spending in sight even with a Democratic President.