MSNBC : Cheney: Iraq costs may escalate

[Insane3D]

Link

Great...they are still pushing the Iraq - 9/11 link...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 ? Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Bush?s request for $87 billion to pay for additional expenses related to the war in Iraq may not be the administration?s last. The cost of the campaign has come under severe question from those in Congress, by Democratic presidential candidates, and, according to a new poll, by a largely skeptical public.

Said ?I don?t know? whether Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but asserted a relationship between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network that ?stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s.? That collaboration, he said, involved training of al-Qaida personnel in Baghdad in chemical and biological weapons and the provision of bomb-making expertise to the terrorist network by the Iraqis. In addition, one of the bombers of the 1993 World Trade Center attack probably received financing and shelter from the Iraqi government, Cheney said.

 

[Phokus]

:disgust:

I wouldn't be surprised if they have to raise taxes because of Georgie Porgie's spoiled brat spending habits

:frown:

 

[glenn1]

Cheney: Iraq costs may escalate

He's just stating the obvious. I doubt any politician, of any party, who is in his position wouldn't do the same. Last thing you want to do is promise something you can't deliver, such as setting a price tag in advance for something where the ultimate cost is unknown.

That statement should have been pursued with a follow-up question, "how likely do you think it is that costs will escalate?" That would have been a much more pertinent question. Doesn't look like that was asked, however.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Cheney: Iraq costs may escalate

He's just stating the obvious. I doubt any politician, of any party, who is in his position would do the same. Last thing you want to do is promise something you can't deliver, such as setting a price tag in advance for something where the ultimate cost is unknown.

That statement should have been pursued with a follow-up question, "how likely do you think it is that costs will escalate?" That would have been a much more pertinent question. Doesn't look like that was asked, however.

I agree. However, don't you think they should at least tell us what they expect the cost to be for the future, instead of just going to congress asking for a blank check everytime they need more. Is there no planning or research that has been done, or is being done as to the costs, or at least something resembling a plan of action? It seems to me like they are lacking any sort of long term plan for Iraq, and since we are the ones paying for it, maybe they could throw us a bone and give us some details already.

The current policy seems to just be "don't worry, just keep giving us money and trust us it's right thing to do".

 

[glenn1]

However, don't you think they should at least tell us what they expect the cost to be for the future, instead of just going to congress asking for a blank check everytime they need more. Is there no planning or research that has been done, or is being done as to the costs, or at least something resembling a plan of action?

No argument there. They should be more forthright, but being politicians i know that they won't be unless they're repeatedly pressed on the issue (and pressed until they answer in an unambiguous way), and it doesn't seem like the news media seems to be in the mood to do so right now.

I don't know whether it's simply the administration taking advantage of a seeming reluctance to follow up on the issue and are being allowed to spin things in the most positive light, or the press simply not being willing to ask the tough questions (and possibly endanger their "access" to the white house), but either way it doesn't seem like the tough questions are being asked or answered.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

He's just stating the obvious. I doubt any politician, of any party, who is in his position wouldn't do the same. Last thing you want to do is promise something you can't deliver, such as setting a price tag in advance for something where the ultimate cost is unknown.

And for some reason Wolfowitz went to the Hill in May and told the Congress the reconstruction of Iraq would be relatively inexpensive and largely funded by the Iraqi oil revenue. I guess he was using the same projection model as the Bush/Cheney campaign's 10-year budget.

 

[manly]

Actually, according to an L.A. Times article I glanced at this weekend, Donald Rumsfeld has already said the $87 billion figure is $55 billion short. Apparently, the administration is still trying to make light of the costs and appropriations, but at least one of the senior hawks is willing to be a bit more frank on the record for a change?

The sad part is key economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay was canned last year partly because he openly stated that the war in Iraq could cost up to $200 billion.

But hey, look at the glass half full, defense spending helped juice 2nd quarter GDP by a whopping 1.6% or so (essentially doubling the growth rate).

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Link

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 ? Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Bush?s request for $87 billion to pay for additional expenses related to the war in Iraq may not be the administration?s last.

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

 

[Czar]

I think its pretty obvios that it will cost more to rebuild Iraq, expecialy since nearly all of that 87 billion goes to upholding the army and not in the rebuilding process. What amazes me more is that they are still claiming the al-Qaida link even though the evidence is extremely thin.

 

[phillyTIM]

Cheney already said, yesterday on meet the press, that the official word is that saddam was NOT linked 9/11.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Cheney already said, yesterday on meet the press, that the official word is that saddam was NOT linked 9/11.

Good job, timmy. He has stated this time and time again, and I see you were paying attention. Most people around here hear what they want to hear and have made these inferences over and over and over....he said it on Face the Nation months ago, too...I guess the 'anti-war marchers' missed those shows while they were having a rally.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Cheney already said, yesterday on meet the press, that the official word is that saddam was NOT linked 9/11.

Good job, timmy. He has stated this time and time again, and I see you were paying attention. Most people around here hear what they want to hear and have made these inferences over and over and over....he said it on Face the Nation months ago, too...I guess the 'anti-war marchers' missed those shows while they were having a rally.

Since you heard it months ago and again yesterday straight from the VP's lips would you care to explain why Bush supporters still insist there is a link?

I believe it may have been the right wing zealots who weren't paying attention while we "anti-war marchers" were telling them the same thing Cheney told them AGAIN yesterday.

Here is another story on Cheney's confession. And as we've been trying to tell the deaf right wing the $87 billion is only for the rest of this year! At least according to your own VP.

What a f**k up Iraq is turning out to be. Just as all of us "anti-war marchers" told you it would.

Cheney: Postwar Iraq may need more cash