Anyone got 12.3 billion to spare?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 21, 2004, 7:21 pm

U.S. Underestimated War Costs by $12.3 Billion -GAO

By Anna Willard

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration underestimated the 2004 cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by $12.3 billion, a report released on Wednesday found, fueling criticism that the war was badly planned.

The shortfall is forcing the Defense Department to shift funds from other uses, including pushing expenses from the 2004 fiscal year into 2005, in a move likely to boost war costs further down the line, Congress' investigative arm found.

"Analysis ... suggests that anticipated costs will exceed the supplemental funding provided for the war by $12.3 billion for the current fiscal year," according to the report by the Government Accountability Office.

Congress approved an $87 billion emergency spending bill in October 2003 to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September.

Democrats estimate that the Pentagon has $5 billion left to fund the 2004 shortfall but will need to find $7 billion to cover it in the last two months of the fiscal year.

"The administration has failed to budget for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan," said the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina.

"The time is long past for the administration to present a full accounting of the cost of the war and to ask Congress to put up the resources needed to fund it."

The White House Office of Management and Budget had no immediate comment on the report.

The report warned that deferring activities planned for the 2004 fiscal year "adds to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a 'bow wave' effect in future fiscal years."

Congress is expected this week to approve, and send to President Bush for signing, the defense spending bill for 2005 which includes $25 billion in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House requested this money for the 2005 fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, a move Democrats say is designed to keep down the size of the record 2004 budget deficit ahead of the November elections.

The White House is expected to seek a larger emergency spending bill early next year, after the elections, for Iraq and Afghanistan -- which Democrats say will top $50 billion.

The GAO also criticized the Department of Defense for lack of transparency into how the money it was sent by Congress has been spent. The report said "large amounts" of funds were reported as miscellaneous, providing "little insight" into where the money went.

Lawmakers have agreed to tighten controls and want monthly reports on the how the latest $25 billion will be used.

But the GAO said "additional actions are necessary."

In a separate report, the GAO criticized the Army and Halliburton for their logistics work in Iraq, citing the Army's poor planning and problems with the Texas contractor's cost controls.

Not that another few billion is going to make any difference; your childrens childrens children will still be paying for this war. And not that it's really new news that it's costing more than anticipated. Still, not a good report to be coming out right now for the Bush team.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 21, 2004, 7:41 pm

No amount of money is too much for the Iraq children to be free, But I guess because they are brown you put a amount on freedom?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 21, 2004, 7:46 pm

Check and mate!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 21, 2004, 7:47 pm

lol yeah ok Micheal Jackson, like this war had anything to do with "de children."

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 21, 2004, 7:47 pm

Hey, I said Check and mate!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 21, 2004, 10:44 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Hey, I said Check and mate!

you're actually backing up Cartalas in his trolling?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 21, 2004, 10:49 pm

Truant wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Hey, I said Check and mate!
you're actually backing up Cartalas in his trolling?

I'm pretty sure Krimson is joking. Right? Right??

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 21, 2004, 10:55 pm

Cartalas wrote:No amount of money is too much for the Iraq children to be free, But I guess because they are brown you put a amount on freedom?

Im sure the children that got there arms and legs blown off as they watched there parents die after a brutal bombing or accidental shooting will be pleased that the US spent all that money to help them, the iraqi children

Check, Check and CheckMate motherfucker!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 21, 2004, 11:46 pm

12 billion is nothing. It will be forgotten as soon as this thread dies.

bitch bitch bitch. Do you think that money would have gone toward researching cold fusion or other alternative fuels? Nope. It would have been used for something else to make the rich richer and it has nothing to do with whether a democrat or republican is in office.

Ah yes, Kerry would have used that money to save the world from hunger or cured cancer.

Everyone knew it would cost a bundle of cash when the war on terror began. I could have told you that 10 minutes after plane #2 hit.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 22, 2004, 12:39 am

Was a joke.

Cartalas' intellect cannot be countered you fools.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 22, 2004, 2:05 am

Xzion wrote:
Cartalas wrote:No amount of money is too much for the Iraq children to be free, But I guess because they are brown you put a amount on freedom?
Im sure the children that got there arms and legs blown off as they watched there parents die after a brutal bombing or accidental shooting will be pleased that the US spent all that money to help them, the iraqi children

Check, Check and CheckMate motherfucker!

actually they are prolly waiting for a moment to shoot them the damn westerners !

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » July 22, 2004, 3:47 am

Winnow wrote:Everyone knew it would cost a bundle of cash when the war on terror began. I could have told you that 10 minutes after plane #2 hit.

So why are we spending so much money on something completely unrelated to the war on terror?

Ok, it's not entirely unrelated. We are actually creating more terrorists for us to wage war upon, kind of like in Ghosts n Goblins where you could rack up extra lives by going backwards in the game to fight more mobs than you ever had to.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 22, 2004, 4:00 am

Mplor wrote:
Winnow wrote:Everyone knew it would cost a bundle of cash when the war on terror began. I could have told you that 10 minutes after plane #2 hit.
So why are we spending so much money on something completely unrelated to the war on terror?

Ok, it's not entirely unrelated. We are actually creating more terrorists for us to wage war upon, kind of like in Ghosts n Goblins where you could rack up extra lives by going backwards in the game to fight more mobs than you ever had to.

Can you prove that we have more total terrorists than if we didnt go into Iraq? How do you know? Would all of the terrorists have vanished? I'd like to see your studies on terrorist counts and how you came up with the figures of how many there would be in a "what if we didn't go into Iraq" scenario.

I'm sure you'll have the perfect solution and a utopia on earth. Invading Iraq may have created some terrorists but prove to me this is more than if we hadn't gone in at all.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 22, 2004, 5:02 am

You and I both know you're playing extremes to try and prove your point. Action against a middle eastern country. I think everyone here can agree, partisan politics or not, that's a sure way to incite those who had a hatred for America to take that final drastic step and become someone who fights for what they believe in. I have no numbers, no proofs. No one does, for or against the argument. I may think a lot of things about you, but I do know this; you're at least reasonable enough to see that the Iraq war probably sparked a growth in anti-American sentiment.

Damn, and I made this post pis sdrunk. I should argue politics while drunk more often!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » July 22, 2004, 12:32 pm

So.. not only can the government not afford to provide our troops with the necessary equipment and protection with the ass reaming amount of money initially requested, but now he wants more money with which to blow.

Ransure · Post by **Ransure** » July 22, 2004, 12:55 pm

I didnt know that about "Ghosts and Goblins".....

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 22, 2004, 1:02 pm

Cartalas wrote:No amount of money is too much for the Iraq children to be free, But I guess because they are brown you put a amount on freedom?

How very liberal minded of you.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 22, 2004, 1:49 pm

Forthe wrote:
Cartalas wrote:No amount of money is too much for the Iraq children to be free, But I guess because they are brown you put a amount on freedom?
How very liberal minded of you.

Im not that liberal I saw the shot I took it

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 22, 2004, 2:01 pm

In April of 2003 the White House sent a guy to talk on Nightline that said the out of pocket cost of the reconstruction of Iraq to the US Taxpayer would be "1.7 billion".

He was asked the question 5 times by an incredulous Ted Koppel, and repeated his answer.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 22, 2004, 2:05 pm

Voronwë wrote:In April of 2003 the White House sent a guy to talk on Nightline that said the out of pocket cost of the reconstruction of Iraq to the US Taxpayer would be "1.7 billion".

He was asked the question 5 times by an incredulous Ted Koppel, and repeated his answer.

He didnt account for inflation

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 22, 2004, 2:05 pm

Voronwë wrote:In April of 2003 the White House sent a guy to talk on Nightline that said the out of pocket cost of the reconstruction of Iraq to the US Taxpayer would be "1.7 billion".

He was asked the question 5 times by an incredulous Ted Koppel, and repeated his answer.

The 6th time he would have cracked!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 22, 2004, 2:25 pm

Ransure wrote:I didnt know that about "Ghosts and Goblins".....

Those damn birds always got me. And the hopping demon omg!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 22, 2004, 5:05 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:You and I both know you're playing extremes to try and prove your point. Action against a middle eastern country. I think everyone here can agree, partisan politics or not, that's a sure way to incite those who had a hatred for America to take that final drastic step and become someone who fights for what they believe in. I have no numbers, no proofs. No one does, for or against the argument. I may think a lot of things about you, but I do know this; you're at least reasonable enough to see that the Iraq war probably sparked a growth in anti-American sentiment.

Damn, and I made this post pis sdrunk. I should argue politics while drunk more often!

And on the flipside, how many millions are we empowering to take up the fight for their own families and their own futures? I.e. how many allies have we gained? It's just as hard to quantify, but damn...your standpoint relies on the premise that there are fundamentally more evil minded people than good minded people in the Muslim world. I disagree. No good person believes terrorism is a good thing.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 22, 2004, 7:03 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:You and I both know you're playing extremes to try and prove your point. Action against a middle eastern country. I think everyone here can agree, partisan politics or not, that's a sure way to incite those who had a hatred for America to take that final drastic step and become someone who fights for what they believe in. I have no numbers, no proofs. No one does, for or against the argument. I may think a lot of things about you, but I do know this; you're at least reasonable enough to see that the Iraq war probably sparked a growth in anti-American sentiment.

Damn, and I made this post pis sdrunk. I should argue politics while drunk more often!
And on the flipside, how many millions are we empowering to take up the fight for their own families and their own futures? I.e. how many allies have we gained? It's just as hard to quantify, but damn...your standpoint relies on the premise that there are fundamentally more evil minded people than good minded people in the Muslim world. I disagree. No good person believes terrorism is a good thing.

You lead a sheltered life if you think you have made allies in the muslim world.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 22, 2004, 7:10 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:You and I both know you're playing extremes to try and prove your point. Action against a middle eastern country. I think everyone here can agree, partisan politics or not, that's a sure way to incite those who had a hatred for America to take that final drastic step and become someone who fights for what they believe in. I have no numbers, no proofs. No one does, for or against the argument. I may think a lot of things about you, but I do know this; you're at least reasonable enough to see that the Iraq war probably sparked a growth in anti-American sentiment.

Damn, and I made this post pis sdrunk. I should argue politics while drunk more often!
And on the flipside, how many millions are we empowering to take up the fight for their own families and their own futures? I.e. how many allies have we gained? It's just as hard to quantify, but damn...your standpoint relies on the premise that there are fundamentally more evil minded people than good minded people in the Muslim world. I disagree. No good person believes terrorism is a good thing.

When we're talking about the dangers that peaceful, American-loving Muslims pose to your country then ok, you can bring that argument up again.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 22, 2004, 10:18 pm

Rekaar. wrote:And on the flipside, how many millions are we empowering to take up the fight for their own families and their own futures? I.e. how many allies have we gained? It's just as hard to quantify, but damn...your standpoint relies on the premise that there are fundamentally more evil minded people than good minded people in the Muslim world. I disagree. No good person believes terrorism is a good thing.

Even if your overly optimistic rhetoric were true.. terrorists ARE terrorists because they operate from a position of numerical weakness you dolt.

BTW, who are the poor going to "fight" for their futures? Allies against whom exactly? The poor in the next country over?

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » July 23, 2004, 2:26 am

Ransure wrote:I didnt know that about "Ghosts and Goblins".....

Yeah, I was totally making that shit up, but don't tell Winnow!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 23, 2004, 10:48 am

Attack or not, we'd have terrorists wanting to kill us.

Until the world is one theocracy under Allah, they'll come up with some reason to hate and kill anyone not like them.

Rather than sitting in an defensive posture, spending billions chasing phantoms in anticipation of the next attack, push the attack to the enemy.

Lock him down. Remove his mobility. Make him unable to do anything save for a few roadside abductions from his reduced operating area.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » July 23, 2004, 11:00 am

Just imagine what 1.7 billion would do for our own country and its people if actually used for good purposes instead of lining rich peoples pockets. But no, let's give it away and make other countries better instead of our own.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 23, 2004, 11:17 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Attack or not, we'd have terrorists wanting to kill us.

Until the world is one theocracy under Allah, they'll come up with some reason to hate and kill anyone not like them.

Rather than sitting in an defensive posture, spending billions chasing phantoms in anticipation of the next attack, push the attack to the enemy.

Lock him down. Remove his mobility. Make him unable to do anything save for a few roadside abductions from his reduced operating area.

I really don't have anything to say other than "LOL"

and that scares me.

Try and think about why the muslim world dislikes the christian world so much. Think history...get back to me.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 23, 2004, 11:46 am

Sure, right after you tell my why "the muslim world" hates each other so much. Is it because they have differing views on how they should run shit? Why did Hussein gas the Kurds? Why does Sunni war with Shiite? Why do you generalize so broadly? That scares me.

Us vs Them apparently means different things to you who would claim we are creating more terrorists than allies in the war on terror. It's less about nations and more about people who want a better life for them and theirs. Just like you and I. At the end of the day that's what it really comes down to - how does this affect my life? How would I feel if I was there, given what I know?

Given what I know, if I were an Iraqi, I'd be among the millions of thankful. You may differ here, and may embrace the blame America first ideology. You have that right.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 23, 2004, 12:25 pm

Truant wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Attack or not, we'd have terrorists wanting to kill us.

Until the world is one theocracy under Allah, they'll come up with some reason to hate and kill anyone not like them.

Rather than sitting in an defensive posture, spending billions chasing phantoms in anticipation of the next attack, push the attack to the enemy.

Lock him down. Remove his mobility. Make him unable to do anything save for a few roadside abductions from his reduced operating area.
I really don't have anything to say other than "LOL"

and that scares me.

Try and think about why the muslim world dislikes the christian world so much. Think history...get back to me.

I'm not talking about the muslim world. The muslim world despises their faith being tarnished by these terrorists.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » July 23, 2004, 3:36 pm

Rekaar. wrote:your standpoint relies on the premise that there are fundamentally more evil minded people than good minded people in the Muslim world.

Only if you're so naive as to think the only reason people turn to terrorism is because they're evil, which is (I'm sorry to use this term, really I am) a very US/Western-centric way of looking at it. So is your claim that "given what I know, I'd be among the millions of thankful." What you 'know' is a bunch of bullshit rhetoric and is totally irrelevant until you've actually lived in a situation even remotely similar to those you're trying to compare yourself to.

I don't believe that people should only have opinions on things with which they have direct experience, but acting as though you can say with any certainty whatsoever what you'd do if you were an Iraqi is just ridiculous, and furthermore, it does absolutely nothing to further your point. You contend that we haven't made more enemies than we have friends by making war on Iraq, which may be true and in any case is an opinion worth exploring. However, what you or any American think they'd do in that situation is totally irrelevant. If you want to continue with your argument, find some real support for it, not that sort of trite nonsense.