Real cost of Iraq war: More than $500 billion

The cost for President George W. Bush’s failed Iraq war will soon top $500 billion.

That half a trillion dollars or ten times what administration officials claimed the war would cost before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Reports Ron Hutcheson of McClatchy Newspapers:

The bitter fight over the latest Iraq spending bill has all but obscured a sobering fact: The war will soon cost more than $500 billion.

That’s about ten times more than the Bush administration anticipated before the war started four years ago, and no one can predict how high the tab will go. The $124 billion spending bill that President Bush plans to veto this week includes about $78 billion for Iraq, with the rest earmarked for the war in Afghanistan, veterans’ health care and other government programs.

Congressional Democrats and Bush agree that they cannot let their dispute over a withdrawal timetable block the latest cash installment for Iraq. Once that political fight is resolved, Congress can focus on the president’s request for $116 billion more for the war in the fiscal year that starts on Sept. 1.

The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

What could that kind of money buy?

A college education – tuition, fees, room and board at a public university – for about half of the nation’s 17 million high-school-age teenagers.

Pre-school for every 3- and 4-year-old in the country for the next eight years.

A year’s stay in an assisted-living facility for about half of the 35 million Americans age 65 or older.

Not surprisingly, opinions about the cost of the war track opinions about the war itself.

“If it’s really vital, then whatever it costs, we should pay it. If it isn’t, whatever we pay is too much,” said Robert Hormats, author of “The Price of Liberty,” a newly published book that examines the financing of America’s wars.

One Response to "Real cost of Iraq war: More than $500 billion"

  1. Doubtom  May 1, 2007 at 11:00 am

    When you miss your predictions by that large a margin what right do you have to the title of ‘leader’ of anything?

    Why do we look up to people like that? Why are they still in positions of power? Why isn’t Wolfowitz on the slag pile where he belongs? Why isn’t Perle (“the war will pay for itself out of Iraqui oil”) on the same slag pile?

    What are the “real” credentials of these clowns?

Comments are closed.