Costs

The WaPo's Robert Samuelson:

To be sure, the war's costs have been huge. Since September 2001, Congress has provided $503 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and related activities, says the Congressional Budget Office. The administration's request for fiscal 2007 (ending in September) and fiscal 2008 would bring the total to $746 billion. Iraq represents about 70 percent of that. By contrast, my original column put the cost of an Iraq war at up to $80 billion. That was based on the cost then of the war in Afghanistan ($10 billion), the cost of the Persian Gulf War ($61 billion) and the expectation that another invasion would involve fewer troops (it did).

This reminds me of former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsay:

When White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey stumbled off message in September 2002 with his prediction that war could cost $100 billion to $200 billion, the administration flew into crisis mode. Budget Director Mitch Daniels was trotted out to label the estimate "very, very high." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz opined -- in testimony to Congress, no less -- that reconstruction would cost virtually nothing in light of Iraq's promising oil revenues. Daniels proffered an estimate in the $50 billion to $60 billion range, substantially less than the $80 billion inflation-adjusted cost of the Persian Gulf War. Lindsey, famously, was soon after fired -- for his troublesome cost estimates and, reportedly, the President's annoyance at his poor personal fitness habits.

Ah, yes, for the innocent days of 2002-2003 when everything was about to come up roses (flowers and sweets!) and those of us who said "hey, wait a minute" were at best ignored and called "traitors" at worst. Happily, those people learned from their mistakes.

Right?

RIGHT!?

(And I had forgotten about George's disgust with Lindsay's "poor personal fitness habits." Our president is a loon, y'know.)

.