I’ll put this here since it’s political and not really an IMHO type question. Also, I did a cursory search for this topic and didn’t see one in thread titles in my quick perusal. Please direct me to the thread if it’s been done.
Kerry keeps hammering that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion. Bush keeps hammering that it was $120 billion. I’ve seen Bush call out Kerry on giving false numbers, with Kerry sticking to the $200 bil.
disclaimer: most know I’m a Bush supporter so I’m inclined to trust him over Kerry. However, other than hearing some talking heads repeat the numbers, I have yet to see proof of the budget spending on the war. In addition, Bush always calls out Kerry on the inflated number, while Kerry says nothing BUT the number with no examples or cites.
So it looks like one of two things.
Kerry wants to inflate the war budget to a “nice even number people can understand”. (and it’s always higher when talking numbers of this size for shock value)
Kerry is talking about extras that aren’t necessarily directly related to the war. (Patriot Act, budget for Homeland Security, etc)
This could also go the other way, where Bush is downplaying the number by excluding certain facets and making it sound “cheaper” by Kerry’s estimation, while still spending that 200 bil.
So, anyone know of a comprehensive analysis of the money being spent and how the 2 can be $89 billion dollars apart?
The only thing I would ask is that if it’s your opinion, you state as such. Otherwise I’m curious as to the actual facts on record of the money spent so far.
Kerry is including estimates and future spending. The figure through next year may not be $200 billion, but it’s not going to stop at $120 bn. either, I suppose. Yes, both sides are trying to make the data look better for them. Try FactCheck.org for some more specifics.
must remember FactCheck, must remember FactCheck :smack:
Thanks for the link.
Now another question on this subject, if nobody minds. Am I wrong in my remembering Kerry saying we’ve already spent $200 billion? Not that the total would hit that. It most certainly will considering we’ve got a few more years involvement. But it seems he’s trying to accelerate in people’s minds that that’s what we’ve already spent. Not a projection.
(someone quick! advance us to 3 Nov so we can get back to debating uses for navel lint!)
Kerry’s only use of the figure last night was as follows: “And if we had used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That’s the war against terror.”
Doesn’t say we’ve already spent it, but it implies the money is going to be spent rather than ‘definitely this amount, maybe as much as this amount, will be spent.’
Nope, you are remembering correctly. Every time he mentions it, I cringe.
I know that both sides fudge numbers, to help ,make their point… but I really wish Kerry et al. would have just stuck with $120 billion (I mean… it’s not like that’s a small amount).
LilShieste
I have a feeling this is going to come across as confrontational, and worse, a hijack of my own thread. But this also bothers me. (I may have to open another debate on this)
“We could have saved” Well, yeah, we could have done a lot of things. Hindsight and all that. There aren’t many Monday Morning Quarterbacks with Super Bowl rings.
“OBL might be in jail or dead” Yeah, or he might still be on the loose. I might win the Powerball drawing tonight, but I doubt the Mercedes dealer will bank on that when I want a 500SL convertable.
Maybe I’m just so tired of seeing dozens of threads posted daily on the minutiae of what Bush says while Kerry throws these bombs and gets a pass because he isn’t Bush. I’m out for tonight, got another long shift ahead. I’ll check back tomorrow.
He said “might” for a reason. His point was that whether Bin Laden would have been caught or not, he should be the #1 priority. Bush chose to put more energy into invading Iraq. If he’d done something else, maybe he’d have caught Bin Laden. Maybe not. We’ll never know because he focused on Iraq instead. I don’t think this is weasling or misleading. I think it’s legit to argue that the pursuit of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda has been affected by the Iraq war. Your Powerball odds have not.
I agree with LilShieste. Since when do you need to fudge on $120 billion? That’s a big enough number to make you eyes pop out. How many of us out there can really appreciate the difference between $120 billion and $200 billion?
Dammit, Kerry! Just say “120 billion and counting” and let it go. By going with the $200 billion you are giving the Bush people the opportunity to redirect the debate into an accounting issue, and even if you win the point you’ve lost the audience’s interest.
Maybe that’s the idea. Kerry said “$200 billion,” Bush says “naw, it’s only $120 billion!” and the public goes “he thinks $120 billion is no big deal?”
Why has it already been appropriated if the President hasn’t asked for it yet? Just curious.
I can understand why Kerry minced his wording if the money has already been appropriated. But I agree with bnorton that $120 billion is an extraordinary amount and quite sufficient.
Marley23, are you a bald-headed Cajun with a well-known Republican wife? I knew I loved you all along…
I agree that there is no reason to fudge the $120 billion figure, however I don’t think less of Kerry for doing so. If $80 billion more has been tagged for Iraq over the next FY, that money is essentially spent due to the actions of the current administration, and Kerry is just making the point of how deep a hole Bush has gotten us into. I haven’t mailed out my November mortgage payment yet, but I know full well that the money is as good as spent.
Kind of like when presidents take credit for “projected” budget surpluses.
I just think that saying “$120 billion and counting” is more effective rhetoric. Otherwise you get into one of these things:
Kerry: We’ve already spent $200 billion in Iraq.
Bush: Uh-uh, it’s only $120 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says so.
Kerry: Yes, but there is the additional $80 billion that has been appropriated for future needs, which, from an actuarial perspective, is therefore, ipso facto non-discretional blah-blah-blah…
Yeah, I agree that Kerry has made a mistake by saying $200 billion. Mind you, it is almost impossible that it won’t be more than that by the time we are all done…And, in fact, it will likely be around that by the end of the next fiscal year which we started October 1, but he ought to stick with what we’ve spent here and now rather than fudging on the numbers.
If I was advising Kerry, I would tell him: “Look, the truth is bad enough for this administration. All you have to do is tell the truth.” My goal would be to have factcheck.org look so one-sided that the Republicans would be accusing it of being a Democratic organization in disguise. (As it is, I think [IMHO] that they do have to correct more serious errors coming from the Republican side than the Democratic side but I would prefer to see it even more lopsided.)
Not that I’m a Typical American Voter [tm] or anything, but this is what I think when I hear that exchange:
Kerry: …$200 billion wasted in Iraq…
Bush: $120 billion, not $200 billion!
Oh, well, that makes all the difference, doesn’t it? It’s just a measly one hundred twenty billion freaking dollars! I don’t think either one of them is handling this well, but Bush definitely has the dirty end of the stick.
It could be a specific tactic used by the Kerry Campaign (perhaps brilliant?).
Most of the electorate isn’t focused on details, but on themes (“flip flopper”, “wrong war wrong place wrong time”, etc.). A good thing a candidate can do is focus on the bad themes of his opponent, so no matter the details, the bad theme is driven into the public mind.
One bad theme for Bush is the cost of the Iraqi war. So any time that either candidate mentions it, it’s bad for Bush. So when Kerry throws out the $200 billion, Bush has to correct the spin, therefore forcing Bush to mention something that will play negatively on him. If Kerry used the $120 billion figure, Bush would have no reason to re-mention it, and he could let the subject die off.
