Highest cost, as one might expect, was the Africa trip, due to the more complicated logistics. Estimated cost was $42.8 million. Apparently the advance party was made up of some 1300 people. The single-country trips were each less than half that amount. Advance teams for those trips made up 500-600 people.
The breakdowns make interesting reading. There is no doubt that quite a lot of logistics are involved; not just the primary aircraft transporting the president and his party but literally dozens of supporting cargo airlifts, in-flight refueling, etc.
Nevertheless, there is nothing factual in the OP’s linked article to indicate that this trip is any larger in scale or complexity than the 1998 trips. Based on the above, and allowing for inflation, I think we can safely assume that the India trip will come in at the $30-40 million range, tops.
But of course, Ms. Bachmann clearly thinks we are all fucking idiots, in assuming she can put over the notion that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has no way to find out how much a presidential trip might cost except to read an anonymous report in a foreign newspaper.
The article gives a number for rupees as well as dollars. India has this (I found confusing) habit of not talking in millions and billions, but instead a certain number of lakh (100,000), or crore (10,000,000). Made the paper tough to understand.
This seems a lot more reasonable. 200 million rupees = ~4.5 million USD. The article in the OP says this is a three-day trip which puts the total cost at ~13.5 million USD. That’s more or less in line with the Chile trip in that GAO report.
The article does mention 900 crore, but that’s got to be the result of a misunderstanding by someone.
From what I have seen it seems to have started with her and been masturbated over by wingnuts on social media sites.
At this point, anything that comes from Bachmann is about one step down from getting your information from the homeless schizophrenic who lives under the bridge.
Yep. What you have to understand about Michelle Bachmann is that a) she’s full of shit and b) she’s someone who would take a dump on the American flag and wipe her ass with the Constitution if she thought it would help her make a point about how evil Obama is. So, no, I wouldn’t put too much stock in this faux-outrage.
Not really. As I mentioned there is a certain appreciation among the Indian policy elite for Bush’s role in pushing the Indo-US nuclear deal. That is what the article is talking about. However there was never remotely the kind of widespread acclaim that Clinton got when he visited or Obama will receive when he visits. Fundamentally the Indian middle class prefers the Democrats and have for decades going back all the way to at least Kennedy. Part of it is because Democrats are generally perceived as being less bellicaose and Indians have always been wary of what they consider American imperialism. Part of it is that Democrats seem more tolerant and inclusive and the Christian Right in particular is a major turn-off. It didn’t help when Indo-US relations reached their absolute nadir under Nixon during the Bangladesh war.
Un-fucking-believable, here I thought the discussion would be about a major state visit to India that is considered to be a major steppingstone in forging and strengthening new ties with the 21th centuries next superpower which will have very real economic, military, political and diplomatic consequences. Not the least what it will mean to US relations with China and Pakistan. Instead people are arguing about the travel expenses of the President of The United States. :smack:
Rome isn’t burning, its fucking burnt.
An Indian acquaintance in Thailand, one who generally seems to know what he’s talking about, once told me Bush maintained an 80% approval rating in India throughout both terms and that he could probably win the election if it were somehow magically possible for him to run for the Indian presidency. Said India had benefited greatly from Bush’s policies, such as the nuclear assistance.
80% approval rating among whom? I doubt that the average landless peasant in rural India had any kind of opinion, good or bad, about Bush. Many of them had probably never heard of him. What your friend may have been referring to was a poll number about the Indo-US nuclear deal but I highly doubt even that. The deal was hugely controversial in India and nearly brought down the Manmhohan Singh government.
No, he wasn’t talking about any specific deal, but rather general approval rating throughout his presidency. I’m not sure what population group he was referring to, but he himself was and is a middle-class newspaperman.