monopoly-poor.thumbnail.jpgOf all the terrible and shallow performances of the American media in regard to Iraq, with perhaps the exception of the early cheerleading days, no topic has been more poorly covered than the war’s financial cost. After nearly five years, I have still rarely seen a White House Press reporter not named Helen Thomas even broach the subject.

And yet, while the reports in general about Iraq diminish and the topic becomes less important to the public the expense becomes ever greater, up to $15 billion a month.

When McCain starts saying Obama or Clinton wants the wave the white flag, it’s not only preposterous strategically, even if it were true we could not afford the white flags.

When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.

Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion…

The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research that was published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated.

When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars’ costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.

"I think we really have learned that the long-term costs of taking care of the wounded and injured in this war and the long-term costs of rebuilding the military to its previous strength is going to far eclipse the cost of waging this war," Bilmes said in an interview.

The book and its estimates are the subject of a hearing Thursday by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.

Naturally, this leads the Bush Administration to proclaim a Nobel Prize winning economist is nothing but a traitorous, lilly-livered, terrorist-lover:

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz’s research.

"It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?"

Jeebus, why not just do the ol’ "I’m rubber and you’re glue" Tony? Thanks for not answering. Well, at least someone asked. But that’s about the last we hear of it. Nevertheless, with the exception of some print media reports I have seen nothing of this in the broadcast media, nor, at this point have I seen either of the remaining Democratic candidates use it to a substantial degree. It might be time to bring it up — a lot.

I look forward to John McCain NOT being asked about this by Michael Scherer and the rest of his harem of press agents.

Related posts:

  1. What Have We Done? Single Mothers Among New Homeless Vets
  2. Never Mind the Detainees, Get Dick Cheney out of my Backyard!
  3. Senate Finance Dawdles While Thousands Die Waiting Without Health Care
  4. Frank Rich: McCain Was Wrong On Everything. CNN Treats Him As Sage
  5. The Debris of an Occupation