U.S. Underestimated War Costs by $12.3 Billion - GAO

[UpInArms]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5736895

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Wednesday it may tap emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan earlier than requested as a congressional report found that the Bush administration underestimated war costs by $12.3 billion.

The report fueled criticism that the wars were badly planned and comes as Congress prepares to approve this week $25 billion in war funds that the White House requested for the 2005 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Those funds will become available when the legislation is passed.

But a Pentagon spokeswoman said the Defense Department may need to use that money earlier if Congress does not approve a request to divert unused money from other Pentagon accounts.

"If we do not get the ... reprograming, we will have to tap into the $25 billion earlier than fiscal year 2005," the spokeswoman said.

The report by Congress' investigative arm found that the Defense Department has been forced to shift funds from other uses, including pushing expenses from the 2004 fiscal year into 2005, in a move likely to boost war costs further down the line.

...more...

[truthisfreedom]

1. surprise, surprise. put on the ol' bushco elevator again. oops, price

just went up.

[2Design]

2. bush the drunk and cocaine is going up in price....

[pinniped]

3. Those assholes have a knack for underestimating costs by billions.

One example, that great big Medicare Bill.

[mn9driver]

8. They didn't "underestimate" the medicare

prescription drug plan. They knew full well how much it would cost and they lied to congress about it. But it's OK because the W.H. legal staff wrote a memo saying it wasn't illegal to lie about it.

[shockingelk]

4. I can't keep up with this crap

I thought we already went over by dozens of $Billions. Underestimated by 12.3 Billion from when? The $87 billion?

[TahitiNut]

5. I guess Halliburton and others pillaged more than expected.

I'm willing to bet the off-shore bank accounts of Bush Family Cronies are a LOT fatter than they expected.

[54anickel]

6. More interesting snippets in there Go GAO!!!

Democrats say the White House is trying to avoid using the $25 billion in the 2004 fiscal year to keep down the size of the record budget deficit ahead of the November election.

The White House is expected to seek a larger emergency spending bill after the U.S. election for Iraq and Afghanistan -- which Democrats say will top $50 billion.

The GAO also criticized the Pentagon for lack of transparency into how the money has been spent. The report said "large amounts" were reported as miscellaneous, providing little insight into where the money went.

snip>

In a separate report, the GAO criticized the Army and Halliburton for their logistics work in Iraq, citing the Army's poor planning and problems with the Texas contractor's cost controls.

[rfkrocks]

7. But...But the GOP is the fiscally responsible party

and their new theme song is "What do you do with a drunken sailor"

[ScrewyRabbit]

9. Gee, Wolfowitz said the whole adventure would pay for itself

Why isn't that guy being hoisted up a congressional flagpole by his ears?

[gratuitous]

10. Bartcop's first rule

If somebody makes a mistake that puts more money in his pocket, look for him to make that same "mistake" over and over again.

"Oh mercy! We underestimated! Can we have another $12.3 billion? No, we can't really tell you what we did with the other $166 billion. You're not going to get snitty about this, are you?"

Meanwhile, another round of RNC commercials come out alleging that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and don't support the troops.

[Barkley]

11. Under estimated the war cost by $12.3 billion and 900 + lives - nt.

[SunDrop23]

12. Stuff like that makes my blood boil.

[TacticalPeek]

13. Hope is not a plan.

From a related article, not really a dupe:

"The GAO report detailed just why a $65 billion emergency appropriation has proved to be insufficient. When Bush requested that money, the Pentagon assumed that troop levels in Iraq would decline from 130,000 to 99,000 by Sept. 30, that a more peaceful Iraq would allow the use of more cost-effective but slower sea lifts to transport troops and equipment, and that troops rotating in would need fewer armored vehicles than the service members they replace.

Instead, troop levels will remain at 138,000 for the foreseeable future, the military is heavily dependent on costly airlifts and the Army's force has actually become more dependent on heavily armored vehicles. The weight of those vehicles, in turn, has contributed to higher-than-anticipated repair and maintenance costs. Higher troop levels have also pushed up the cost of the Pentagon's massive logistical contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root."


The scandal-plagued Bush administration.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4065-2004Jul21.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x701562#701817