arlier this year Nobel Prize winning economist and former Clinton advisor Joseph Stiglitz, in an interview published in the Australian News, stated, "The Iraq War has cost the U.S. 50-60 times more than the Bush Administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy."
The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies.
When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. If you recall, Larry Lindsey, then the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US 100 billion and $US 200 billion. Donald Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US 50 to $US 60 billion, a bargain war! Lindsey was summarily dispatched to the dustbin of history.
Some have calculated that the cost is more like $US 3 trillion. And others have calculated that it is going to be a lot more.
Wapo's article earlier this week didn't mince words: Financial crisis dims Bush's Iraq legacy. Legacy? What legacy? This financial mess we'll all have to pay for?
Finally, this morning, someone on Bloomberg dared to utter the following words: "This economic crisis can be attributed generously to the ever increasing cost of the Iraq war."
Unfortunately I can't remember his name but he's a regular of Squawk Box, a daily business show I have been watching on a regular basis to try to fathom the depths of this economic crisis.
Throughout European business circles a tacit consensus has emerged: should McCain gain access of the White House, it's curtains. There isn't a single economist (save one from the FT) that has bought into his and Palin's visions of the future.
And GWB? "We can solve this crisis and we will," he bleated in extraordinarily brief remarks from the White House Rose Garden. Thank you, George, we owe you one!
 |