Another Agent Of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Eric Alterman is saying that The New York Times is biased to the right!. His justification? That the Times reported that that an Iraq war will cost $60 billion, when he cites a study that says that it will cost a a maximum of $1.9 trillion for the worst-case scenario. (And even that study puts a lower range of around $99 billion, which is far more likely than a $2 trillion price tag.) The worst-case scenario includes a years-long war, a major recession, and the cost of nation-building and peacekeeping. In fact the study also says:

A short war could actually benefit the United States in terms of its macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, by $17 billion. A long war, in contrast, could have a $391 billion negative effect.

In other words, the real costs of the war could be from $17 billion in the bank to around $391 billion in the hole. (My money is on the short war.) Peacekeeping will be more expensive, but that is unlikely to be a burden the US will bear alone. To Alterman, the Times is irresponsible for not hyping up the $1.9 trillion figure despite the fact that his own evidence that says that is only one small possibility. So it appears that anyone who doesn’t distort the facts sufficiently is now a card-carrying member of the VWRC.

Memo to Mr. Alterman – for New Years, ditch the crack. It’s making you paranoid and illogical.

One thought on “Another Agent Of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

  1. The article:
    Study: Iraq War Could Cost $1.9 Trillion…

    …it will cost a a maximum of $1.9 billion for the worst-case scenario.

    Billion, trillion, schmillion, what’s few orders of magnitude among friends?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.