Adm. Mullen: I Don't Know Where Obama Got War Cost Numbers (VIDEO)

Vowing to fight Barack Obama's budget in Congress, Republicans have resorted to a three-pronged attack: accusing the president of proposing unprecedented spending, irresponsible taxation, and using dishonest projections about how to pay for it all.

On the latter front, the GOP got a bit of an assist Sunday morning from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, the head of U.S. military forces said he didn't know where the Obama administration was getting its long-term projections for the money it will save by drawing down the war in Iraq. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether it was a budgetary "gimmick" that the government would save $183 billion in 2019 simply by drawing down the war in the next few years, Mullen said he wasn't sure. But he did say, on two occasions, that he never had seen that number before, the implicit message -- at least the one pushed by Wallace -- being that Obama had chosen rosy figures to meet its deficit reduction strategy.

WALLACE: The White House says that one way it's going to be able to cut the budget deficit is by saving hundreds of billions of dollars by dialing back in Iraq. Did you ever project that we would be spending $183 billion on into 2019?

MULLEN: I haven't looked out that far in terms of the specific projections. Certainly, we review routinely the costs as best we are able to project it in the budgets over the next several years, and we've done that. And, actually, you know, there will be considerable costs certainly in the near term even as we draw down. It's not just the costs of being there, but it will be the costs of coming home...

WALLACE: I'm going to get to that in a moment, but the question I'm asking is -- and you're saying as chairman of the joint chiefs, you did not have a projection -- excuse me -- of spending $183 billion in Iraq up through the next decade?

MULLEN: No

WALLACE: So when the Obama budget says that it's going to save hundreds of billions of dollars because it's not going to be spending $183 billion in 2019, that's a gimmick?

MULLEN: I'm not sure it's a gimmick. Looking out to 2019 so far, there are certainly uncertainties associated with that. I have a very clear understanding in the near term of what we think it's going to cost us for these two wars and in the long term...

WALLACE: But you didn't have that number, is what I'm saying.

MULLEN: No, I didn't have that number.

Comments

[Spud777]

Bush sycophant Mullen and Petreaus need to retire now. No creds.

[WyomingJack]

Adm. Mike Mullen there are these wonderful things now called calculators. Texas Instruments makes a good one. It even comes with instructions. I'll send you one.

[robeson]

Admiral, here is the way to handle the Bush Propagandist on Fox, like Chris Wallace.

"Chris, you know there was never any accounting for war costs under Bush, and now, now that they're being reduced you want detailed accounting??"

[DRaymond]

It isn't that the answer is wrong, it is that the whole question is based on a distorted premise about how you do long term budget plannng.

You start with TODAY's spending and revenues and then project how much that is going to change up or down because of inflation, changes in demographics, changes in costs, projected economic growth, and any other factor that applies. So the $183 billion dollars isn't a difference between Obama's plan and some other pentagon plan about what the war was going to cost in 2019. It is a difference between our CURRENT spending and what Obama believes will be spent in 2019. And considering our current spending that is not an unreasonable difference at all.

[bluehand]

Chris Wallace has a lot of nerve claiming that Pres Obama is doing something under handed with military spending in the budget, when Bush was cooking the books, and not even reporting what was being spent. And, Wallace needs to work on hiding that "sneaky" look. Talk about being transparent.

[Spud777]

Chris Wallace is simply another Fixed News joke. Everytime he speaks, a lie comes out.

[DrBillo1]

this bush supporter should be immediately retired and sent home so a younger and much more talented officer can take over

[Whatashame]

It was a blank check remember.

[sixx]

Admiral, nobody knows the numbers, not you, not Bush, nor Obama. It was a bottomless bank with no accounting, they bragged.

[AceInTheHole]

IT'S TIME FOR THIS GUY TO GO! PERIOD.
NOBODY ELECTED THIS GUY COMMANDER IN CHIEF
CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY! AND DEMAND HIS REMOVAL .

HOW CAN WE TRUST ANY OF THE MILITARY LEADERS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUT IN PLACE.

Seriously! This guy proves that those who were promoted by Bush are not loyal to the new Commander in Chief and should be replaced just like Bush replaced the good guys in the military who did not sell out or drink the cool aid.
President Obama should FIRE this jerk for insubordination, period!
Who the hell does he think he is, and what progeny of military is he from, BRUTUS?

[Kaviraj]

Is this not called insubordination? Where is the court martial? Get rid of this treasonous piece of sh*t!

[JimR]

What insubordination? He was asked if he had that number. He said no.

He was supposed to lie?

[bluehand]

Of course he was not supposed to lie. But, you don't know that he was telling the truth. Also, he is not a member of congress or the senate, and the Pres (whoever, that is) is his Commander and Chief, which he seems to have a problem with, like some others at the pentagon.

[garcia83]

dear fellow americans:

you're allowed to criticize the president you know. for all the outrage of mullen's appearance, whom of you are actually concerned about the fact that obama potentially made up his numbers?

i voted for the guy because we needed accountability. what about you?

[AceInTheHole]

There is a big difference between accountability and undermining your Commander in Chief.

This is not high school ROTC. and this man is supposedly the top military officer in our military . And he's acting like his elevator does not go to the top. You'd think that after hopefully "earning" four stars in the military, he'd know and respect the Military Chain of Command. I know he has to be smarter than the way he's acted in this situation, and if he is not, he is definitely the wrong man to execute the responsibilities of the job that he has been given. Period!!!

[JimR]

Sounds like you want him to lie. He was asked where the number of $183 million in savings comes from. He said he didn't know. What do you want him to say?

[garcia83]

simply because you're embarrassed for how this makes obama look doesn't mean that's how mullen meant it. watch out, you're letting your blind dogmatism show.

[bluehand]

or...maybe Mullen was lying. You don't have any evidence on way or another.

[1differentdrummer]

Who approved Mullen's appearance on that show?

[knowhelpnow]

Admiral Mullen should have not even been on Fox news discussing anything about the budget. Mullen's Commander-in-Chief is President Obama and I'm retired from the military and if I went to the media while on active duty and started to say anything about what the President was doing I would be subjected to the Military Code of Justice and so should Admiral Mullen.
He should be fired for even getting himself in this situation by going on this GOP bias media site.

This GOP right ring media should be subject to the Fairness Media Act. I say it is about time.
This going on TV and discussing anything to do with the Commander-in-Chief budget should never be happening by anyone in the Military. I wonder how Mullen would act if one his subordinates did what he did, I bet that s**t would be hitting the fan as soon as the person opened his mouth.

[arspar183]

As a vet myself....naval officer...i concur whole heartedly.

[AceInTheHole]

I have a good degree of respect for naval officers, but I can't forget that McCain was a naval officer and how did he work out?
With that said, this guy is so unremarkable for a four star, until he's almost nondescript.
I'm sure there are other four stars or even three star officers who could do a much better job.

[tomterif]

I don't understand your stipulations about what particular media Admiral Mullen should or shouldn't have been allowed to go on, to discuss whatever he himself decided he would or would not discuss... Your whole approach [which strikes me as "baseless partisanship concerns on steroids"] to the discussion seems absolutely BIZARRE to me.

If the Military Code stipulates active officers shouldn' t "discuss anything the President is doing", couldn't the officer claim that as a reason for not answering any particular question, on any station ?

Isn't the O admiinsistration supposed to be the "transparency" one.

When officers, Defense Secretaries, etc., are questioned by Congress, televised by ["neutral" as can be] CSPAN, aren't they required to answer budgetary qustions ?

If Fox was rightist [as it certainly seems], or "centrist", or "leftist" [as I'd say MSNBC is, wouldn't you ?], if there're questions active military SHOULDN'T discuss publicly, so much so you state they should be fired for even "getting themselves into such a situation" where, say, on Fox, they might be asked a budgetary question, would it've been OK for Mullen to go on MSNBC, knowing an even presumed "leftist" interviewer might ask about military budgets [Lots of leftists are in no way thrilled about Obama's militarily doings, you know, "to say the least !"].

Do you feel passionately that the "Democratic left wing media" [with MSNBC as an example : Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, etc.] should be subject to the Fairness Act also ?

Your post makes no sense to

[bluehand]

So far, I have not seen any "active" military people on Olberman, Maddow, or Matthews, only Vets. You have completely missed the point.

[Nova16]

Why discuss the pittance of $168 billion dollars. This war will ultimately cost $2-3 trillion or more. It was placed off budget by Bush and was heavily financed by China, Japan, Mexico et al. The President is attempting in his budget to remove the dishonesty on how it whas financed in the first instance and what is needed to supply the troops until they are removed from the debacle in Iraq. There is some expert thinking by folks who have spent time in Iraq that the worst is not over and Obama may be facing a real problem in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

In that the last Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill that "EX"-President George W. Bush signed (June 30, 2008) was for $168 Billion and only funded the War in Iraq through 2009, seems to me that we should be seeing saving on that Budget Item immediately.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/30/bush.supplemental/index.html