|
||
Baghdad Bling
Today's WashPost article citing a General Accounting Office Report released yesterday on Iraq's oil surplus caught my eye because it harkened back to the pathetically painful boast of leading war advocate Dep Sec Def Wolfowitz's immortal words : "...the cost of the occupation, the cost of the military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraq oil." OH REALLY??? This is the chap who was subsequently nominated by President Bush to run the World Bank before he was sacked for questionable ethics.
Perhaps Dr. Wolfowitz should know that his former colleagues at the Pentagon estimate that five years since the invasion the military cost of the war and occupation have cost $600 billion, but no one really knows for sure, and some economists peg the cost so far between $1 trillion to $3 trillion and that is still just a rough estimate.
According to the WashPost, oil provided 94% of Iraq's $96 billion in revenue between 2005 and the end of 2007. And based on projected estimates of Iraq's oil exports in 2008, oil will generate between $67 billion and $79 billion in revenue. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Iraq will have a budget surplus of $38 BILLION to $50 BILLION in 2008.
Guess what, my friends, the U.S. taxpayer is still paying for the lion's share of Iraq's reconstruction ($48 billion since 2003) while Baghdad continues to stick its profits under its mattress, spending no more than 10% of its revenue on reconstruction (i.e., a paltry $3-5 billion) when it could easily spend over $35 billion) AND, for good measure, we are buying Iraq's oil at existing market prices, to boot!
Well, this war was (to the best of my knowledge) never about oil, n'est pas? But the sheer audacity of this White House is beyond belief when any rational person should be asking him or herself why are we permitting Iraq's government to get away with this highway robbery when it could easily shoulder more of the reconstruction burden.
I venture these guesses:
1. We don't have the nerve to demand any offset because the White House conveniently bought into the Pottery Barn Rule in all its glory ("you broke it, you own it").
2. The White House did not want to antagonize PM Maliki while it continued to insist over his objections that there should be no timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, but merely a time "horizon."
3. The White House wants to build up Iraq's oil profits so that Iraq can continue to fund the Bush deficits by beginning to fund our debt through the purchase of U.S. Treasury Bonds.
4. Bush and Cheney denied this war was about oil, and guess what, they cannot get themselves to admit that the taxpayer is now entitled to make something about Iraq's oil profits.
Just to put in in shorthand, as of today, the U.S. taxpayer has conservatively spent $48 billion to rebuild Iraq and Iraq has spent just $3-5 billion when it could be 100% times that.
I, for one, am not bashful. Whether this war was about oil or not, it sure as well be about oil now when the American taxpayer is hurting at the pump and Iraq's government is laughing all the way to the bank.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let me see if I understand this:
You come over to my house and destroy it. Then you say to me, "you have money, you pay to repair it."
In America I smell a lawsuit.
Why should we expect the Bush/Cheney people to let a little thing like Iraq's budget surplus to stand in the way of their transfer of public funds to private hands? After all, the money has been theirs for the asking... (Can we impeach these bastards yet???)
It seems to me that Powell did warn before the invasion "we break it, we own it". Point two, it is very naughty of Iraq to bomb itself into the stone age and then ask America to help it rebuild.
If we own it, we get to take its golden oily eggs home, right?
Ginsberg is right. Follow the money. Where is the Iraqi surplus going if it's not going into repairing Iraq and building its infrastructure? Into who's bank accounts in Lichtenstein?
... and another query ... if Iraq is a card-carrying member of OPEC ... and the US is the occupying entity in Iraq ... wouldn't that make the US a voting member of OPEC ??? Just wondering.
Bottom line ... if the original Iraq invasion and occupation was not about OIL, it damn sure is now. Exactly why is the corporate media NOT bringing this to light ???
we broke it. we pay for it. like it or not (i'm on the record as a not) we trashed the country with our invasion. do we not have a moral obligation to at least try to make it right? i believe we do.
let us withdraw the troops, end the "war" and help the iraqi people reclaim their country. it's the least we can do.
Let the oil companies, for whose profit margins we invaded Iraq, pay for the reconstruction. I'm talking about the American oil companies which were not included in Saddam's plans for oil development. The ones that now stand to profit tremendously from Iraqi oil. Let them foot the bill. Why the hell should we go without affordable health care and good schools so these greedy bastards can make more money?
I think Americans are the most masochistic people on the planet. We seem to enjoy getting f*cked by corporate power.
Country A covets the oil of country B and invades it under false pretenses removing the dictator, killing a few hundred thousand previously alive citizens and destroying the infrastructure while paying hundreds of billions to cronies of Country A's vice-president. Several years later Country B still doesn't have reliable electric power - thanks to Country A
Due to oil market manipulations of friends of country A's Vice Prez country B might actually get some money. Says country A's ambassador country B you freeloaders can now pay for all the damage we caused you.
I don't claim to understand the niceties of diplomacy - but it just doesn't seem fair.
Well said.
And it's also not fair that our children don't have health care and our schools don't have enough books.
Er ... who got all the reconstruction money that the Bush Administration dished out on behalf of US taxpayers? Friends and cronies of Bush/Cheney that's who. I think you need to direct your anger at the right target. Your tax dollars have been diverted into the pockets of Halliburton, et al, so don't be surprised if the Iraqi govt don't want to follow suit. They live there, they see what's happening, and they're not that stupid.
We've already stopped reconstruction funding. It's their money and it's their country; we don't have a right to either one.
Why should the Iraqis pay to fix what George destroyed. We invaded and bombed them for nothing they had done. Their only sin was having oil. We wanted it, we should pay for the damage we caused with our "Shock and Awe". We can't bring back the lives of those Iraqis who died, but the survivors should not be penalized.
Actually, if they want it fixed, they're going to pay for it. The only reason this is news is they're doing it on their own terms, in their own time.
Maybe they don't want to spend the money NOW on stuff we're just going to blow up later.
Simple, you came , you saw and you destroyed so you pay.
What is really audacious "beyond belief" is expecting Iraq to pay for repairing the devastation the US has wrought.
It's like someone bulldozing your home and then handing you the bill and asking you to pay for the demolition............. who would do that??? ;-)
Almost any municipal government in the U.S.
Most of the postings about how we're responsible forget one thing: They wouldn't have the oil money or the ability to govern themselves if we hadn't stepped in. I never agreed with the invasion but we're there now. It's time that the Iraqi's put their money into their country and get moving on. For the U.S. to spend one more dollar on the reconstruction is one dollar too many. They're sitting back waiting to see how much more money they can get for free before spending their own money. We need to immediately stop funding the rebuilding of Iraq, then we'll see them start spending their own money. In fact, we should bill them for the reconstruction costs.
That's all fine, but They don't care what you think, it's Their country that's Destroyed, it's Their People Killed and Maimed, Children, it's their Heritage and Humanity We Destroyed!!!!
You're sitting nice and comfy in front of a puter in air conditioning amd plenty to eat and can roam freely, Think!!!!!!!!!
So spend the money, get them some electricity and food, while our soldiers continue to fight the fight. Spend the money on the Iraqui people!
The oil was already there underfoot for 300 million years - you guys didn't bring it. They had a functioning secular dictatorship with 24/7 electricity, modern infrastructure - with nobody blowing up anything and several hundred thousand people hadn't yet been killed. Why did they "need" the US invaders to make money off of the oil - didn't they know how to drill for oil - was it nobody wanted their oil - were they too inept to market their own oil - what happened here?
Were they lacking in good old 'merkin know how?
Exactly how do you govern yourselves if your country is occupied? I'm missing something. Are
the freed Iraqis now begging the US troops to stay - are all those IED's a figment of the liberal MSM - I'm confused. Perhaps Rush can explain.
Back in 1998 the entire northeastern US - Eastern Ontario, Quebec & the maratimes had a huge icestorm that collapsed powerlines in an area larger than Iraq - everything was restored within 3 weeks. Despite spending hundreds of billions the Iraqis still don't have reliable power after 5 years - why? Wasn't the surge working? Isn't Bagdhad safer than Washington DC? Ya mean the repubs lied - I'm shocked.
The people getting most of the hundreds of billions are not Iraqis but contractor crony buddies of he who shall not be named. I may be wrong but the Iraqis probably did not ask that the occupiers build the biggest fortified embassy in
The reason that we are spending money is because we are not spending to rebuild Iraq, we are spending to transfer taxpayer dollars to Haliburton, KBR, and other friends of Bush.
When Iraq spends its money, it is unlikely to use its funds to pay Bush's friends, instead they will hire Iraqi contractors. So, for Iraq to shoulder the burden, would mean these companies get less money.
It seems pretty clear.
Seems the current adminstration isn't in favor a of seeing Iraq implement the ole democratic bid policy
Which is exactly why they are going to Germany to offer them the contracts to rebuild....
Germany WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!
We may have won the battle but we have really lost the war.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
