Democrats to Iraq: Ante up: The Swamp

Posted April 9, 2008 2:17 PM

by Frank James

During Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker's testimony on Capitol Hill this week, Democrats mainly, but not exclusively, kept hammering this point: Iraq has cash surpluses from its oil revenue, surpluses that have grown sizably as global oil prices have risen. (Oil reached $112 a barrel today, for instance.)

So why can't Iraq take some of those surpluses and pay for some of the necessities U.S. taxpayers are being made to pay now -- the training of the Iraq Security Forces, the paying of local militias or reconstruction? That's a question that likely has a lot of Iraq-weary Americans nodding their heads in agreement.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, captured the mood thusly:

On the economic side, five years after the war began, skyrocketing oil prices have swelled Iraqi oil revenues beyond all expectations. Iraq now has tens of billions of dollars in surplus funds in their banks and in accounts around the world, including about $30 billion in U.S. banks.

But Iraqi leaders and bureaucrats aren't spending their funds. The result is that far from financing its own reconstruction as the administration promised five years ago, the Iraqi government has left the U.S. to make most of the capital expenditures needed to provide essential services and improve the quality of life of Iraqi citizens. American taxpayers are spending vast sums on reconstruction efforts.

For example, the U.S. has spent over $27 billion to date on major infrastructure projects, job training -- excuse me -- education and training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. On the other hand, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, the Iraqi government budgeted $6.2 billion for its capital budget in 2006, but spent less than a quarter of that. And as of August 31, 2007, the Iraqi government has spent somewhere between 4.4 percent according to the GAO and 24 percent according to the White House of its $10 billion capital budget for 2007. As of last Thursday, the United States is paying the salaries of almost 100,000 Iraqis who are working on reconstruction.

To add insult to injury, in addition to spending tens of billions of U.S. dollars on reconstruction, American taxpayers are also paying $3 to $4 a gallon on gas here at home, much of which originates in the Middle East, including Iraq. The Iraqi government seems content to sit by, build up surpluses, and let Americans reconstruct their country and Americans foot the bill. But the American people surely aren't content with that, and the Bush administration shouldn't be either.

Because of this sentiment, it's no surprise that congressional Democrats want to pass legislation to force Iraq to spend its own funds on some of these projects.

As the Associated Press reported today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars...

... Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.

While Iraq pays for fuel for its own troops, it has relied heavily on U.S. dollars to provide people with basic services, including more than $45 billion for reconstruction.

Lacking the votes to order troops home by a certain date, Democrats see fencing off reconstruction money as an alternative to challenging the Bush administration's Iraq policies. And several Republicans have signaled their concerns about burgeoning Iraqi oil revenues at a time when the war is growing increasingly costly.

"Isn't it time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of the windfall in revenues due to the high price of oil?" said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, agreed but said it would take time.

"I think what we've got to focus on in the period ahead is this kind of transitioning," Crocker said. "And it'll be, like everything else in Iraq, a complex process."

Levin said he expects the legislation to be proposed as part of this year's war spending bill or the 2009 defense authorization bill.

Lawmakers' vehemence on the matter seemed to take Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker by surprise. For example, there was this exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer and the general at yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

SEN. BOXER: Yeah. General, I understand your point. I'm just asking you why you would object to asking them to pay for that entire program --

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well --

SEN. BOXER: -- given all we are giving them, in blood and everything else.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Senator, it is a very fair question, and I think that if there's anything that the ambassador and I will take back to Iraq, candidly, after this morning's session and the -- this afternoon's, is in fact to ask those kinds of questions more directly.

SEN. BOXER: Good. Excellent. We're very happy about that.

Comments

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he was preparing to link the war spending directly to the economy at home by using a pending bill to finance combat in Iraq as a proxy for a second stimulus measure. He plans to try to attach to the Iraq money Democratic favorites like an extension of unemployment benefits, a summer jobs program and perhaps local building projects.

Do you believe our dire Economic situation is as a result of the Iraq war?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2060

Posted by: PaulM | April 9, 2008 2:21 PM

I would agree with this. Iraq should be paying for much of this with the revenues they are gettng from oil sales.

Posted by: John D | April 9, 2008 2:27 PM

Don't see why anyone would object to that.

Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | April 9, 2008 2:31 PM

"THE BOEHNER SPEAKS"

"IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS AND PROTECT THE COMPANIES THAT PROTECT US"

"JUST NOT QWEST"

JUST EXXON
JUST MOBIL
JUST TEXACO
JUST SAUDI ARABIA
JUST MALIKI
JUST UNICAL NATURAL GAS
JUST BERNS & STERNS
JUST JP MORGAN
JUST BERNAKE
JUST HALLIBURTON
JUST BLACKWATER
JUST ALL NO BID CONTRACTS

JUST NOT WALTER REED
JUST NOT THE "TROOPS
JUST NOT THE WOUNDED
JUST NOT WOMEN WHO SERVE
JUST NOT FEMALE CONTRACTORS

JUST NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
JUST NOT THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES JUST NOT YOU, ME, AND

IT'S ROMP 2008 BABY, ROMP 2008. COLO SOLO BABY, COLO SOLO AND ALL THE "NATURAL BORN" AMERICANS FROM COLO SOLO!

AND MOST OF ALL
JUST NOT QWEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND THE PRIVACY OF EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Posted by: Roger Morris | April 9, 2008 2:42 PM

"Seven Killed in Blast in Baghdad's Sadr City"

The Associated Press
Wednesday 09 April 2008

Baghdad - Seven people died in Baghdad's Sadr City as clashes between security forces and Shiite militiamen continued in the capital on Wednesday, a day after top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus called for a suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals because of the renewed combat.

The city's Green Zone, which houses diplomatic missions and much of Iraq's government, also came under renewed attack by rockets or mortars early Wednesday. The U.S. embassy confirmed the shelling, but said there were no immediate reports of casualties.

Police said the seven victims in Sadr City - including three children - died when projectiles slammed into a house in the sprawling slum, a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Twenty-seven other people were wounded, said a hospital official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040908L.shtml

Yeah, John W McCain is right, we'll have to stay in Iraq for another 100 years before Iraq even has a chance of becoming a somewhat peaceful country....and maybe even longer than that (1000 years?) since the Sunni's and Shiites in that country have already been fighting each other for over 1300 years.

Posted by: John E | April 9, 2008 2:46 PM

Asking Iraq to help pay for their own protection is not smart, my friends. Look, I don't know much about economics, I was a prisoner of war at the time, but I do know we can't let Iran continue to support al Qaeda, even though they don't and never have. My friends, we must be strong and stop the North Vietamese from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Posted by: John McCain | April 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Hard to find myself agreeing with Carl Levin, but I can't see why we haven't been doing this already. I'd even go beyond that and say the US should get a portion of Iraq's oil sales for all that we've invested in Iraqi infrastructure so far. Where's all our oil scratch?

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 3:18 PM

If they dip into those funds they may lose their free checking. You liberals love to waste money don't you?

Posted by: whatnow | April 9, 2008 3:22 PM

You liberals love to waste money don't you?

Posted by: whatnow | April 9, 2008 3:22 PM

This is great...take common sense and turn it into a partisan issue. Are you one of those "great" Americans?

Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | April 9, 2008 3:32 PM

"even though they don't and never have."

John E., take your ignorant head out of the sand and READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
Typical of liberals like yourself your statment is blatantly wrong in addition to being politically motivated.
Iran allowed terrorist camps for Al Qaeda in their land and has given Al Qaeda free passage since the mid 90s.
In reality Iran always has and always will support Al Qaeda. Not the other way around. The world doesn't fit in neat little democrat boxes like you want it to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
http://www.meforum.org/article/670

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm right there with you, Bill. Shut up, whatnow.

You liberals love to waste money don't you?

Posted by: whatnow | April 9, 2008 3:22 PM

This is great...take common sense and turn it into a partisan issue. Are you one of those "great" Americans?

Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | April 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 3:55 PM

Yo Mark and the other Swamp censors, please explain why it's OK for one of your demented little minions to post as John McCain???

Posted by: John McCain | April 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Posted by: John D | April 9, 2008 3:56 PM

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Jeff,

I didn't write that post but I agree with it, this is just another example of old man McCain getting confused and making stuff up, heck, McCain still doesn't know the difference between Sunni's and Shiites in Iraq let alone that Al- Qaeda is SUNNI.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/18/mccain-iran-al-qaeda/

Jeff, as much as you want to, you can't rewrite history for McCain and I don't know why you even bother trying, I mean the "evil liberal media" always calls McCain a "straight-talker" a "maverick" and a "foreign policy expert" etc without looking into it to see if it's really true (it's not), so if I was McCain I would just leave it alone.

Posted by: John E | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM

Think Progress noted again, on Sunday, that John McCain continues to repeat false statements about Iraq.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/06/mccain-ceasefire-sadr/

McCain: "It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. ... With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. ... The military is functioning very effectively" McCain said

Except al-Sadr didn't declare the ceasefire; the Maliki government brokered it.

This is after fundamentally and repeatedly "misstating" -- i.e. getting flat wrong -- basic facts about the dynamic between Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda, and gets to the heart a certain press dynamic that I think is becoming more and more apparent as this race goes on: aside from places like Think Progress, Media Matters and the like, has McCain got any substantial coverage, anywhere, detailing how something he said was "false"?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020006

I'm all for a harsh level of scrutiny for the candidates, both Democrats and the Republicans; it's the entire point of the press. An informed electorate cannot exist without it. But increasingly, it seems that McCain is getting a very Bush-like free pass, when it comes to his fabrications.

McCain has a history of false statements, with regards to Iraq. But when McCain says something obviously false -- about Iraq, or Iran, about this cease fire, etc. -- it's at worst labeled by reporters as a "gaffe". A "gaffe" because he's just 'misspeaking', or 'spinning', or 'misremembered', or, let's say, 'is not fully aware of the facts involved'.

It's very Bushlike, in terms of the media just doesn't expect him not to say false things, especially on his self-declared strong point, foreign policy. Bush could say false things throughout his campaign and presidency because he was considered, let's be honest, dumb as a post. It was expected that he didn't understand some of the things he was saying -- or his blatantly false statements were pointed to as perfectly acceptable political spin, evidence of a laudable "tightly controlled message", by the White House, and at worst looked upon with little knowing smirks by the press corps covering them.

Posted by: Hunter | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM

My comment was so stupid I thought at least a few would see it as the joke it was. Thirty billion for free checking?

Posted by: whatnow | April 9, 2008 4:35 PM

They pen responses, but they refuse to address the issue of the evidence in the 9/11 Report linking Al Qaeda to Iran. We hear crickets on that account. Obama sheep, will you be giving back Lee Hamilton's endorsement since the report he signed his name to also says Iran has supported Al Qaeda? Not fitting into the little democrat box is it!

Don't believe me, though, believe the Mid-East Forum.

Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 5:37 PM

Jeff,

The Sunni's are AL-QAEDA and the one's in Iraq who call themselves "Al-Qaeda" probably only have about 10-20 members but that still hasn't stopped the Republicans in Congress and BushCo from inflating that number in order to pretend like Iraq is the central front of their so-called "war on terror".

I don't care who or what you want to point to as your source of saying that, it's just not true...

Posted by: John E | April 9, 2008 5:59 PM

Jeff-

Why did McCain correct himself then? Why doesn't he stand up for the truth about how Iran is training Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Why is that Jeff? Didn't McCain read the 9/11 Report? Does he just blindly repeat what Joe Leiberman tells him?

Posted by: Lois | April 9, 2008 6:34 PM

Yeah, we want to waste $$$ on health care, Social Security, clean environment, infrastructure, not a ideo/religious and unnecessary war in Iraq.

We are screwed.

Posted by: C.Morris | April 9, 2008 8:17 PM

If we attack Iran I predict eventual T-nuke war. We must find a third way.

I find it incredible that so many people seem to be drooling for war with Iran.

We all know the chief supporter of AQ is not Iran. It's Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Afg. and the Taliban were secondary supporters. Paks secret intelligence agency was the main support of both the Tal. and AQ.
Why? They are all Sunni. Iran ain't.

America, put on your thinking cap, take two aspirin, figure it out. We have been fighting a 'Bush vanity war' in Iraq. All those 'guys and dolls' have died for a lie in Iraq.

Accept it. Deal with it. Don't elect a guy that wants more.

Posted by: C.Morris | April 9, 2008 8:31 PM

Mephisto to McCain come in......
Mephisto to McCain come in..........
Attempting contact..........
Have sublime message of truth for your ears only.......
Mephisto to McCain come in.....

Message set 24356.897a ready for download in

5-4-3-2-1

John! Yes yes yes, you want to do it. And not just to Iran. Anyone that has ever defied you or hurt you. The US has the power to destroy any enemy. You will have the mega-tonnage to wipe them all out. Hit Iran, then surprise, say, a small SE Asian country? You could make orange crush seem like a soft drink! Ha ha! I made a joke! Ha ha!
Well, remember; This is what it takes to get 'the base'. Without them you are powerless, useless, unrighteous and inoperative. So attack with zeal and vigor. Weep not the collateral damage. It's always necessary.

Goodbye my brave new friend, and good hunting!

End of message set 24356.897a

Posted by: Mephistopheles | April 9, 2008 10:10 PM

"I do not know what weapons will be used to fight WW III, but rocks and sticks will be used to fight WW IV."

Albert Einstein

Posted by: Todd | April 10, 2008 6:03 AM

Why? They are all Sunni. Iran ain't."

So, what's your point?

Posted by: Zubka Bier | April 10, 2008 11:57 AM

The Sunni's are AL-QAEDA and the one's in Iraq who call themselves "Al-Qaeda"

Dumbest thing I've read today.

How do you say AL-QAEDA and Al-Qaeda in Arabic?