That surplus should be put into the US economy for bailing then out. Pay us back and build your own bridges and crap back with your own money.

Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now . . . admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent . . . military bases. He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law's prohibition against expending funds: "(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," or "(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

he would not be bound by the law's prohibition against expending funds:

he is saying he will spend the money congress gives him any way he wants.
when will he be impeached?

. One of the questions is who should be paying."

"we should, at least for the next hundred years. I was a POW half a century ago, so I should know."

John McBush.

I still like my original Headline...

Iraqis Budget Shows War Profit

Probably just my flair for the dramatic but to me it strikes right to the heart of the matter...do the Iraqis deserve to make ANY profit off of this War while we expend our National Blood and Treasure until it hurts? Right now I don't care how we got into this or exactly how we are getting out, but, if that money is not given to offset the costs or reconstruction then it needs to be spent on solving this problem.

Be it for Infrastructure or Military Equipment or whatever that money needs to be spent...or give it to me...I'll spend it!

Just a thought...

Uh, does everyone remember how Iraqi oil revenues would repay us for the war as well as Iraq's reconstruction?

God, those prewar statements by the Bush Gang are laughable in hindsight.

Iraq Has Budget Surplus

Yeah...ours.

American Unity wrote,

"Uh, does everyone remember how Iraqi oil revenues would repay us for the war as well as Iraq's reconstruction?

God, those prewar statements by the Bush Gang are laughable in hindsight."


and just who and when were these exact statements. I only recall liberals stating that we were going there to steal their oil. Please provide links.

American Unity wrote,

"Uh, does everyone remember how Iraqi oil revenues would repay us for the war as well as Iraq's reconstruction?

God, those prewar statements by the Bush Gang are laughable in hindsight."

and just who and when were these exact statements. I only recall liberals stating that we were going there to steal their oil. Please provide links.

Posted by Crackpipejunkie at 2008-03-12 04:50 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

"Iraq has oil," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune magazine in 2002, discussing the potential cost of an Iraq invasion and how it would be met. "They have financial resources."

Paul Wolfowitz, formerly Rumsfeld's deputy, was bolder: "The oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 (billion) and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years," he told Congress as the war began. "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction."

Ignorant tool.

Americanunity,

Iraqis living in energy-poverty....

AlGore approves heartily!!!!

Energy poverty for all...isn't that the Law of Scientific Concensus, given to us by the Great Gore only a few short years ago?

GW is an environmental hero for bringing this about, all without carbon caps

.....wait....no carbon caps....AlGore DID NOT GET THE REQUIRED OFFERING ....

GW is an evil heretic for bringing about energy poverty without the proper offerings to ALGore!

This means that GW can NOT win a Nobel Prize!!!

Americanunity,

Iraqis living in energy-poverty....

AlGore approves heartily!!!!

Energy poverty for all...isn't that the Law of Scientific Concensus, given to us by the Great Gore only a few short years ago?

GW is an environmental hero for bringing this about, all without carbon caps

.....wait....no carbon caps....AlGore DID NOT GET THE REQUIRED OFFERING ....

GW is an evil heretic for bringing about energy poverty without the proper offerings to ALGore!

This means that GW can NOT win a Nobel Prize!!!

Posted by jonryker


Holy crap what in the hell was THAT?

Midiman,

I'm sorry, when I channel AlGore, I'm not responsible for what comes out. He is beyond mere human comprehension.

Uh, does everyone remember how Iraqi oil revenues would repay us for the war as well as Iraq's reconstruction?


Since John McBush parrotted them in 2003-2004, we can expect to hear a lot of his version this fall as he expalinswhow being a POW half a century ago makes him fit to lead on day 1.


Some of his Day ONE Leadership Comments:

It's clear that the end is very much in sight." [ABC, 4/9/03]

"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along." [MSNBC, 4/23/03] ###MY FAVORITE###

"This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation." [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

"I'm confident we're on the right course." [ABC News, 3/7/04]

"I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." [CBS, 10/31/04]

"I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren't making progress, I'd be despondent." [The Hill, 12/8/05]


John McBush-as dumb as Dubya, only senile.

Uh, does everyone remember how Iraqi oil revenues would repay us for the war as well as Iraq's reconstruction?


Since John McBush parrotted them in 2003-2004, we can expect to hear a lot of his version this fall as he expalins how being a POW half a century ago makes him fit to lead on day 1.


Some of his Day ONE Leadership Comments:

It's clear that the end is very much in sight." [ABC, 4/9/03]

"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along." [MSNBC, 4/23/03] ###MY FAVORITE###

"This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation." [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

"I'm confident we're on the right course." [ABC News, 3/7/04]

"I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." [CBS, 10/31/04]

"I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren't making progress, I'd be despondent." [The Hill, 12/8/05]


John McBush-as dumb as Dubya, only senile.

Northguy3,

So, are the Democrats who fell all over themselves to support the Iraq War Resolution:

1) Dumber than W, because he tricked them, or

2) Equally guilty of dreadful crimes against humanity?

If I understand correctly, the Iraquis should pay the US for the illegal and criminal invasion of their country.
Amazing, just amazing.

***I'm sorry, when I channel AlGore, I'm not responsible for what comes out.Posted by jonryker ***

........there is anti-psychosis medication available that can alleviate these symptoms........

.......and what the heck does Al Gore have to do with the Bush Gang's Ongoing Fuck Up in Iraq anyways...... ?...........

........Iraq has a budget surplus......that means that their administration is smarter than ours......

Skizziks,

I repeat my last question...

Consult AlGore if you need an answer, but an answer is requested.

..........you make no sense...........

.........more good use of U.S. funds...........

.......our money is also going to the militias that are fighting against our troops..........

.........way to go genius administration........

GAO Comptroller: Significant' Amount Of U.S. Funds For Iraq Funneled To Sunni And Shiite Militias
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing today on waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq, GAO Comptroller David Walker said that "the Iraqis have a budget surplus" which "is not being spent." He added that oil "revenues are going up" and therefore "one of the questions" regarding Iraq reconstruction is "who should be paying?"

Citing Iraq's rising oil revenues and the fact that the U.S. has already spent $45 billion rebuilding the country, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that instead of President Bush "asking for billions" more to rebuild Iraq, the Iraqis "ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own costs and not keep sending the bill to the United States."

Meanwhile, U.S. tax money is ending up in the hands of sectarian militias in Iraq. Later in the same hearing, Walker confirmed that a "significant" amount of what the U.S. spends on Iraqi contracts is being diverted to Sunni and Shiite militias. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, agreed, adding that "it is a significant problem."

Skizziks,

Then I'll spell it out for you again:

If Dubya is so stupid, then either:

1) Dems who supported Iraq War Resolution are even dumber than Dubya, because he tricked them,or

2) They are guilty of crimes against humanity because they supported the prosecution of Dubya's unjust war.

So, which is it?

Iraq would make a perfect parking lot with plenty of room for oil wells. Just get rid of the sand rangers and hire a parking lot attendant.

If I understand correctly, the Iraquis should pay the US for the illegal and criminal invasion of their country.
Amazing, just amazing.

Posted by fribo at 2008-03-12 10:03 AM

you obviously don't understand "correctly".

Jon, why only one of the two. I'd say both. The Dems were too stupid to see what was going on. If they had done a thorough job of looking into the shoddy intel the pres was pushing, we wouldn't be where we are right now. They were cowards for not wanting to take flack from the ludicrously stupid republican base, who would challenge their patriotism for not following dear leader like they do.
I would say they are guilty in gross negligence would be a fair charge against them.

Fribo,

Aren't most invasions "illegal" in the invaded country? What's your point?

So, are the Democrats who fell all over themselves to support the Iraq War Resolution:

1) Dumber than W, because he tricked them, or

2) Equally guilty of dreadful crimes against humanity?

Jon_I'd go with BigJohn's comments which means, like you, I'll support Obama. Given McBush's quoted comments, you agree he's as clueless as Dubya, right?

btw-Iraq has a SURPLUS and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your Fightie Rightie hearts?
Add that onto their love for Iran, and you've got yourselves, to quote John "Did I mention I was a POW half a century ago" McBush, a Mission Accomplished.!

BigJohn and NorthGuy3,

I think both is a consistent and fair stance to take at the moment. I'll accept that. I don't think the facts will bear that out, but it's consistent.

btw-Iraq has a SURPLUS and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your Fightie Rightie hearts?


yeah thats because they aren't defending themselves and their medicine is from the stone age!

yeah thats because they aren't defending themselves

Don't try and tell me they're not standing up! Bush,McBush and Petrock say they are, and they know everything about everything, you America hating alqueda loving defeatocrat!

we need to just take all that surplus and as much oil as we can carry an get the fuck out of there

oh and kill some more jihadi's

NG,

You'll have to excuse newbie-jon's incoherent posts. His giant inflatable Al Gore doll's penis is cutting off the flow of oxygen to Jon's brain.

That is the way he 'channels' Gore, right?

BigJohn and Northguy3,

You're right...my last post WAS a bit incoherent...Must be too much CO2 in the air.

What I meant was, I think that taking points 1 and 2 together, rather than either/or, is a fair position to take for now...at least until the facts come in about the wisdom/stupidity of opening the Iraqi Theater.

I do not support Obama over McCain, but I certainly would support Obama over Clinton, and not just because AlGore would like that.

I'm not a fan of McCain's, but he's the only surviving candidate who hasn't overtly promised to lose the war as soon as possible. He plans to try to win it. I think that's important...more important than his weak immigration policies and McCain/Feingold and his support of the Great Gore's notion of carbon caps. Not a good choice, just the only one. He also does have a record of opposing federal spending, so that's a second support point....about the only two. But that's two more than I can find anywhere else.

Of course, this whole dilemna would all go away if we just agree that AlGore is the rightful ruler of the World and let him get on with saving us all. Funny, though, I don't see him showing up too often these days. I'm lucky to have such a direct line to him, because no one else seems to be able to find him.

the only surviving candidate who hasn't overtly promised to lose the war as soon as possible...

the depth of your ignorance is astounding but not surprising. You are obviously still in denial.

The whole concept of winning and losing this war is amazing.

We went to war because of WMD.

There are no WMD...did we win or lose?

We continued the War to capture Sadam.

We captured Sadam... did we win or lose?

We continued the war for "democracy".

Iragi's all have purple fingers...did we win or lose?

We continued the war so the Iraqi's could "stand up".

They now have a budget surplus...can they stand yet?

If we walk away do we have to start speaking Arabic?

NO...It is a clusterfuck. How do you win in a clusterfuck...minimize your loses.

You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

So when we are completely bankrupt as a country and Iraq finally has a standing Army and electricity will that be winning or losing?

Please define winning so we can do that and get the fuck out of there.

Iraq is NOT our 51st state. Even if Bush is a Fuckup and and crashed the bus in the desert and destroyed what little chance the ME had for peace we are not obligated to be there forever as YOUR candidate would have it. We don't have to make the Bus like new.. we CAN slowly pull our troops out without 'surrendering' as you so like to say.

Let's fund a withdrawal instead of a "surge" what do you say?

like i said before , we take the money and the oil and get the fuck out!!

Donnerboy,

All in good time. Timing is the question. The Dems are all for immediate, at least if you believe their words.

I think success would look like a government stable enough to prevent organized terrorists linked with Al-Qaida setting up shop. I also think it includes at least one US military base, so that if Iran got ideas, they'd know they'd be taking us on too. It most assuredly will be necessary if we don't have a permanent presence close by.

Our presence in Europe, Korea, and many other places has been positive and stabilizing. This can be too, if it's done correctly. That will take time.

How much will depend upon the condition of the criteria above. That's the 100 years he's talking about. I think it would be foolish to spend all this effort and NOT have a permanant presence.

I think it would be foolish to spend all this effort and NOT have a permanant presence.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-03-12 02:54 PM

you act like we are leaving the planet.

Our troops don't need to be in Iraq. They are actually aggravating the situation by continuing the Occupation.

How about we focus our efforts on Afghanistan...

Remember Afghanistan?

I think success would look like a government stable enough to prevent organized terrorists linked with Al-Qaida setting up shop.Posted by jonryker

wake up buddy the US cant do it what makes you think they can?

Understanding of human nature.

Given time, people will pick freedom over fascism. Well, except for Russians, who prefer the boot.

Our job is to make that choice realistic, so that they, in the long term, by putting together a society which is not devoid of hope, can prevent Al-Qaida and their like from finding followers, and just as importantly, oil money to finance their operations.

So far, we doing a lot of the work. That will, of course, have to change, but I'm confidant that it will, just as it did in Japan, Europe, and Korea.

Actually, human nature tends to prefer security #1, over freedom and everything else. Additionally, the ability to have things is probably second. It is amazing how Russia is the testing ground for people preferences. The USSR fell because of corruption. Putin is viewed so highly in Russia because he claims to provide security. Also because he aims to remake Russia into a world power. Which is the third thing people want. I think if we ever realized how far down the list freedom ranks, we would do much better in the world.

Actually, human nature tends to prefer security #1


ahhhh yes security at any cost even my FREEDOMS!

"ahhhh yes security at any cost even my FREEDOMS"

Not my preferences, nor that of most people I know. But it is very much human nature as we here in the U.S. are/have learning.

, can prevent Al-Qaida and their like from finding followers,

al queda is there because we are. The kurds and the shia say they can eliminate sunni jihadists in a couple of weeks, if we step aside. It'd be ugly, but it'd happen. Other than hezbollah rocks and Israel sucks, the only thing all Iraqi groups agree on, is America is the problem, not the solution.
Unfortunately, Bush has to appease the sunni saudis, so we keep the sunnis safe from the shia and tell them they're gonna be back in power,and trade American lives for saudi money.
For the Bushes, anyways.

Just before Bush announced the surge, Cheney went to saudialquedia and was told what to do. You could look it up.