THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Iraqi government expected to have $79 billion surplus.»

A new report by the Government Accountability Office estimates that the "soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's end." Federal lawmakers have responded angrily to the news, noting that the U.S. government has spent $42 billion for the stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq since 2003. From a statement by House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA):

This report is going to make a lot of American families very angry. The record gas prices they are paying have turned into an economic windfall for Iraq. But the Iraqi government isn't spending the money on rebuilding. American taxpayers are paying that bill too. This doesn't make any sense, and the Bush Administration never should have let this happen.

The report also notes that although the Iraqi government has allocated $28 billion for similar improvements, it has spent less than $4 billion. (HT: Atrios)

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

Part and parcel of Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's legacies--not George Bush's legacy--Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and paying higher prices for their fuel and food.

Before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran the Congress, people were not losing their jobs and their homes, and were not paying the current higher prices for their fuel and food.

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

Part and parcel of Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's legacies--not George Bush's legacy--Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and paying higher prices for their fuel and food.

Before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran the Congress, people were not losing their jobs and their homes, and were not paying the current higher prices for their fuel and food.

BS

Democrats in congress don't have enough of a majority to force anything and the republicans have been good at steamrolling. In any other words there have few bills getting through congress since both of them took office.

So then the dems lied when they made all of their campaign promises and assurances to win the house and senate?
Its nice to see you admit that

The housing crises is caused from lowering the interest rates so much that people took risk borrowing more money than they should and now it is coming home to roost.

And the interest rates started dropping during the Clinton admin, and that cant be denied.
The govt then was trying to get everyone to buy houses, so they lowered the rates andstarted pushing for banks to lend to low income people or to people that otherwise would never have been able to afford it.
The the ARM's came along and people were to stupid to actually read what they were signing first.

That doesnt exonerate the Bush admin, because they bear part of the responsibility, but they didnt start the problem.
They just did nothing to fix it when it started to become a problem

As for why food and fuel is higher; I am not sure. Not that good at economics.

So then the dems lied when they made all of their campaign promises and assurances to win the house and senate?
Its nice to see you admit that

And the interest rates started dropping during the Clinton admin, and that cant be denied.

Responding to a severe credit crisis, the Fed last September launched an aggressive effort to cut interest rates. It reduced the funds rate seven times, lowering it from 5.25 percent, where it had been for more than a year, down to 2 percent in April.

At the Fed's last meeting on June 24-25, Fed officials passed up the chance to cut rates again. Instead, they signaled growing concerns about inflation pressures that have been made worse this year by surging oil prices, which hit a record high at $147.27 per barrel on July 11.

The inflation pressures have come while the economy has been staggered by a prolonged housing slump that has pushed home prices down by record amounts and a severe credit crisis that has seen banks tighten lending standards sharply after billions of dollars of losses on bad mortgage loans.

The combination of a weak economy and rising inflation has raised fears of stagflation, the malady that last beset the country during the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

From Times Online - August 6, 2008

Iraq oil bonanza flows to tune of $80 billion

Bronwen Maddox

The next US president now has his exit ticket from Iraq. A new report shows that high oil prices are enabling the Iraqi Government to store up a huge budget surplus, but that it is spending US money on reconstruction far faster than its own.

Although written soberly, and acknowledging the obstacles for anyone trying to spend money well in Iraq, the report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office will add to the pressure on the next president to cut reconstruction spending.

It does acknowledge that Iraq faces huge foreign debts, and war reparations to Kuwait, and that its protection from these claims by the UN Security Council runs out in December. But it shows the difficulty of the case the Iraqi Government will have to make abroad: to the Security Council, to stave off claims from creditors, and to the US, for more funds.

According to the GAO's latest report to Congress, the oil boom will give Iraq a surplus of $79 billion (£40.5 billion) in unspent funds by the end of this year. Nearly $10 billion has been sitting in a US bank in New York. The report, commissioned from the oversight agency by two senators, the Democrat Carl Levin and the Republican John Warner, will reignite questioning about the $48 billion the US has spent since the 2003 invasion on rebuilding a country with the third-greatest oil reserves in the world.

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

Part and parcel of Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's legacies--not George Bush's legacy--Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and paying higher prices for their fuel and food.

Before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran the Congress, people were not losing their jobs and their homes, and were not paying the current higher prices for their fuel and food.

BS

Democrats in congress don't have enough of a majority to force anything and the republicans have been good at steamrolling. In any other words there have few bills getting through congress since both of them took office.

The housing crises is caused from lowering the interest rates so much that people took risk borrowing more money than they should and now it is coming home to roost.

As for why food and fuel is higher; I am not sure. Not that good at economics.

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

Part and parcel of Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's legacies--not George Bush's legacy--Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and paying higher prices for their fuel and food.

Before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran the Congress, people were not losing their jobs and their homes, and were not paying the current higher prices for their fuel and food.

BS

Democrats in congress don't have enough of a majority to force anything and the republicans have been good at steamrolling. In any other words there have few bills getting through congress since both of them took office.

The housing crises is caused from lowering the interest rates so much that people took risk borrowing more money than they should and now it is coming home to roost.

As for why food and fuel is higher; I am not sure. Not that good at economics.

NOT BS!

The housing crises caused by both parties is small compared to the energy crises.

Pelosi and Reid with their small majorities in Congress have been blocking votes on bills that would permit drilling for oil in domestic locations containing large proven reserves (e.g., ANWR). Earlier access to that oil would have avoided our current energy, fuel and food price inflation (Clinton vetoed a bill that would have permitted drilling in ANWR). Merely the recent possibility Congress will permit that drilling has caused the price per barrel of crude oil (i.e., 55 gallons) to drop from $140 to $120, or the price per gallon of crude oil to drop from $2.55 to $2.18.

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why should Iraq spend their own money, when our government continues to fund their war and reconstruction? All part and parcel of the Bush legacy while Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and pay higher prices for their fuel and food.

Part and parcel of Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's legacies--not George Bush's legacy--Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and paying higher prices for their fuel and food.

Before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran the Congress, people were not losing their jobs and their homes, and were not paying the current higher prices for their fuel and food.

BS

Democrats in congress don't have enough of a majority to force anything and the republicans have been good at steamrolling. In any other words there have few bills getting through congress since both of them took office.

The housing crises is caused from lowering the interest rates so much that people took risk borrowing more money than they should and now it is coming home to roost.

As for why food and fuel is higher; I am not sure. Not that good at economics.

NOT BS!

The housing crises caused by both parties is small compared to the energy crises.

Pelosi and Reid with their small majorities in Congress have been blocking votes on bills that would permit drilling for oil in domestic locations containing large proven reserves (e.g., ANWR). Earlier access to that oil would have avoided our current energy, fuel and food price inflation (Clinton vetoed a bill that would have permitted drilling in ANWR). Merely the recent possibility Congress will permit that drilling has caused the price per barrel of crude oil (i.e., 55 gallons) to drop from $140 to $120, or the price per gallon of crude oil to drop from $2.55 to $2.18.

ican, As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The price of oil did not drop because congress may permit drilling. You are ignorant about most things, and the more you post, the more you prove that point.

This was predicted to be the summer when gasoline kept going up, up and up, soaring past $4 and ever closer to $5 per gallon.

Which is why the past few weeks seem like an unexpected treat.

Granted, gasoline is still above $4 a gallon in Snohomish County and it's $1.27 higher than a year ago, according to AAA. But the average price locally is down 20 cents from its peak in late June.

The reason why can be explained in two words: less driving.

The Federal Highway Administration reported that during May, Americans drove 9 billion -- yes, 9 billion -- fewer miles than they did in May 2007. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that U.S. fuel consumption was down 3 percent in recent weeks compared with a year ago.

"There certainly is demand destruction. It's clear that $4 gasoline has changed people's driving," said analyst Stephen Schork, publisher of The Schork Report, a daily energy newsletter.

this Suskind story of a whitehouse forgery letter of linking Saddam Hussien to AQ is really heating up. Despite WH and the two CIA agent's denials, Suskind says he has tapes.

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

New news about old news:

Quote:

this Suskind story of a whitehouse forgery letter of linking Saddam Hussien to AQ is really heating up. Despite WH and the two CIA agent's denials, Suskind says he has tapes.

Old news about about true news:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

It is irrelevant whether or not Saddam Hussein was or was not linked to al-Qaeda.

It is a proven truth that Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary in northeastern Iraq more than 1 year before the USA invasion of Iraq. Just like it is a proven truth that al-Qaeda established sanctuary in Afghanistan more than 5 years before 9/11.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

ican711nm wrote:

New news about old news:

Quote:

this Suskind story of a whitehouse forgery letter of linking Saddam Hussien to AQ is really heating up. Despite WH and the two CIA agent's denials, Suskind says he has tapes.

Old news about about true news:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

It is irrelevant whether or not Saddam Hussein was or was not linked to al-Qaeda.

It is a proven truth that Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary in northeastern Iraq more than 1 year before the USA invasion of Iraq. Just like it is a proven truth that al-Qaeda established sanctuary in Afghanistan more than 5 years before 9/11.

What is your point? The Kurds and the Turkomen, who live up there, were sworn enemies of Saddam and his regime.

No reason there therefore, to invade and depose Saddam.