Reconstruction Revisionism
Reconstruction Revisionism
Before the war, we were promised by the Bush administration that Iraqi oil revenues would finance the bulk of their reconstruction. Here’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on 3/27/03:
The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.
Now we are being told that the oil revenues might not pay for any of the reconstruction – it’s completely up to the Iraqis. Scott McClellan today:
QUESTION: Iraq’s reconstruction costs — how much of that should be paid for by Iraq with its oil revenues?
MCCLELLAN: Well, Iraq’s oil revenues are for the Iraqi people. It is overseen by an Iraqi ministry and all those revenues go to help the Iraqi people.
McClellan later instructs the reporter to look for the National Strategy for Victory In Iraq because it “talks about the oil sector and the progress that’s being made there.” Actually, that document acknowledges “oil production is slightly down from a year ago.”
Maybe it’s appropriate for the United States to finance Iraqi reconstruction, but the administration should have been upfront with the American people from the beginning. U.S. taxpayers have already spent $18 billion on Iraqi reconstruction, with no end in sight.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is the problem with staying in Iraq. We are coddling them. As long as we stay, the Iraqis won’t do anything.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:08 pmGlad to see this issue brought up today on TP. However, it’s an issue that should’ve remained in the forefront over the course of this war. Every time I’ve brought up Iraqi oil revenue money, people look at me with a dazed expression. Maybe now people will start asking questions. Who made the decision to NOT use oil revenue money to finance reconstruction? When was the decision made? Why weren’t the American people told up front that they were going to have to foot the bill? The oil revenue belongs to the Iraqi people? That’s not what they said 3 years ago.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:11 pmANDREW NATSIOS
Nightline
April 23, 2003
“Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it’s up and running and there’s a new government that’s been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They’re going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.”
BBC
December 7th, 2005 at 2:13 pmJanuary 30, 2005
Iraq reconstruction funds missing
“The BBC’s File On 4 programme has learnt that out of over $20bn raised in oil revenues during US-led rule, the use of $8.8bn is unaccounted for.”
The only way to sell a preemptive war (the first of its kind in American history) is to make it seem like a no brainer (WMD’s are there, oil will pay for it, there will be no insurgency). And guess what, a majority of the American people bought it. AND, they confirmed their trust in the salesman (Bush) last November.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:15 pmIt helps to have willing accomplices too. Like Judy Miller whose own paranoid view of the world helped to fan the flames.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:16 pmDid McClellan slip and give an honest answer?
Iraqi oil revenues are for the Iraqi people (Chalabi, at least) and the reconstruction effort is for the benefit of the American contractors….so we should pay for that.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:21 pmto think that this entire war could have been avoided, AND no Bush regime. Or Reagan, for that matter.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:45 pmhttp://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm
Yes, oil for cost was part of the plan. Hmmm…
December 7th, 2005 at 2:49 pmMore duplicity. Ho hum.
Well, this tidbit of information sure knocks my socks off. Hannity was crowing for months leading up the war that the Iraqi oil would pay for it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you think that Sean Hannity is a pompoused-assed, fat-faced blowhard, or just a duped administration mouthpiece like Scotty?
December 7th, 2005 at 3:11 pmDon’t forget these gems:
“The administration strongly opposes the Senate provision that would convert a portion of this assistance to a loan mechanism. If this provision is not removed, the president’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.” – White House budget director Joshua Bolten, on some senators’ insistence that Iraqi oil be used to reimburse the U.S. for the reconstruction funds included in the $87 billion requested by the president, Oct. 10, 2003.
“Listen, some things happened that were hard to predict. And some things didn’t happen that we thought were going to happen. For example, we thought they’d blow up the oil fields.” – George Bush, on CNN’s Larry King Live, Aug. 12, 2004
December 7th, 2005 at 3:55 pmdepo- I think you need to look up the meaning of ‘coddling’.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:56 pmjoe sixpack – he is all of those thing.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:01 pm#9: In addition to your descriptions of Sean Hannity, he is also the following,
A coward.
A chicken hawk.
A hypocrite.
Uneducated.
Weak.
An absolutely hateful son-of-a-bitch.
Even some republicans I know don’t see him as credible.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but do you think that Sean Hannity is a pompoused-assed, fat-faced blowhard, or just a duped administration mouthpiece like Scotty?
Sean Hannity is a pompoused-assed, fat-faced evil blowhard.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pmWhat else is new? Why are the Democrats (except Lieberman) not expressing rage at this continued refusal to tell the truth by this administration?
December 7th, 2005 at 4:20 pmWhat McClellan is saying and no one is asking is that after the ‘big oil’ guys take their piece of whatever production comes out of the ground there won’t be enough to do much of anything. This whole thing has been about bushco’s buddies getting their hands on that oil…nothing else mattered.
Remember the ‘monkey with his hand in the jar’? Well the oil is what bush won’t let go of and until that’s resolved he won’t let us leave.
December 7th, 2005 at 4:47 pmWhats everyone bitching about? Did anyone really think the money from the sale of Iragi oil would go to rebuild Iraq, or to the Irag people? Gee, the American oil companies are over there rebuilding the infastructure, and it is they, not the Iraqi’s or the American people, who will be given the bulk of the money from any oil sales for decades to come.
If you want to look at an interesting source for additional information, go out a grab a copy of “the assasins gate”. What you read will pop your eyes out. Maybe.
December 7th, 2005 at 5:14 pmRick,
December 7th, 2005 at 5:24 pmcoddling: To treat indulgently, to baby.
depo used the perfect word for his opinion.
The oil revenues can not be used for reconstruction — they have already been promised to the oil companies.
It is inevitable that soon the average person in Iraq will be paying MORE for gas and oil than the average European. On the PLUS side, they will have less need for gas and oil, as they will have no infrastructure to support it (roads, homes, etc.).
We’ve all been had.
Charlie L
December 7th, 2005 at 6:10 pmPortland, OR
truthbeknown: excellent comment. You should also encourage all readers to look at Prof. Stephen Jones tract on 9/11. Sorry I don”t know how to post the web site. He is a professor of physics at BYU. Another good read is Alice in Wonderland: The true story od 9/11.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:12 pmYou can find Professor Stephen Jones research paper here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
December 7th, 2005 at 7:51 pmThey are going to leave it up to their oil ministry, last time I checked CIA operative and convicted bank frauder and Iranian Spy was minister of oil…
December 8th, 2005 at 12:14 amSince American taxpayers will be tapped for reconstruction of Iraq (probably by paying Haliburton) perhaps we should rethink the strategy switch Seymour Hersch is now writing about–use of American air power to “win” in Iraq. The more we spend on demolishing that country, the more we’re going to have to spend “reconstructing” it.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:35 amAnother brick in the wall of lies this administration has given the american people regarding Iraq. They say they want to go to Mars and the Moon…Just climb the wall of lies!..No need for rockets!
December 8th, 2005 at 12:26 pmWOW Thanks, Judd – Why didn’t you lend your 20/20 hindsight? Monday morning quarterbacks call ALL the right plays – of course, the other kids didn’t want you on their team….and in your case, who could blame them????
December 8th, 2005 at 2:40 pmBREAKING NEWS:
ABC/ TIME MAG NEW POLL
7 in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:24 pm10 out of 10 Iraqis also said they weren’t in the least bit intimidated by the soldiers standing right next to the American Press, nor the big frigging guns those said soldiers were carrying.
They also mentioned that they absolutely loved being free to say what they liked, and ending up getting tossed onto a plane by the CIA to be tortured in some Allah-forsaken country with no laws to prevent that sort of thing for saying things the American administration didn’t like.
Face it, any stats measuring satisfaction coming from Iraq right now are more then a bit suspect.
December 27th, 2005 at 8:42 pm