When President Obama announced last week that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq would end as scheduled on Dec. 31 — after nearly nine years, thousands of U.S. troops casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent — right-wing criticisms started pouring in. A neoconservative architect of the Iraq war twisted his benchmarks (yet again) to call Obama’s scheduled withdrawal a “retreat.” And GOP presidential candidates came out in opposition to the withdrawal, ignoring altogether any Iraqi say in the matter and Americans’ opposition to the war.

But now, underscoring fractures in the Republican Party on foreign policy, a right-wing member of Congress is voicing consternation with his party about opposition to the pullout. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) tweeted on Sunday that he didn’t understand the position from his party and its presidential candidates:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry both blasted Obama last week for the withdrawal announcement, and other candidates followed suit until the entire field found itself in universal opposition to the drawdown.

The critiques from the GOP field have ignored two key points in the withdrawal. The first is that the agreement that is ushering out U.S. troops was signed in 2008 by the Bush administration (PDF), amid concerns that the pact would tie the next president’s hands.

The second is Iraqi agency in the pullout. Iraqis were eager to see U.S. troops leave. Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill wrote this weekend that “Prime Minister Maliki got very little support from any other Iraqi political [bloc].” The government also opposed immunity from Iraqi law for remaining U.S. troops. Al-Maliki said this weekend that it was “impossible to grant immunity to a single American soldier.” The Pentagon had insisted on such immunity for troops to remain, and the U.S. policy changed as a result of Iraq’s decision.

Over at Democracy Arsenal, Michael Cohen takes down the Republican attacks on Obama’s Iraq decision:

What is perhaps so maddening about this entire line of argument from the GOP that Obama has “failed” in Iraq is that it was Republicans…who were the loudest advocates of the 2007 surge on the grounds that escalation would help a sovereign, democratic government (as well as political reconciliation) take root in Iraq. [...] Republicans can’t have this both ways: they can’t on the one hand extol the virtues of democracy in Iraq and then get indignant when that country’s democratically-elected government tells the United States they need to leave.

“If there was ever any question that the GOP’s fundamental critique of President Obama’s foreign policy is basically ‘whatever he does we will argue the opposite,’” Cohen adds, “this past week should erase any doubts.”

At last night’s GOP presidential debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said Iraq and Libya should repay the U.S. for its war efforts in those two countries. When asked by CNN’s debate moderator Anderson Cooper whether she would cut aid to Israel, Bachmann responded that she would not. Then she went on to suggest that there were other ways the U.S. could spend less money on foreign affairs: by getting countries where the U.S. goes to war to repay the U.S. for its war expenditures. To raucous applause, Bachmann said:

Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.

Watch the video:

There have been more than 100,000 documented civilian deaths in the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which, after a botched occupation, embroiled the country in a bloody sectarian civil war.

The idea of getting compensation from Iraq for the U.S. war effort there has been raised before by right-wing Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who said Iraq should repay “some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.” Rohrabacher went on to say: “There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them.”

At the time, ThinkProgress’s Scott Keyes asked Bachmann’s now-fellow candidate former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) what he thought about the idea. “I think that would send every possible wrong signal that America went to war for oil and we didn’t go to war for oil,” Santorum told Keyes (though he was mum on the subject last night).

The case of Libya is, of course, slightly different. The war there has only lasted some eight months, thus far, and is slowly winding down. In Libya, the opposition national council made an ask for international help, whereas in Iraq the George W. Bush administration simply banded together with exiled Iraqis who were sympathetic and could deliver splashy albeit faulty intelligence on Iraq’s weapons programs.

Bachmann’s thoughts on Libya are not entirely dissimilar from a bill that made it out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this fall, but never came to a full vote before the whole body. That bill, a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution, said: “[F]unds of the Qaddafi regime that have been frozen by the United States should be used to reimburse the United States, as a NATO member, for expenses incurred in connection with” U.S. participation in the Libya war.

Last week, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) insulted the Iraqi government on a visit to Baghdad when he asked Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki to repay the United States for the cost of the now 8 year war. The Iraqi government called Rohrabacher’s comment “inappropriate” and subsequently kicked the California Republican and his congressional delegation out of Iraq.

Even some of his Republican colleagues are criticizing him or his remark but Rohrabacher isn’t showing any remorse. He refused to apologize in a statement last weekend and now he’s coming out on the attack. On CNN last night, contributor E.D. Hill, the former Fox News host of the “terrorist fist jab” fame, talked with Rohrabacher about the incident and appeared equally credulous at the Iraqis’ gall. “Did that kind of shock you? she asked, adding, “after all we have done?” Rohrabacher agreed and then critized the Iraqis for not being grateful for starting a war in their country:

ROHRABACHER: We spent a trillion dollars trying to free those people from the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and help them build a more democratic society. Yet now it seems there is no gratitude on the part of the people who now are in charge of the Iraqi government. And that should give us pause if we’re thinking about spending any more money or leaving our troops over there any longer. They just aren’t grateful for what we’ve done. … American people gave their lives, their children, and we expended billions of dollars, which now we’re — is hurting our economy.

Watch the segment:

Rohrabacher’s point is well taken. Americans have sacrificed much in both blood and treasure in Iraq and no one on either side of the coin should forget that. But it’s also important to remember that President Bush’s justification for launching a war in Iraq was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, not to liberate Iraqis. And what Rohrabacher seems to leave out is that the Iraqis, both civilians and soldiers, have sacrificed too.

But Rohrabacher is right about one thing, that the financial cost of the war – which is still ongoing — is a huge strain on the U.S. economy and should serve as a reminder when U.S. officials consider having U.S. troops stay in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline to withdraw.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum scoffed at Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)’s proposal that Iraq repay the United States following the first New Hampshire presidential debate Monday.

During a visit to Iraq last week, Rohrabacher, a leading conservative voice on foreign affairs, called on the Iraqi government to repay the United States for the “mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.” After a backlash ensued and the Iraqi government asked Rohrabacher to leave the country, the California Republican still refused to back down, saying, “There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them.”

Following Monday’s presidential debate, ThinkProgress asked Santorum whether he agreed with Rohrabacher’s idea that Iraq ought to repay the United States for the war. Santorum, who is positioning himself as a foreign affairs expert in the GOP presidential primary, adamantly disagreed with the Congressman’s proposal, saying that it “would send every possible wrong signal that America went to war for oil”:

KEYES: Senator, Dana Rohrabacher, a leading conservative on the House Armed Services Committee* came out this week and said that Iraq ought to repay the United States for the Iraq War. Do you think that’s something you would…?

SANTORUM: I disagree with that. I think that would send every possible wrong signal that America went to war for oil and we didn’t go to war for oil. We went to war because it was in the national security interests of our country and that is a good expenditure of resources. If Iraq wants to continue, going forward, have some sort of security arrangements going forward, that’s another story. But as far as paying for what was in our interest, no.

Watch it:

Santorum is certainly no dove when it comes to foreign affairs. He strongly advocated invading Iraq and Afghanistan during his time in the U.S. Senate, and recently found himself embroiled in controversy after accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an ardent opponent of torture who was himself tortured for years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, of not understanding how torture works.

When an idea is too far to the right for even Rick Santorum, it’s time for Rohrabacher to reevaluate the wisdom of his comments.

*- Editor’s note: Rohrabacher sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, not the House Armed Services Committee.

Last week, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said he requested that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad ask Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and his accompanying GOP congressional delegation to leave Iraq because Rorhabacher had told the Iraqis to repay the U.S. for the war it started there in 2003. “Those people are not welcome in Iraq,” al-Dabbagh said.

Rohrabacher subsequently said he would not apologize for his comments and that the delegation was not kicked out of Iraq. “We were not officially told to leave the country before we left and were never told or warned not to come back,” he said in a statement.

Yet the Hill reports today that Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), who was also a member of the delegation that included Rohrabacher, said the group was indeed booted from Iraq:

Six House lawmakers were asked to leave Iraq last week by that country’s prime minister, according to Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas).

Gohmert, who was on the trip with three other Republicans and two Democrats, told The Hill that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ordered the group out of Iraq after it asked for access to Camp Ashraf, which houses 3,000 Iranian dissidents. [...]

“When we were leaving Irbil, we got word that Maliki had contacted the embassy and had said he wanted our group out of the country,” Gohmert said.

So at this point it’s unclear why the Iraqis kicked the GOP delegation out. The Iraqis say it was because of Rohrabacher’s comments and Gohmert claims they got booted because they wanted to visit Camp Ashraf.

The “dissidents” at this camp are the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), a longtime armed revolutionary group that was previously allied with Saddam Hussein’s regime and currently designated by the U.S. as a foreign terror organization. After being forcibly disarmed by the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK publicly renounced violence and sought to promote itself as the sole legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran, winning plaudits among those in the U.S. promoting regime change.

Since then, the group has undertaken a campaign to get de-listed in the U.S., including a bevy of paid speeches by former U.S. officials and politicians. The group is also known for having a robust presence in the halls of Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have promoted the MEK as both the victims of human rights abuses by the Iraqis and as an ally against Iran.

Last week on a congressional delegation visit to Baghdad, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he told Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki that Iraq should repay the United States for the war that President George W. Bush started there in 2003. “We would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years,” Rohrabacher said.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh soon after called the U.S. embassy and requested that it ask Rohrabacher to leave Iraq. “Those people are not welcome in Iraq. They are raising a controversial issue which influences the strategic relation between us and the United States,” he said in a statement to reporters.

Despite the criticism, Rohrabacher isn’t backing down. In fact, he tweeted yesterday that he does not intend to apologize. “No apologies for suggesting payback to U.S.,” he said. The California congressman reiterated his defiance in a statement on his website:

“I do not apologize for suggesting that once prosperous, Iraq should reconsider repaying the United States for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to liberate them from a tyrannical dictator and helping to establish a democratic government. [...] There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them.”

Rohrabacher also said that his delegation was not kicked out of Iraq. “We were not officially told to leave the country before we left and were never told or warned not to come back,” the statement said.

But by this logic, Rohrabacher might as well ask France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Philippines, and a whole host of other countries to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred during World War II. Yes, various governments repaid the U.S. for loans made during the war, but the countries the U.S. and its allies liberated during that war never paid the U.S. back. In fact, the U.S. government gave the Europeans money to rebuild their economies after the war. The Marshall Plan money “was in the form of grant aids that did not have to be repaid.” Perhaps Rohrabacher thinks it’s time to head over to Europe and collect.

Yesterday in Baghdad, while on a congressional delegation visit, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Iraq should repay the United States for the war there that President Bush started in 2003 (some estimates have put total war costs at around $3 trillion when all is said and done). “We would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years,” Rohrabacher said. One day prior in Doha, Rohrabacher withdrew his support for the Libyan rebels because, according to the California congressman, they said they would not repay the U.S. for its costs in the air campaign there.

It turns out that the Iraqis didn’t appreciate Rohrabacher’s comments all that much and in fact, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh has asked Rohrabacher to leave Iraq. “We called the US embassy yesterday and we told them to ask the congressmen to leave Iraq,” he told AFP, adding, “We don’t want them here. What they said was inappropriate.” Reuters has more:

“Those people are not welcome in Iraq. They are raising a controversial issue which influences the strategic relation between us and the United States,” he said.

“They are asking for compensation for the war and we are not committed to pay anything to any of the people who participated in the invasion of Iraq,” he told Reuters.

Yesterday, Rohrabacher said that he had told Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in a meeting that Iraq should repay the U.S. but Iraqi government officials said “his congressional delegation had not raised the issue in a meeting” with Maliki.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of Bush’s war. Perhaps Rohrabacher doesn’t think that’s quite enough. But Rohrabacker’s rhetoric is not only embarrassing, it endangers American lives there. One American source serving in Iraq told ThinkProgress, “This is the type of rhetoric that creates violence against the troops. It’s a poster for the Sadr crowd, and everyone else, that we are occupiers, not liberators [and] here for their oil money.”

Weeks after Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government forces there, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced a resolution offering support for the rebels, saying they “should be considered the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.” But in Doha yesterday, as part of a brief Middle East trip, the California Republican withdrew that support. Why? Because apparently the rebels won’t repay the U.S. for expenses incurred in helping them take down Qaddafi. “This lack of gratitude is shocking; this is not a good thing for their course,” he said.

But today in Baghdad, Rohrabacher took it a step further, telling the Iraqis — whose country the United States invaded by choice — that they must also repay the U.S. for invading their country, the AFP reports:

“Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country…we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years,” Rohrabacher told journalists at the US embassy in Baghdad.

“We were hoping that there would be a consideration of a payback because the United States right now is in close to a very serious economic crisis and we could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs.”

On Libya, the local Qatari English language news site the Peninsula noted that “the revolutionaries have not made any commitment to return the expenses by the US on Libya as it could be used by Muammar Gaddafi as propaganda against the rebels.”

Rohrabacher “raised the issue in a meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki” although the AFP did not report what would most likely have been Maliki’s bemused response. But it’s beyond absurd for Rohrabacher to demand that Iraq pay back the United States for, in retired Gen. Colin Powell’s terminology, “breaking” its country. If anyone is responsible for that, it’s George W. Bush.