so according to the san francisco chronicle, the house is putting together "$108 billion that the White House has requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawmakers who are drafting it say it also will include a so-called bridge fund of $70 billion to give the new president several months of breathing room before having to ask Congress for more money."
i'm not sure where i stand on withdrawal timetables, etc. on one hand, quick and immediate withdrawal would create a power vacuum, allowing petty warlords to take the country peacemeal, tearing it asunder. on the other hand, that's ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENED.
the city of san francisco is, as we all know, one of the biggest havens for progressives in the united states. one thing you may not know, however, is that it's nancy pelosi's constituency. those nuts have been talking about immediate withdrawal for years. pelosi, you dumbass, you're committing political suicide. good luck making it through the '08 election after you have failed in every possible way to challenge the worst chief executive in the history of the united states. her excuse (from the same article): "we had hoped that the president would listen to the will of the people and at least be willing to compromise on ... how the war is conducted and some timetable for redeployment of our troops." come on, idiot. you became speaker in november of '06. by then we all knew bush didn't listen to anyone.
so in the face of a vast budget deficit, rising commodities prices, and an obese peasantry having trouble affording its bread and circuses, what is an inept, out-of-touch congress to do? why, make iraq pay to rebuild the shit we blow up, of course! apparently "Democrats and many Republicans say it is unfair that Iraq is looking at pulling in as much as $70 billion in oil revenues this year while Americans grapple with soaring fuel prices at the pump."
of course it's not fair! how dare they make money off of their oil? WE were supposed to make money off of it. iraq, i used to think you were cool, but you've changed, man.
update: wait, why does the war still cost so much? wasn't our mission accomplished five years ago?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
congress continues funding destruction, stops funding construction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 responses:
I think the problem the us govt is facing with money being made of iraqi oil is not so much that its being earned but the people who are earning it and how it is being spent.
I mentioned in an earlier comment to Joe's post that a huge amount of it is stolen and diverted by extremists when it leaves the refineries. The profits are in turn being turned against us forces. In effect the soldiers protect the refineries that make oil that is used to buy weapons to kill their compatriots in other parts of the country. There is little the iraqi government can do about it at this point with their limited infrastructure and security arrangements.
I wonder if that number 70 mil reflects the profits after losses to hijackers. It could well be considering the extent of oil reserves. However when you consider the reconstruction effort needed to rebuild the country and the funds being pumped into the insurgency, that number pales.
i don't even know man. from a standpoint of balancing the american budget, it's even worse to think about how much cash we're hemorrhaging through independent contractor fuckups.
the big blunder to me is the assumption that the oil profits freed up would pay for the war, which i believe was the extent of their reconstruction 'plan.'
as for the specific numbers, i don't even go so far as to consider their methodology for sorting that out. these numbers have likely been fudged several times over anyway.
True, I rememeber the stories of skids full of new bills arriving in bagdad for the army and neocon foot soldiers to use at its discretion - to be given away to sway loyalties and sympathies and to set up a 'free market' economy. Tons of that money got swiped or diverted. This is some 'Three Kings' style theivery going on.
Post a Comment