Baghdad Republicans

As millions of Americans hurry to complete their taxes by April 15, yet more indication that those hard earned dollars are being needlessly lost in the sands of Iraq. With oil over $100 a barrel, Iraqi coffers are bulging with cash. Billions of dollars in fact. So, those revenues are being used to pay for Iraqi security and improvements to infrastructure, like the neocons promised five long years ago, right?

CNN -- He was replying to Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who last week complained that after five years of war, "it is still the American taxpayer who is shouldering the greatest economic burden in Iraq." Levin, a key congressional Democrat, made the comment during a series of hearings last week in the House and Senate on the status of the war. With the 5-year-old war's cost to U.S. taxpayers now estimated at more than $600 billion, the Iraqi windfall provoked sharp questions from lawmakers to the top U.S. general in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who were among those who testified.

"This nation's facing record deficits, and the Iraqis have translated their oil revenues into budget surpluses rather than effective services," Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday.

The Iraqi foriegn minister went on CNN yesterday to make excuses. I can understand why senior Iraqi officials are happy to sit on their treasure -- along with their asses -- and let US taxpayers cover their bills, pay their salaries, and risk our soldiers' lives, but why in the world would Republicans stand for it? Just which country do John McCain and his conservative pals think they're working for exactly? If Baghdad Republicans want to play US taxpayers for dopes and hand over our money to pad the Swiss bank accounts of Iraqi fat cats, fine, reregister as a foriegn lobby or 527, or whatever the fuck they want. But please, let's dispense with the laughable notion that the Iraq Wing of the GOP is an American political party working with American interests in mind.

•  Thinking

  about that while you do your taxes is enough to bring on fits.

  by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:30:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for expressing the outrage

    all Americans should be protesting. And Congress... they get little more done than the Iraqi government.

    by The House on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:17:14 AM PDT

•  Well...

  budget surpluses or not, I hardly think they've acted in the interests of Iraq either.

  by George Dayton on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:33:42 AM PDT

  •  No, just in the interests of the powerful in Iraq

    not the Iraqi people. Neocons are doing the same over there as they do here, they steal the money from the people and give it to the rich -- it's reverse Robin Hood on steriods.

    by The House on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:20:00 AM PDT

•  We're the occupying nation

  we're technically responsible to pay for all that shit.  Just another reason not to invade and occupy a country.

  by TJ on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:37:24 AM PDT

  •  Last

    I heard we were still paying Chalabi hundreds of thousands a month. And that's surely just the tip of the iceberg of waste and corruption on our dime. If they're sitting on billions of dollars they need to pony up.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:42:35 AM PDT

    •  If they're sitting on billions of dollars

      why give it up to corrupt Americans and American companies?  Even if they're stealing it, it's at least making some Shiites rich instead of Cheney.

      by TJ on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:16:08 AM PDT

      •  Because

        given a choice I'd much, much rather them use their money to pay Halliburton or bribes to Sunnis or Cheney or whomever than our money.

        by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:38:51 AM PDT

        •  how generous of you....

          to want to do evil with other people's money instead of your own, instead of insisting that the evil stops.  

          I believe the US should pay every last damn bill in Iraq until THEY GET THE F*CK OUT OF THERE.

          by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:46:49 AM PDT

  •  Ummm... when the invasion was being peddled to

    us part of the persuasive strategy used by the administration was precisely to say that the "war would pay for itself."  That is just what they promised us.  And that's the point of the diary-- it never has paid for itself, and it's doubly outrageous that now, when apparently there's some major cash over there in Iraq that we could be getting back as reimbursement for the trillions of dollars we've squandered, the Bush administration is doing jack squat to get us paid back.

    by concernedamerican on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:02:00 AM PDT

    •  And what are the Democrats doing about it?

      Just jawboning to make political points. Did you notice that Blackwater is continuing to receive its money and Congress has done nothing?

      The Democrats like Hillary Clinton who believed that plundering a country can be called "an invasion that will pay for itself" should all be removed from office along with the Republicans.

      The very notion that you are going to invade a country and then plunder it and call that "paying for itself" is so clearly just the game plan of every empire of the last 3000 years that every voter who approved this war by reelecting their congressional representatives who voted for the war and the funding should have their voting privileges revoked.

      We, the US people, are the ones who are responsible.  Those of us who didn't vote for the Republicans or for the majority of Democrats like Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, who voted for the war or for continuing the funding of the war, are the only ones who can have a clear conscience in this matter because we are the small minority who are not brainwashed.  

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:40:11 AM PDT

      •  yes, some are guilty

        and we all are responsible.

        I suspect that you, like me and the author of this post, are not among the guilty.  But we are all responsible.

        by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM PDT

    •  They lied. Deal.

      It's not like the Iraqis are actually getting anything useful from the money we're spending.

      by TJ on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:17:58 AM PDT

•  Randi Rhodes back on air today

  producing show on WJNO 1290am 3p. West palm beach station was her home before air America and will be syndicated nationally.  Don't know about streaming yet......

  by route66 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:41:04 AM PDT

  •  Talk about an off-topic comment...

    find an open thread.

    by Jimdotz on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:46:34 AM PDT

    •  Easy does it

      IMHO she's topical enough for any thread on DK

      by route66 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:00:07 AM PDT

      •  No... She's not as important as that.

        Frankly, not much is.

        by Jimdotz on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:17:24 AM PDT

    •  Maybe the Iraqis should pay her salalry

      I mean, why not, we liberated them, they should spend their money the way we tell them to. See, now the comment is back in the thread.

      by Marcion on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM PDT

•  The war that would pay for itself is

  turning out to be the war that is paid for by American soldiers, taxpayers and innocent Iraqi civilians who have been "relocated" and/or blown to bits...we didn't learn a lasting lesson from our useless carnage fest in Vietnam...I wonder if we will learn anything about ourselves as a nation from this one?

  by singe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:43:50 AM PDT

  •  Oh, yes, they did learn from Vietnam.

    They learned not to make the same mistakes again by making sure that the American public doesn't see what's being done in its name.

    by hannah on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:49:33 AM PDT

    •  Yes, they learned how to manipulate voters better

      They learned that conducting a war against "terror" is even more vague than a war against "communism" so that is even easier to maintain as a war of necessity. After all, we never really had to worry about communism "coming home" so we didn't need the fascist "Homeland Security" office. But since "terror" can be sold as possible "coming home" the 1984-style eternal war is upon us and that is a lesson they have learned all too well.

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:46:32 AM PDT

•  NPR

  did a nice report last week about our cash-dispensing military. Our military is a bunch of mobile ATM's, with no fees and no bottom.

  by plok on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:44:59 AM PDT

  •  Bribing and buying the surge's "sucsess".

    Yes, the military bought the success of the phony surge by bribing and buying Sunni tribal militias.  As soon as the money and weapons that the US military is giving to Sunni militias runs out they will use those same weapons supplied by the US against the US troops again.  Does anyone on DK really believe that the majority of Democrats in Congress care at all about this?

    by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:49:51 AM PDT

•  The Government in Baghdad is saving up...

  for the day when Iraq splits up into three separate countries:
  Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan.

  As long as Baghdad has all the cash they need to defend themselves, they won't have to worry so much about Sunnistan being the oil-deposit-poorest of the three.

  by Jimdotz on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:45:23 AM PDT

•  They're 'sacrificing' our blood and

  treasure for the greater glory of the United States and to secure our dominion over land, sea, air, outer space and, most recently, cyber space.  The goal is to demonstrate to China and Russia and India and anybody else who's watching that we are to be obeyed because we have no reluctance whatever to punish anyone who fails to do what they're told.

  We are wielding a big stick and flailing it about so that our quietest whisper will be heard.

  Iraq is destined to be smashed into smithereens until whatever population is left cries uncle and invites us to stay as long as we like on this outpost out West.  Because, although Iraq is technically in what is generally referred to as the Middle East, from the perspective of the Pentagon, it's SOUTHWEST Asia.

  Remember the instruction to "Go west, young man go west"?  Well, we're still at it.  Or as the fellow from the American Enterprise Institute put it:

  Accompanying this expansion of the American security perimeter has been a growing network of military facilities, both along the frontier and internally. Installations like Forts Riley and Leavenworth in Kansas were once outposts for Indian fighting, part of Andrew Jackson’s "Permanent Indian Frontier" plan, then "hubs" for further force projection. In the 1880s, Fort Leavenworth became the home of the Army staff college; Fort Riley has for some decades been the home of the First Infantry Division, a unit with much service in Germany and in the Persian Gulf. In Germany, Ramstein Air Force base, near the front line during the Cold War, is now a key pillar in the American air "bridge" that makes the U.S. Air Force’s boast of "global reach" a reality. The general pattern has been that, when one war ends, the United States fortifies the furthest reaches of the final front lines and, when the next war begins, it builds new facilities to support still farther-flung operations.

  by hannah on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:46:27 AM PDT

  •  Incompetent Imperialism

    It's bad enough that we have made enemies of millions or billions with our imperialist attacks, but its even worse that the Bush administration has made such a hash of it that we are both reviled and mocked.

    Lord, what fools these mortals be.

    by freelunch on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:46:49 AM PDT

    •  what's even worse...

      now Democrats like Levin are floating the idea that Iraqis should pay for their own destruction!
      
      That's a whole new step of evil!

      by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM PDT

•  Like last week's Doonsberry...

  Here.

  :::::

  by nowheredesign on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:50:47 AM PDT

  •  Doonesburry, I mean.. Sorry.

    by nowheredesign on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:51:12 AM PDT

    •  Donesbury.. lol! Me am idiot.

      Me am also butterfingers.

      ::::

      by nowheredesign on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:52:10 AM PDT

      •  Three strikes and you're out! Try "Doonesbury"

        But we know what you meant.

        by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:54:05 AM PDT

        •  Ha!

          by nowheredesign on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:18:00 AM PDT

•  HEAR HEAR HEAR!!!!! Now THIS is a topic that

  should be all over the media and in every op-ed column right about now.  This is truly big news in a country that is in such worrisome economic shape right now.  This is an OUTRAGE!!!!

  by concernedamerican on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:00:06 AM PDT

  •  You'd

    think so huh? Especially with tax time upon us. But no, all I saw on Morning Joe this morning was the usual trivia. Scar yucking it up over Clinton taking a shot of Crown (Which of course had it been McCain it would have been yet another sign of his rugged manliness and down home folksy charm) and a short segue into bashing Michelle Obama for saying she was proud of her country, just evidently not properely proud enough or for the right reasons.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:07:34 AM PDT

    •  Scarborough had half a clue at one time.

      But as soon as election year rolled around, he went right back to being the Wingnut he was in Congress.

      No point going there for truth, his show's become the "Fox and Friends" for adults.

      by Bush Bites on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:12:00 AM PDT

    •  first politician who frames this populist message

      right, and gets the media's ok, ugh, will go to the Whitehouse.

      by KenBee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:58:16 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, this is a great topic.

    Really rips a new one into the war, without touching the surge or the troops' mission or any of that stuff.

    We're supporting a bunch of third-rate criminals and political hacks.

    Even conservatives will get pissed about us running up a debt while they run up a surplus that will likely end up in their Swiss bank accounts.

    (Well, real conservatives will be pissed, not Fox News conservatives.)

    by Bush Bites on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:09:16 AM PDT

•  Not so

  As millions of Americans hurry to complete their taxes by April 15, yet more indication that those hard earned dollars are being needlessly lost in the sands of Iraq.

  None of our tax dollars are being spent in Iraq. All of the Iraqi money is borrowed.

  Our children's and grandchildren's tax dollars will be spent on this decades old, long since discredited war. Just add the war burden to college loans, entitlements, and other American greed.

  If you don't know where you're going, any road will do.

  by exregis on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:17:43 AM PDT

  •  That's a good point!

    Where the money is coming from should be part of the story every bit as much as where it's going.

    Basically we are going into hock to The People's Republic of China and other nations to pay for this fiasco. That's why the US won't do anything about China's human rights abuses.  

    By owing other nations the money to pay for the war we lose a great deal of bargaining power against any country holding that debt. Thus the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a much greater foreign affairs disaster than even the Democrats are willing to admit.

    by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:00:16 AM PDT

•  If this is patriotism, I want no part of it. n/t

  by jdmorg on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:19:20 AM PDT

•  Good for the Iraqis

  They never asked us to invade them and occupy them for years. Why should they pay for it?

  by freelunch on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:26:22 AM PDT

  •  It

    ain't going to the Iraqis. It's going to end up in the hands of the richest and most powerful Iraqi collaboraters with the US. They're doing the same thing to thir people the neocons are doing to us: stealing national wealth for their own future use.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:32:08 AM PDT

    •  That is a serious problem

      But corruption and war profiteering is a huge problem in the United States as well and the Democratic Congress isn't doing anything about it.

      The next Defense appropriation needs to cut wasteful weapons programs, appropriate a billion dollars for corruption investigations, and bar the DoD from ever hiring mercenaries again.

      It also needs to make certain that no crimes are unpunished because they were committed by our mercenaries.

      by freelunch on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:43:43 AM PDT

•  Mohamed McCain?

  n/t

  by galliano on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:26:30 AM PDT

•  Silly to focus on Republicans

  To think that somehow it is just Republicans supporting the rip off of the US taxpayer is silly partisanship with your head in the political dirt.

  The war profits benefit both Republican and Democratic political war chests. Why else wasn't the war ended when the Democrats came into the majority?

  And who do you think these Iraqi officials and "fat cats" are? They are the necessary collaborators who are being bought off to provide the phony story that the Iraqis want the US in Iraq.

  I don't approve of the waste of US money that the Democrats and Republicans have approved over and over again, but I understand the Iraqis in general for taking as much US money as they can grab since we illegally invaded their country and trashed it mightily. I am only sad that the money isn't going to the Iraqi people as it should instead of to the US collaborators. But that too it the fault of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who only give lip service to being outraged at the graft of the Iraqis while they do nothing to take action to stop the waste and the graft of the US companies who are getting far more of the money than the Iraqis.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Oh

    please, this was a neocon war dreamed up by neoconservatives years before 9-11 and taken off the shelf after the terrorist attacks. It was ordered by a Republican President and a Republican Vice President and sold on conservative media or using fraud on other media. Cnseratives supported it from th get go, cast anyone who had questions about is as a traitor, and have cheered every bloody mistep and made excuses for every fuck up and broken promise along the way. To pretend it's somehow "bipartisan" is the worst sort of neocon drivel and so, soooo 2002.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:35:13 AM PDT

    •  and enough democrats must have said ok

      because we are still there, right, and have a majority in both houses?

      Study: Lawmakers Invest $196M in Pentagon Contractors

      A new study shows members of Congress have collectively invested as much $196 million in military companies under contract with the Pentagon. The Center for Responsive Politics says the holdings could pose a conflict of interest for lawmakers deciding on spending for the Iraq war. More Republicans had military investments than Democrats, but Democrats have more money at stake. The highest stakeholder is Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry made at least $2.6 million from his investments between 2004 and 2006. He has up to $38 million invested in companies doing business with the Pentagon.

      by borkitekt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:43:22 AM PDT

      •  Important post should be diary itself

        As well as on the front page of every newspaper.

        This is the story of our nation and its so-called "capitalist" system.  

        This model of congressional behavior came up in the very first Congress over the funding question for the revolutionary war.

        The war was paied by state debts and the issuing of "continental" dollars which were actually IOUs. When the first Congress had to decide how to pay off the continentals many of the continentals had been sold to third parties at pennies to the dollar.  Poor farmers and widows were holding continentals and didn't know if, first the congress and government under the Articles of Confederation and then the Congress under the new Constitution were ever going to honor the debt. So speculators bought up continentals at great discounts.

        Madison said that no one should get gross profits and that if the continentals were going to be paid for that the speculators should only get a fair interest and the balance be paid to the original note holders whose names were on the continentals.  Hamilton argued against Madison and said the current note holders who ever they were should get the full 100% value as their buying on speculaiton was a capitalist risk.  

        Of course what wasn't well known was that while congress was debating what to do, many congressmen sent out representatives to buy up continentals themselves on great discount. With the lack of news sources and it taking days and weeks and even months for people to learn what Congress was doing, people were selling their continentals without even knowing that Congress was debating the question. Thus by the time the question was voted upon, many Congressmen were voting in a way that would feather their own nests and so Hamilton's funding scheme won the majority and many goncressmen got much richer over night.

        by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:11:24 AM PDT

    •  And which Democrats voted agianst it?

      And against the funding?
      And which Democrats voted for the war and the funding?

      The Republicans may have planned it but the Democrats got on the bandwagon for their own profits just as borkitekt writes about John Kerry's war profits.

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:22:06 AM PDT

      •  Look

        Gregory, I'm going to be blunt. You brought up some points worth following up on, and it's just bad luck that you happen to be the available comment slot for what follows: I'm done taking any more responsibility for invading Iraq. As in won't put up with it any longer, as in will down rate the next son of a bitch who even indirectly claims I or anyone else here who opposes it bears responsbility.

        Speaking for myself, I quit a decent job and went a year straight with zero income so I could write here and help with the first YearlyKos. I've driven voters to polls, attended rallies and events,  turned down job offers, including writing and blogging jobs that may have paid quite well, to blog here for free. I exhausted my immediate savings contributing to progressive candidates. Short of either inventing a time machine and beginning this commitment earlier, or losing my home and all possession to wander the countryside like a progressive Kwai Chain Cane, I'm not sure what else a previously politically apathetic science geek could have done. And it was almost entirely becuase I was pissed off about Iraq. And Greg, many, many people here can tell similar stories, I'm by no means unique or even notable in that respect.

        So I'm really only going to say this once and then I might just flip out and go on a bugfuck crazy troll rating spree until another admin talks some sense into me or I expend all 1000 of my TR arrows a day at the very next asshole who says I or anyone else here who loudly opposes it bears responsibility for it. I/We don't bear responsibility for it and I'm through humoring those who say that we/I do.

        by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:37:10 AM PDT

        •  Get a grip, man

          Gregory Wonderwheel wasn't attacking you personally for your behavior at the time, unless you were in Congress.  Your threats are uncalled for.

          Gregory, you're a man after my own heart.

          by No Preference on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM PDT

      •  Oh Please!

        Spare us the sanctimonious bull. If anyone thought electing a slim majority of Democrats in the Senate and a 30 seat majority in the House was going to immediately end our misadventure in Iraq, he or she was dreaming!

        To make significant change, i.e., passing legislation to begin withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, the Dems would need 60 seats in the Senate and AT LEAST a 60-75 seat majority in the House.

        You forget that the architects of this fiasco still have their man in charge and he has veto power, a power, at this point, that can override any significant legislation the Democratic Congress tries to pass. Also, he's a crook.

        In addition, Republicans have walked in lock-step with the idiot wonder, solidly supporting his desire for a continued US presence in Iraq.

        Without Republican cooperation in this Congress (HA!), nothing significant will be done about Iraq. You also cannot paint the whole Democratic party as enablers based on the actions of a few.

        Please stop trying to pin equal blame on Democrats for Iraq, it is really a tired talking point.

        by kefauver on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:15:59 AM PDT

        •  seems to me

          that most of the Democrats are not even trying to stop the war - the Out of Iraq caucus and Progressive Caucus is trying, but that is it.

          I don't pin equal blame, but I definitely pin blame on the Democrats.

          by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:55:40 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, DarkSyde

      it was bipartisan. A large proportion of Democratic Senators voted for Bush's War Powers Act. The act itself was drafted with Democratic input.  At the time of the invasion those few Democrats who publicly protested - my Senator Kennedy was among them - sounded mighty lonely.  

      BTW, the "other" (i.e. "nonconservative") media, including PBS and NPR, were fully engaged in selling that war to us. I know because I was there listening.  It's zero excuse to say the administration used fraud. Much of that fraud had been exposed prior to the invasion.

      by No Preference on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM PDT

      •  Not Really

        28 out of 49 Democratic Senators voted for authorization. (BTW, I don't count LIEberman as a Democrat) Hardly a "large proportion."

        A majority of Democrats (126) in the House voted against authorization.

        However, I guess one could spin it as bipartisan.

        by kefauver on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM PDT

        •  28 Dems out of 49 is 57%

          Look, I'm not saying that the Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans for the bill.  I'm saying that the party leadership in general went along with it.  It  also went along with the invasion.  

          I was desperate and listening very carefully at the time.  IIRC just before invasion the Democratic National Committee web site was featuring notices about teeth care for the elderly. There was a disgraceful failure to act by what should have been the progressive, pro international law, pro peace party in the US.

          by No Preference on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM PDT

          •  I Agree About the Leadership

            How foolish.

            by kefauver on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:32:27 PM PDT

•  I find Carl Levin's meme offensive and stupid. He

  thinks I'm going to support the framing that we are doing so much good for the Iraqis, and they should pay for all that good? We invaded and occupied them, we bombed them to smithereens, we destroyed their infrastructure, we are torturing not Al Qaeda but Iraqi resisters, we're trying to set up permanent arrangements to steal their oil revenues AND THEY KNOW IT(90% foreign ownership is what I recall, 100% repatriation of profits to the foreign owner; and you can bet those profits won't be taxed in the US of A). WE put the greasy, corrupt government into place to help us steal, and they have the nerve to go all Musharref on us.

  by lecsmith on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:33:38 AM PDT

•  We're bitching at the IRAQIS?

  Okay, let me get this straight.

  The Bush administration invades Iraq for one reason: in order to pad the bank accounts of our neocon chicken hawks and Big Oil fat cats, which, by the way, has certainly worked out beyond their wildest dreams.

  The Bush administration shovels no-bid contracts to Halliburton, the Kuwaitis, etc., to build permanent military bases in Iraq, the cost of which will probably never be known:
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/...

  The Bush administration can't be bothered to build armored troop carriers, to provide body armor to our troops, or to care for them when they come home; but they send over at least $12 billion in cash, that we know about - that of course will never be accounted for - in bales of $100 bills:
  http://baltimorechronicle.com/...

  At last report, the cost of leveling Iraq will be counted in the trillions, and it will be paid for by our grandhildren. Not Bush's, of course, but yours and mine. This country has, once again, spent untold amounts of money to decimate and destroy an entire country - we've gotten really, really good at destroying entire countries, by the way. For the hell of it, Bush and his circle of cronies and thugs have introduced a few new wrinkles, including personally directing the torture and murder of helpless men, women and children.

  We spend nothing at all since the invasion on reconstructing anything in Iraq that might improve daily life for Iraqis, not even on the most basic things like water and electricity.

  And we're bitching about how selfish it is of the Iraqis to hang onto all that oil money? Any American who makes that obscene and disgraceful argument should be disqualified from ever speaking in public again.

  American taxpayers should be outraged, true. We've definitely been had. But the thieves and murderers who have fattened and prospered in Iraq are the men and women who have occupied the White House and gutted our government and our Constitution for eight long years.

  We should hold Bush, Cheney, and the neocon war criminals and profiteers responsible, not only for the unimaginable death and destruction they have visited on the citizens of a country whose only offense was that they were sitting on oil, but for the looting of our own country, and for the murder not only of our own young people who have served and suffered in Iraq, but of the men, women and children of Iraq, whose lives and country have been destroyed by "our" government.

  Yeah, let's send Iraq a bill for for that. We want those selfish Iraqis to pony up; there's a lot of money just sitting there, that can be put to good use hiring Halliburton to loot and screw up some more no-bid contracts.  

  It wasn't the Iraqis who screwed up our economy. It was the Bush administration. You want to send a bill? Send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And make it a bill of impeachment.

  by obiterdictum on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:34:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, well, both you and Darksyde have points.

    Let's impeach and indict those who need it here, including the 'defense' contractors.

    But let's not let those surpluses in Iraq go offshore accounts or to our willing carpetbaggers, either.  

    Rather than just whine about it, why don't our Dem leaders take action?  Or have they?

    by divineorder on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:40:24 AM PDT

    •  You still don't get it. Iraq is not our concern.

      It is not for the USA to tell Iraq how to manage its oil revenues.

      We can't even control our own USA graft, so don't presume that we are in any position to tell Iraqis how to control their graft.

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:15:35 AM PDT

      •  Well

        if you're looking for a moral reason to be pissed about it, what they're doing is allowing their collaborators in iraq to stash the oil money -- and the 'people of Iraq' will never, ever see it, and the coup de grace is that theft is once again born by the American taxpayer. And BTW:, we're actually allowed to be pissed off about more than a single item that is going on over there. I can be pissed that we invaded Iraq and still be pissed that we're aiding the Iraqi officials in ripping off their people at our expense. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact I'd argue they plainly work hand in hand in illustrating how disasterous this war is for all but a tiny few profiteers.

        by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:21:11 AM PDT

      •  AMEN.

        Made my point a lot better than I did, and in a much shorter time.

        by obiterdictum on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

  •  Darksyde is Bitching at Corrupt Iraqi Govt.

    For graft with US money. He is not bitching at normal Iraqi people.

    by kefauver on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:21:56 AM PDT

    •  Never said he was.

      I'm saying that Iraqi oil money DOES NOT BELONG TO US.

      Never did, doesn't now.

      As corrupt as our government is, where do we get the cojones to tell the Iraqi government who to pay off?

      Never mind. Cojones has never been what drove this war.
      I guess the operative word would be greed. But now that we can no longer afford to even pretend to redress the damage and destruction we have done in Iraq, the least we can do is butt out and let them screw up their own country with their own money.

      It's the concept that we as a country are actually expected to buy into Bush's notion that "we" have a right to Iraqi oil money - now that "we" have destroyed their country - that makes me want to screech and claw my face.

      by obiterdictum on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM PDT

•  Follow the money

  and you'll discover who's responsible for ruining not only Iraq, but the U.S. as well.  Please include the so-called "think tanks," especially the ones that get taxpayer money.

  by trinite on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:36:16 AM PDT

•  Maybe because the oil money may go away soon?

  Given that the US government has been pushing hard to get Iraq to hand over its oil industry to American corporations, I don't blame the Iraqis for hoarding what oil wealth they have now.

  by Marcus Graly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:38:27 AM PDT

  •  actually, I think they are handing it over to

    multi-national oil corporations, which may or may not include Americans.  So, our troops are fighting a war to control the oil resources, and that control may end up with the elite who are not Americans.... not that it matters much, because if the American corporations can make more profit in another country, they will stop being American corporations anyway.

    by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:02:12 AM PDT

•  Money trail leads to President Cheney, of course.

  by way of Halliburton, KBR, etc.

  by Cartoon Peril on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:50:39 AM PDT

•  Dems waste time tellig Iraq to pay for occupation

  Senator Levin et al. should be leading the fight to end the occupation. Telling Iraq what to do with its money is a loser. Let's leave, assume Iraq is a grown up ancient culture that can handle its own finances.

  by skywriter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:00:49 AM PDT

•  I had no idea.

  This is really just beyond the pale.

  I hope Obama picks up this issue.

  Even right wing Americans will understand this.

  by Bush Bites on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:04:45 AM PDT

•  Disturbing

  To portray Iraqis as rich and stingy for not being  enthusiastic enough to pay for their own occupation seems a little disturbing to me.

  I understand that this isn't the intent of the diary, but I'm sure you can imagine how it appears to the unamerican eye.

  by dtox on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:14:21 AM PDT

•  but why?

  this is the question i don't get--

  why would Bush administration not force Iraqs to use their surplus to start paying for things?

  It doesn't make sense-- if Iraqis started to pay for things then it would knock down a big Democratic argument that this war is costing us too much.

  Now Iraqis and Bush admin can't really justify paying for our military to be there but they can certainly pick up the reconstruction costs now.

  You would think it is a no brainer to use iraqi money

  the only thing I can think of is if Iraqis use their money then they would have a say WHO gets the money and how it is spent. which means that maybe US firms could be squeezed out or even worse have to actually show where the money is going.

  does anyone know the answer?

  by smartone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:19:06 AM PDT

  •  Because

    by allowing the Iraqi leaders to stash huge chunks of oil money for their personal use, they enlist them in helping the neocons continue to steal huge sums of money from us for personal use. And we the taxpayer pay for both scams. It's quite disgusting.

    by DarkSyde on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:22:56 AM PDT

    •  Dead on.

      Exactly. It's the Levin "they should pay" framing that makes me crazy.

      by obiterdictum on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM PDT

•  You missed the latest twist to the mess

  Good diary except you should consider this feature: NYT had a front page report about 27 billion US$ in Iraqi banks and 31 billion US$ currency in US international clearing banks.

    That bunch of currency in US banks is needed to backstop the hedge funds,mutual funds, bank loans that have gone sour.

    In essence the Iraqi currency is helping prop up the US financial house of cards which is crumbling through the rotten floor right now.

  Crocker Petraeus can't "make the Iraqis pay more" because they need huge Iraqi deposits to help save the USA from financial collapse of its own.

    That currency is needed to SIT to guarantee the other shenanigans and looting and profiteering can continue!

  by Pete Rock on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:22:56 AM PDT

•  economic arbitrage

  If Iraq has too much money and insufficient security, the solution would be to import an army from a country with too much security and waaaay to little money.

  North Korea comes to mind.  How much it would cost them to send 500k troops?  Small fraction of Iraqi oil revenue, I bet.

  by Piotr on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:35:08 AM PDT

•  Hedging against democratic victory

  How do you expect BlackWater, KBR, and Haliburton to continue to profit from the Iraqi government if their coffers on filled with our cash?

  If we pull out the Iraqi government will still surely need those private sector "services".

  by mtosner on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:03:38 AM PDT

•  I was thinking about writing a diary making the

  link between high oil prices and taxes. High Oil prices are basically the same thing as raising taxes on Americans to support the war in Iraq.

  by CTMET on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:33:39 AM PDT

•  Baghdad Republicans

  A new meme is born :D

  by lawnorder on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:49:35 AM PDT

•  If Levin gets Iraq to pay for it's own occupation

  than I will totally give up on the Democrats.  This is obscenely evil.

  by dancewater on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:44:47 AM PDT

  •  If Levin gets Iraq to pay for it's own occupation

    dancewater- look at history, How about Rome?. They levied taxes on all occupied nations in there empire.

    Bush, Cheney, and company are starting America's empire, and if history repeats itself, Iraq will pay for some of it's occupation. A better idea- leave the country, they can afford to rebuild, and establish government, after all the stupid Americans paid for their liberation for Saddam. Didn't we pay off the French for their assistance in the Revolutionary War?

    by KoolAidMan on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

    •  PS

      Didn't we pay off the French for their assistance in the Revolutionary War?

      Actually no, we didn't.

      by No Preference on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

•  I'll say this

  I'm an Iraq war vet, and supportive of our goals there, but the corruption is rampant.

  Every Iraqi battalion commander I worked with was accused of corruption at some point, some justifiably.

  One commander absconded with the payroll.  The Iraqi soldiers would steal you blind.  

  The people there are just not honest by Western standards.

  But, for as much graft as there has been, it is still just a drop in the bucket for how much we are actually spending over there.

  by headhunt23 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:35:20 AM PDT

•  Remember Vietnam!

  The Iraqis are just learning their lessons from history. The U.S. promised reparations to Vietnam after all the damage we did to that country, and never paid a cent. The U.S. rightfully owes billions of dollars in reparations to Iraq as well, for destroying their country. Since the chances are we never will pay that either, the Iraqis are just taking it out in advance. Can't blame them for that.

  by elishastephens on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM PDT

•  SNAP !

  BAGHDAD REPUBLICANs

  WoW !

  perfect , , ,

  by BoiseNick on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

•  Democratic Progressives

  So, let's see if I get this dairy. The U.S.A. engages in an illegal act of aggression under international law, but the Democrats, including progressive Democrats, whine that Iraqi monies aren't being used to reconstruct the infrastructure illegally destroyed by the U.S.A.  Of course, most of these Democrats supported the illegal aggression in the first place. The Democratic Party is morally bankrupt.  America is a disaster for the rest of the world, and even for most Americans.  This dairy just demonstrates the joke that passes as serious political opposition by the Democratic Party.  It's sickening.

  by tsk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:18:07 PM PDT