Iraq's Budget Surplus Could Top $79 Billion on High Oil Prices

[strandinthewind]

Not only are our brave soldiers needlessly dying and getting injured there, but Iraq has tons of money and America is still paying for them. This is just fukced up and directly the fault of George W. Bush Then again, why buy the cow when you the milk for free, to wit
(emphasis supplied) :

________________________________________________

Iraq's Budget Surplus Could Top $79 Billion on High Oil Prices

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

WASHINGTON —

The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.
A report by the Government Accountability Office made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.

The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said.

The report was requested by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects," Levin said in a statement. "It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves."

"It is time for the sovereign government of Iraq, using its revenues, expenditures and surpluses, to fully assume the responsibility to provide essential services and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people," Warner said.

The GAO said Iraq had an estimated cumulative budget surplus of about $29 billion from 2005 to 2007 and could have another surplus of up to $50 billion this year.

The expected surplus could be lower if Iraq passes stalled legislation for a $22 billion supplemental budget for 2008 — and if the government then executes the budget.

But the report noted oft-repeated factors holding the government back on its spending plans.

"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems.

"Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity," it said.

The report also estimated that this year Iraq could generate $67 billion to $79 billion in oil sales. Other U.S. officials previously had said they expected the oil windfall to be about $70 billion.

"This substantial increase in revenues offers the Iraqi government the potential to better finance its own security and economic needs," the GAO said.

Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets.

The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398464,00.html

[Musicman408]

I wonder if we'll ever see a budget in the black???? Hopefully sometime before I get into my education career.

[ajmccarrell]

Here's an idea no one is really talking about. The Iraqi's and their government want us there. Why not charge them for it by way of oil discount? We get cheaper gas, they get security that they have to pay for. The government is not overburdened and our taxpayers have the effects minimized. Such a no brainer! DUH!

[ashton]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Here's an idea no one is really talking about. The Iraqi's and their government want us there. Why not charge them for it by way of oil discount? We get cheaper gas, they get security that they have to pay for. The government is not overburdened and our taxpayers have the effects minimized. Such a no brainer! DUH!

Would this be the same government that just made it clear that they wanted us out, or are you imaging a different government that wants us there?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

Would this be the same government that just made it clear that they wanted us out, or are you imaging a different government that wants us there?

You mean the government that corrected the 18 month time table, IE Maliki said he never said that?! Pay attention.
http://townhall.com/columnists/Kathl..._mccain?page=2


http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles.../10124696.html

[ashton]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

You mean the government that corrected the 18 month time table, IE Maliki said he never said that?! Pay attention.

No dear, both Maliki and his spokesperson confirmed exactly what he said and repeated it. I have been paying attention, you on the other hand....

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

No dear, both Maliki and his spokesperson confirmed exactly what he said and repeated it. I have been paying attention, you on the other hand....

Uh, what have you been reading. I mean, even the "Communist News Network" disagrees with you. LOL!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...lmaliki.obama/

Read something besides the Huffington Post, okay?! It's opinion, not news. There is a difference.

[ashton]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Uh, what have you been reading. I mean, even the "Communist News Network" disagrees with you. LOL!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...lmaliki.obama/

Read something besides the Huffington Post, okay?! It's opinion, not news. There is a difference.

Never mind, I thought you were actually serious, not a ranting wingnut. If you are only capable of expressing yourself at the level of a 15-year old, you are best ignored.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by ashton

Never mind, I thought you were actually serious, not a ranting wingnut. If you are only capable of expressing yourself at the level of a 15-year old, you are best ignored.

Hmmm. CNN is quite left wing. Ted Turner owns and runs it. You consider CNN a ranting wingnut source? I guess that sums you up.

As far as my expression goes, I have a degree in economics and have owned businesses and actually work in business. So, I guess you consider yourself a better judge of expression than top 30 colleges, where I have consistently been praised for my writing skills?

I guess you take your marching orders from Rahm Emmanuel, Che Guavera, Castro, Mao, Trotsky, or some other communist.

[ajmccarrell]

Anyway, back to seriousness. According to this article, Iraq and the US have agreed to a certain timeline. So, as long as we are welcome there to provide security, we could get cheaper gas.

http://www.arabia.msn.com/channels/m...ID=541487&S=Hl

[strandinthewind]

With respect, Reuters reported the initial story http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...98009020080719 -- so, the ref to the Huffington Post was unfair.

The CNN article you posted does not indicate anything other than Obama's plan, which is, and always has been, to withdraw the combat troops (both candidates agree to a US military presence in Iraq for longer time - hence McCain's 100 years comment, which was taken mostly out of context) in 16 months with the safety of the troops dictating that time frame.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's statements were:

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

and the later adjustment via a spokesperson:

"the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements"

There is no inherent inconsistency with his spokesperson's clarification of Obama's time frame. The spokesperson never denied the time frame in the clarification; he merely reiterated it would be based on security, a position Obama has consistently maintained and a position Maliki alluded to with his initial statement of "the possibility of slight chamges." Maybe you think W's reference to a "time horizon" is different than 16 months based on security. I see no difference. Moreover,

Interestingly, the spokesperson did not address Maliki's quote that a McCain policy of “artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops” would “cause problems,” nor Maliki's conclusion that American Republican talking points in general are, at their core, mistaken: “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But that isn’t the case at all.”

Personally, I think we should try to leave Iraw as secure as possible, but no matter when we withdraw the combat troops, the six or so month (hopefully) transition period afterward will be. to say the least, difficult and likely very violent.

Here is the CNN article.

Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan

Comments follow White House announcement of "time horizon" for withdrawal

(CNN) -- A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

"That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

"Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic," al-Maliki said.

The interview's publication came one day after the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a "general time horizon" in talks about reducing American combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country. iReport.com: What should the next president know about Iraq?

The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to consider a "timetable" for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

In a statement issued Friday after a conversation between Bush and al-Maliki by closed-circuit television, the White House said that conditions in Iraq would dictate the pace of the negotiations and not "an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said.

In an interview to air Sunday on "Late Edition," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "those goals are being achieved now, as we speak. And so, it's not at all unusual to start to think that there is a horizon out there, in the not too distant future, in which the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. forces are going to change dramatically and those of the Iraqi forces are going to become dominant."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said al-Maliki had made it clear that such decisions will be based on continuing positive developments.

"It is our shared view that should the recent security gains continue, we will be able to meet our joint aspirational time horizons," he said.

The prime minister's remarks emerged as Obama visited Kuwait and Afghanistan before embarking on a tour of the Middle East and Europe to boost his foreign policy credentials. He also plans to visit Iraq.

The Democratic candidate says he supports a phased withdrawal of troops, promising to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if he becomes president.

McCain does not think American troops should return to the United States until Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining a safe, democratic state.

He has been a strong advocate of the 2007 "surge" to escalate U.S. troop levels and says troops should stay in Iraq as long as needed.

McCain says Obama is wrong for opposing the increased troop presence, and Obama says McCain's judgment is flawed.

CNN's Julia Weber and Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...almaliki.obama

___________________________________________________________

I do find it interesting that you basically belittle the credibility of cites like CNN when those cites essentially get their quotes and stories from the AP or Reuters. Fox does as well. So, I fail to see how that makes the quotes in those articles anything but accurate. Then, you cite to articels by far right journalists and apparently prefer to take them on faith. That is having your cake and eating it too