Power Line News

Here is a recent civilian contract purchase by Iraq just as an example for OldGrim

Boeing Signs $5 Billion Commercial Aircraft Deal with Government of Iraq

On May 5, 2008, Prime Minister of Iraq, Al Maliki hosted a ceremonial signing with Boeing representatives to announce the Government of Iraq’s purchase of thirty 737 and ten 787 commercial aircraft. In collaboration with Embassy Baghdad, including the Senior Commercial Officer, the Transportation Attaché, and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning’s Procurement Action Center, Boeing concluded negotiations with the Iraqi Minister of Finance on March 24th, with the signing of the Boeing agreement. On May 5th, Boeing representatives traveled to Baghdad at the invitation of the Prime Minister to attend the ceremonial signing and official announcement of the aircraft purchase. Guests included Ambassador Crocker, GEN David Petraeus, Minister of Finance Jabr Al-Zubaydi and Ahmed Al Saadawi, DG of Iraqi Airways. This agreement marks the single largest purchase ever made by the GOI.

Hey Dummy, I can read, you must have a bit of a problem.

You mean like this?
US senator wants Iraq oil funds used for rebuilding
Tue Mar 4, 2008 5:48pm EST WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said on Tuesday he may try to require Iraq to spend more of its oil revenue on reconstruction instead of investing the money in foreign banks.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003, top Bush administration officials suggested some war costs could be financed through Iraqi oil revenues. That never occurred and U.S. taxpayers have instead seen about a half-trillion dollars of their money spent on the war so far.]What kind of an absurdity is it that we are paying for the reconstruction of Iraq with American taxpayers dollars if Iraqi oil sales, to a significant degree, are going into foreign banks and not being used for their own reconstruction,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
“

In the meantime, there are estimates that Iraq has up to $30 billion in assets invested in U.S. financial institutions.

Levin said he would ask Congress’ investigative arm, the General Accountability Office, or others in the U.S. government to look into Iraq’s use of oil revenues.

He said he would decide after such an investigation whether to use this year’s appropriations process to force Baghdad to change its financial practices.

Levin said Congress could condition future war funds on Iraq using its own revenues for reconstruction, reducing the burden on U.S. taxpayers.

According to government estimates, Congress has given the Bush administration $16 billion for reconstruction and relief efforts in Iraq.

“They (Iraq) are selling about $50 billion a year in oil. What are they doing with all the money?”, Levin asked.
In December, President George W. Bush announced his intention to veto a defense bill after Baghdad complained about a provision that could freeze Iraqi assets in the United States if Americans sued for actions taken by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

At the time, Iraq also discussed the possibility of pulling its assets, estimated at $20 billion to $30 billion, out of U.S. banks if that defense measure became law.

Levin said that legislative dust-up prompted his look into Iraq’s use of oil revenues.

During an Armed Services oversight hearing on Tuesday on U.S. military forces in Iraq, Levin asked William Fallon, the the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, about Iraq paying reconstruction costs.

Fallon said there were some concerns over Iraq’s ability to effectively distribute oil revenues.

Levin responded, “I can’t accept the answer that they’re not capable of administering their own revenues.” (Editing by Todd Eastham)

At least I post something factual unlike you who post B.S. and its just the wind blowing between your ears. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you might tell the truth now and then.
From the dummy that hammers on you when you tell large lies, depend on it continuing. When are you going to get over dropping used bush bull droppings?
US senator wants Iraq oil funds used for rebuilding
Tue Mar 4, 2008 5:48pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said on Tuesday he may try to require Iraq to spend more of its oil revenue on reconstruction instead of investing the money in foreign banks.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003, top Bush administration officials suggested some war costs could be financed through Iraqi oil revenues. That never occurred and U.S. taxpayers have instead seen about a half-trillion dollars of their money spent on the war so far.]What kind of an absurdity is it that we are paying for the reconstruction of Iraq with American taxpayers dollars if Iraqi oil sales, to a significant degree, are going into foreign banks and not being used for their own reconstruction,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
“

In the meantime, there are estimates that Iraq has up to $30 billion in assets invested in U.S. financial institutions.

Levin said he would ask Congress’ investigative arm, the General Accountability Office, or others in the U.S. government to look into Iraq’s use of oil revenues.

He said he would decide after such an investigation whether to use this year’s appropriations process to force Baghdad to change its financial practices.

Levin said Congress could condition future war funds on Iraq using its own revenues for reconstruction, reducing the burden on U.S. taxpayers.

According to government estimates, Congress has given the Bush administration $16 billion for reconstruction and relief efforts in Iraq.

“They (Iraq) are selling about $50 billion a year in oil. What are they doing with all the money?”, Levin asked.
In December, President George W. Bush announced his intention to veto a defense bill after Baghdad complained about a provision that could freeze Iraqi assets in the United States if Americans sued for actions taken by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

At the time, Iraq also discussed the possibility of pulling its assets, estimated at $20 billion to $30 billion, out of U.S. banks if that defense measure became law.

Levin said that legislative dust-up prompted his look into Iraq’s use of oil revenues.

During an Armed Services oversight hearing on Tuesday on U.S. military forces in Iraq, Levin asked William Fallon, the the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, about Iraq paying reconstruction costs.

Fallon said there were some concerns over Iraq’s ability to effectively distribute oil revenues.

Levin responded, “I can’t accept the answer that they’re not capable of administering their own revenues.” (Editing by Todd Eastham)

An Iraq purchase under the FMS Program, just one of many out there

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release No. 080503-01
May 03, 2008

Contact:  .
DSN:  318-852-1332
IRAQNA:  0790-194-0270

Iraqi Army receives $5.2 million of equipment via Foreign Military Sales

BAGHDAD – The Iraqi Army received logistical support equipment it has procured through the United States governments Foreign Military Sales program. The latest receipts of equipment took place at the Old al Muthana vehicle storage facility here on April 24.

The Foreign Military Sales program in Iraq is managed by the Security Assistance Office within the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.  The function of the Security Assistance Office is to help the Iraqi Government build its defense capability through the purchase of defense equipment and services.  Foreign Military Sales cases are funded by the requesting government, in this case the Government of Iraq. The major difference between a Foreign Military Sales case and an Iraqi Security Forces Fund case is the funding source.  Iraqi Security Forces Fund cases are funded with U.S. appropriated dollars specifically dedicated to procuring equipment and services in support of the Iraqi Security Forces while FMS is funded wholly by Iraqi funds.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Keith E. Muschalek, case officer with the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Security Assistance Office, transferred a total of 18 8-ton Flatbed Utility Trailers, eight 20-ton Heavy Cargo Trailers, and 36 International ™ 5-ton trucks valued in excess of $5.2 million.  These trucks and trailers provide a crucial lift component to the Iraqi Army for the transportation of personnel and equipment.

These receipts were from two separate foreign military sales cases.  The 36 5-ton trucks that were transferred today are part of a foreign military sales case that includes a total of 228 of these 5-ton cargo trucks and repair parts.  The Iraqi Army has received 97 of the 228 vehicles on this contract. This specific contract is valued in excess of $33.6 million and is on track to have all deliveries completed by the end of June 2008.

This equipment will be issued to Iraqi Army units throughout the country as new units are generated and to replace any losses that have occurred in their efforts to secure the country.

Accompanying Muschalek was Mr. Andre Salas, a representative of the U.S. Army Materiel Command.  Mr. Salas conducted a site survey of the Old al Muthana vehicle storage facility to determine if it met the basic requirements for the introduction of Radio Frequency Identification Interrogation systems to improve the efficiency and accuracy of property management operations at this facility. Radio frequency identification would allow the Iraqi army to gain real-time visibility on all deliveries, on-hand stocks, and issues of equipment procured through the Foreign Military Sales program.

The survey showed that the facility lacked sufficient electrical and internet infrastructure to have a complete system installed at this time.  However, there are hand-held radio frequency identification systems that can be employed to automate the inventory process and improve operational efficiency. This type of radio frequency identification system could be used until a more robust infrastructure is in place.

And buying airplanes from boeing is not a part of the war that the american taxpayer is being stuck with, thank you very much.

Total Posts:  4235
Joined 2006-11-16 Here is a recent civilian contract purchase by Iraq just as an example for OldGrim

Boeing Signs $5 Billion Commercial Aircraft Deal with Government of Iraq

So tell me o great deranged one, how does that lower the cost of the war to the american taxpayer?
I see no way this reduces the cost of the war, what am I missing?
Spell in out for us dummies, deranged one.

The end of Iraq reconstruction by us was talked about at the last Iraq briefing to congress.

They have had the suplemental bill in front of them for months that show no more funding for equipment for Iraq.

Any press releases by members of congress to ‘force’ Iraq to pay their way are simply Monday morning quarterbacking that will only be bought by uninformed dummies like oldgrim.

Nor does the sale of used army equipment to iraq lower the cost of the war to the american taxpayer, deranged one.
It might and does in some instances help some one like Boeing, however since that is a major corp., their sale does nothing to lower the cost of the war to the americian taxpayer.
And you can keep posting that b.s., but until I see that oil rev. created by sales and credited to the General fund, earmarked to pay for the cost of the war, all the tickets of purchase are just so much bull droppings.

Since the info i posted was dated in early april, and you are talking about what Iraq is spending their oil revenues on, BIG PRETTY AIRPLANES and that is about as smart and helpful to the citizens in Iraq, with bad water, poor electrical service, an infrastruce falling down around their ears, so they in their infinte stupidity by a flock of big birds to fly around in?  And the people go hungry, dirty and without med care?
Oh my, how wise. But Boeing made a sale and screw the citizens both there and hear.
I call that deranged thinking.

Actually the info was dated March 4,08.
And its still valid.

OldGrim is still buying into the make Iraq pay stories that are the equivalent of the sun is going to shine yesterday forcasts.

Watch him spin watch him bore

He’s got nothing but he will be back with more.

skipsailing - 15 May 2008 12:48 PM

The anti victory liberal argument concerning war costs revolves around priorities. They want the war to end because they need the money to fund entitlement programs that buy them votes.

so instead of our government providing for the common defense, the left needs money so that single teenaged moms can live rent free in section 8 housing with her brood of illegitimate children while consuming food purchase with food stamps (farm subsidies anybody?) and send her children off in the general direction of a failing school that uses more than 10K per pupil per year to turn out another generation of single moms living rent free in section 8 housing…

(text deleted) The world as it is today, not as wide eyed liberals imagine it requires American to chose guns, not butter more often than the left would like.

Here’s Michael Novak from today’s NRO

The partisans of the welfare state demand peace, in order to pay for its insatiable need to keep handing out more and more benefits. That is why left-wing statists take peace as their natural inheritance. They cannot go on without it. They do not intend to pay any price for it; there are no funds left for that

It is always such a joy to read posts that are well-written and true.  Reading the nonsensical rants of leftists like marko, raptavio, et al., makes me feel unclean, somehow, almost as though reading their mental droppings is infectious.

Democrat social engineering programs have done great harm to minorities in America.  The damage done may well be irreversible because it is both self-sustaining and transgenerational.  The Democrat party holds all minorities in contempt.  Otherwise, they would abandon racial preference and become racially indifferent.  That’s what Jesus would do.

Well this shoots down the 100 years remark. In the liberals face. So now ending it within 5 years isn’t enough? BS! Obama won’t pull out at all.

why thank you T Paine!

sarasara - 15 May 2008 02:58 PM

I saw a film on CNN about the Iraqi Air Force, talk about keen! To these guys getting up in the air is being a rockstar!

But I think they had only two planes, few months ago. I think I heard since that Iraqi helicopters were deployed in Basra.

Perhaps some pilots are being trained in the UK and other countries as well?

Just what we need, more fvriking rock stars, I could care less what they buy, as long as they funnel the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the war to the USA to benfit the american taxpayer.
And next thing you know, someone will say oil has nothing to do with the war. As your supposed to be, according to you an expert on Mid-east what would be the problem in billing Iraq for say 25 to 40 billion a year to pay the costs of american armed forces being in Iraq?

Right here chums, is the reason for the war in Iraq.

e Unstated US Goals of Increasing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East, and US Dominance of the Area

Behind the acknowledged concern about the “free flow” of Persian Gulf oil are other motives. Following the recommendations of the Task Force Report, the Bush administration wishes to increase international (which may well turn out to mean US) investment in the under-developed Iraq oilfields. On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization). The Journal story has since been denied by Administration officials; but, as the Guardian noted on 1/27/03, “It stretches credulity somewhat to imagine that the subject has never been broached.” <4>

Lets see, White house, State Dept.,DoD.,Halliburton, ExcxonMobil, Schlumberger,, CheveronTexaco, and ConocoHiillips to plan the post war expansion of oil Production from Iraq, (whose oilfields were largely held by US Compainies prior to the Nationalization.) Sounds like to me the war is about taking the oilfields back from Iraq, after Saddam had nationalized them at some time in history, Course they wwould not do a thing like that, or would they?
It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein already has offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. If Saddam is replaced by a new client regime, it seems likely that these concessions will be superseded, although there are reports that the US has offered France, Russia and China a share of post-war Iraqi oil, as an inducement to get their support in the Security Council. <5> Last September former CIA Chief Woolsey threatened in the Washington Post (9/15/02) that the price for participation by France and Russia in the post-war Iraq oil bonanza should be their support for “regime change.” <6> It would not take much of such menacing talk from official sources to turn the Bush campaign against Iraq into a campaign against Europe (see Postscript).

Just your every day run of the mill operation in a facist goverment.