Washigton Post. The clip showed Wolfowitz telling a congressional panel, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself," and "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." The show's host, Jon Stewart, hooted, "[Bleeped] that one up, too!"
Now Karl Rove in his book disputed a comment was made in regard to Iraq financing their on reconstruction.
Rove flatly denied that the Bush administration said Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for the war:
ROVE: No, no. Tom with all due respect that was not the policy of our government that we were going to go into Iraq and take their resources in order to pay for the cost of the war. … [T]he suggestion that somehow or another the administration had as its policy, “We’re going to go in to Iraq and take their resource and pay for the war” is not accurate
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer: Question: Back on the cost issue. If the U.S. does not get a second resolution, does the President believe that U.S. taxpayers will disproportionately bear the burden of the reconstruction costs in Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction (about 1/2 way down).
And given the fact that Iraq right now suffers under sanctions as a result of Saddam Hussein's repression and Saddam Hussein's attempts to procure weapons which the United Nations have said are sanctionable -- the fact of the matter is that Iraq's reconstruction will be aided by the removal of Saddam Hussein because Iraq will then be able to take its proper place among nations of the world that trades and trades freely, which all benefits the reconstruction of Iraq.
Could Iraqi Oil Help Pay Some Costs?
In its estimates, CBO also analyzed the suggested possibility that proceeds from sales of Iraqi oil could be used to offset the costs of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and occupation of Iraq. (USGOV.INFO)CBO found this idea not to be a reasonable option BUT:
•"Assuming that a post-conflict Iraq complied with all U.N. resolutions and removed the basis for the current economic sanctions, and assuming also that its oil production infrastructure was undamaged, Iraq could pay for reconstruction costs by using funds generated from that 400,000 BPD of oil and still have enough to pay for its country's current level of imports. At today's oil prices, production at that level would amount to approximately $3 billion a year."
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday. An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds. In the end:
CHECK PLEASE?
China and England get oil contracts..we get a.... 'handshake'?
You are correct, in the end it was all a myth no matter who said what, when, where and how many Americans have given their lives and will continue to do so during this time of "reconstruction" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not only a myth in the end but from the get go. Of course, what did we expect?