Bush Administration Knew Not Enough Oil to Rebuild Iraq

[headscratcher4]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/international/middleeast/05OIL.html

From the article (you will need to register to read in full):

"October 5, 2003

Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil

By JEFF GERTH

ASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.

The task force, which was based at the Pentagon as part of the planning for the war, produced a book-length report that described the Iraqi oil industry as so badly damaged by a decade of trade embargoes that its production capacity had fallen by more than 25 percent, panel members have said.

Despite those findings, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress during the war that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

______

So, lets see, that evil scum Clinton gets impeached and nearly thrown out of office for lying about a B*Job between two consenting adults.

Bush, who runs on character, is in error about WMD's and Iraq's effort to secure nuclear material (the state of the Union debacle), now it turns out they've mis interpreted reports on how much it will cost. Still, the ones who decried Clinton as a liar, are spinning about how "inteligence" can be interpreted in many ways...give me a break.

They've lied to us all from the beginning. I even supported them in the invasion because I thought they had to have the inteligence if they were making these claims...and the right wing wonders why some moderates and liberals can "hate" GW Bush...it is because there is a fundumental arrogance and dishonesty about critical policy the permiates this Administration.

And, like Rush, they don't admit when they are wrong, they call the other side un patriotic.

[DavidJames]

Come on headscratcher4, you already know the answer.

All together now... but "Clinton was under oath".

[JAR]

There was an article in Frontpage.mag.com(I think that's the address of the site) a while ago that said the costs of the war in Iraq were probably so great that the U.S. would never benefit by the oil it would gain from trade.

The person who wrote the article used this to support that war was not about gaining oil.

[crackmonkey]

For the record, the 'bj between consenting adults' was between an employee and her superior. The lying and coverup were in regard to a sexual harassment lawsuit.
There's an important distinction here - it's one thing to coverup a sexual indiscretion to spare one's family pain. It's quite another to lie about it in front of a jury in order to derail a lawsuit.
Saying that Clinton was persecuted because of a sexual peccadillo is like saying that Nixon was hounded out of office for not ratting out a wayward friend.

[renata]

posted by headscratcher They've lied to us all from the beginning. I even supported them in the invasion because I thought they had to have the inteligence if they were making these claims...and the right wing wonders why some moderates and liberals can "hate" GW Bush...it is because there is a fundumental arrogance and dishonesty about critical policy the permiates this Administration.



Headscratcher,
I was in the same boat as you. I disagreed with the way we did it, but I was convinced we would find WMDs, I thought we would not be lied to about intelligence. And the question that has been bugging me about this is this- no matter what detractors may say, one man does not run the world. There are scores of experienced, intelligent men, who knew the real picture. If they knew what they knew, about the oil, the WMD, what is the real reason did we invade Iraq? What did they hope to achieve? What did they hope to find? Did they not anticipate the huge backlash when there would be no WMD found, when soldiers started dying, when taxpayers had to pay. I do not believe in simplistic explanations- Halliburton, Bush is stupid. If they knew these things, and they lied, they must have counted on something else, some benefit. They may have miscalculated, but what was it they expected?

[fishbob]

what was it they expected? Renata boiled the situation down to the most succinct level possible. This is the question of the year.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
For the record, the 'bj between consenting adults' was between an employee and her superior. The lying and coverup were in regard to a sexual harassment lawsuit.
There's an important distinction here - it's one thing to coverup a sexual indiscretion to spare one's family pain. It's quite another to lie about it in front of a jury in order to derail a lawsuit.
Saying that Clinton was persecuted because of a sexual peccadillo is like saying that Nixon was hounded out of office for not ratting out a wayward friend.

You are absolutely right...in my disgust, I have mixed legal apples and oranges.

However, you failed to comment on the guts of the story...my question is: do you feel confident that the Bush Administration is A) using the inteligence they have available well; B) providing the Americna public and the global community with accurate information and assessments; C). completely unaware of the truth of assertions like the attempted purchase of nuclear materials from Chad and the available oil etc. before they make those statements.

In short, are we (the American public) being played for suckers or fools or both?

I feel like a fool for having believed Bush. I feel like a bigger fool because this is fight from which we can not withdraw. We must stay because to lose the fight in Iraq is inconceivable and will leave our security severely undermined. Yet, the inteligence that the Adminstration asserted to justify the war continues to look shakier and shakier.

We -- as a nation -- are going to have to pay a lot more than $86 Billion dollars to get out of Iraq. I can't help thinking that if we were going to run up more debt (and, BTW, this Administration wants us to fight a war and the only sacrifice he can come up with is "tax cuts" that blow-up the deficit), I wish it were to improve the infrastructure of this country, rather than Haliburton's bottom line.

[crackmonkey]

Fair enough. As to your question... I don't know. That's the best I can do right now. I am uncertain.

[c0rbin]

Bump.

[Jon_in_london]

ooof!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by renata

They may have miscalculated, but what was it they expected? My guess is a moral and support booster.

After 9/11, there was a huge push to retaliate against those who attacked the US. Bush & Co. determined (correctly, I believe) that Al Queda were the ones behind it. But unlike in other wars that the US had fought against, there was no Al Quedastan or Al Quedastan government to attack directly But we had determined that the head of Al Queda was camping out in Afganistan, which was the next best thing to having an Al Quedastan. So, we invade and beat the tar out 'em.

However, it was ultimately futile since we couldn't find/capture/kill Osama Bin Laden, who continued to release his audio/video clip of the month to flaunt his not being found/captured/killed. Defeating Afganistan didn't "depose" Bin Laden as the leader of the ambiguously located Al Queda. In order to show that the "War on Terrorism" is making progress, a terrorist threat must be successfully removed.

Enter Iraq with its concrete boundries and it's centeralized government. Especially after a big failure, if you can set up an easy goal and successfully accomplish it, you raise overall moral and, thus, support for the cause. Saddam was set up as a terrorist lunitic (which he probably was, by all accounts) with ties to Al Queda (which he probably didn't). Like a good strawman, Saddam was then knoced down quickly and relatively safely. Yay! We're winning the War on Terrorism because Saddam is no more!

The problem, I think, is that Bush & Co. underestimated both the Iraqi and American people. The Iraqi people don't seem to buy into the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Instead, they seem to have the opinion that, "the enemy of my enemy, who is also my enemy, is still my enemy." Further, the American people seem to be coming to the realization that Saddam was just a strawman, because the people who actually attacked the US, Osama & Co., are still out there and at large.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The Iraqi people don't seem to buy into the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Instead, they seem to have the opinion that, "the enemy of my enemy, who is also my enemy, is still my enemy."

I'm not sure where you're getting this. When the Iraqi people themselves were actually polled, the majority said that the invasion was worth it to get rid of Saddam. I have no illusions that the Iraqi people all love the US, but we're NOT their enemy, and they know this. We're the ones in there right now rebuilding the place - not the French, not the Russians, and certainly not any of their neighbors, who supported Saddam. Why would they think of the US as their enemy? I see neither a reason for them to believe this nor any evidence that they do.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I withdraw it then. It's not the main point of my post nor of the thread. Plus, I don't have anything at hand to back it up other than American troops getting killed on a daily basis.

My appologies.

[Crossbow]

Iraq does not have to produce enough oil to cover the cost of the war.

Iraq just has to produce enough oil to counter production cuts by other countries so that oil prices get back to the $15 to $20 per barrel price range. Which should be adequate so that people with BA SUVs can continue to cheaply drive them.

:p