Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Dems Want Iraqi Oil

The headline on The Drudge Report this morning is “Dems Want Iraqis to Pay Up: With Oil.” This links to an article on My Way that begins:

“Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.”

And, goes on to say,

"...the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone." (emphasis mine)


I seem to recall not that long ago that all the lib web sites and blogs were ranting about how the Iraq war was all about oil for Bush and his buddies in the oil industry. Does “No Blood for Oil” ring a bell?

It seems that the Iraqis have done pretty well on their oil since Saddam was overthrown to the tune of about 30 billion dollars, and with the rising cost of crude they stand to profit another 100 billion in the next few years. Now, we have the Democrats screeching that we should be demanding some of that profit from our allies, even before the country has been rebuilt and stabilized. They want their piece of the action NOW!

It seems that it was the Dems casting an envious eye on Iraqi crude all along. It is almost axiomatic that whatever the Dems accuse the Republicans of they are already neck deep in and are only trying to divert attention from their illegal or immoral activities.


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well either Iraq is a sovereign nation or it isn't. Yesterday it was, because the "Iraqi Government" is to authorise an American presense in their country even after the UN Resolution authorisation expires.
On the other hand yesrerday it wasn't because clearly the USA believes it can decide how Iraqi oil revenue is spent.
Also yesterday UNHCR called for donations of 161 million U.S. dollars to help internally displaced refugees in Iraq. So why do they need donations when Iraq has $30 billion in US banks?

Anonymous said...

Your spin is as crude as Iraqi oil. Why should Iraq not use its oil revenue to rebuild the country? Why should American taxpayers foot the bill while Iraq just banks its oil revenue?

You better believe that Iraq will prolong the status quo as long as possible to continue piling up their oil revenue and to have Americans pay their bills.

The Bush plan seems to be to enrich Iraq while breaking America. Bin Laden must be proud of how well it's working. Is that what this blog stands for?

Theophrastus Bombastus said...

You missed the point, Anonymous. I think Iraq should shoulder the burden of fighting terrorism, along with their allies. But,is it not amazing that, with no apparent sense of irony, that the Dems are making claims on Iraqi oil after telling Americans for five years that "Bush lied and people died" for the sole purpose of stealing the oil from Iraq?

Anonymous,you stated that "The Bush plan seems to be to enrich Iraq while breaking America." Now that's a different claim altogether! But, no matter, as long as you can put the blame on Bush it doesn't matter what the nefarious claim is, does it?

Bob Ellis said...

Bob over at the South Dakota Moderate thinks the cost of fighting terrorism in Iraq is "bankrupting" us (http://www.sdmoderate.com/2008/04/09/playing-the-oil-card/).

Here's my comment over there:


Spending about 3% of our budget on fighting terrorism in Iraq is "bankrupting" us? Please.

The approx. 50% of our budget (about $1.5 trillion) a year we spend on social programs that are illegal according to the Constitution are what's bankrupting us.

Could it be that Theo is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left in crying about "blood for oil" when Bush launches the invasion, and now that they're hungry for more $$$ to spend on still more unconstitutional social spending, they're now thirsty for some of that oil they found so distasteful before?

Theophrastus Bombastus said...

Excellent points, Mr. Ellis. As to the point I was trying to make...what you said, Bob!

According to the Constitution protecting the borders and maintaining a military for defense against aggression are the primary roles for the Federal government. All the other do-gooder programs are illegal and are only for the states to administer, if they wish. Frankly, I'd rather see my not insignificant amount of tax dollars go for defense rather than further inflating an already grossly bloated bureaucracy such as the Dept. of Education or the EPA or the NEA or the UN, or the Medicare program, or the... Well, you get the point.

 
Clicky Web Analytics