PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Has Spent $366M of $18.4B on Iraq



J-10
07-08-2004, 01:26 AM
U.S. Has Spent $366M of $18.4B on Iraq
U.S. Has Spent Just $366 Million So Far of $18.4 Billion in Iraq Rebuilding Funds
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON July 3, 2004 — Its own figures show just 2 percent of the $18.4 billion Congress provided last fall for Iraqi reconstruction has been spent, but the Bush administration says significant work there is under way.

The checks total $366 million of the amount spent through June 22, according to a report the White House budget office released Friday. It was the first time the administration has said how much it spent from reconstruction accounts funds that lawmakers provided last November amid cries of urgency by President Bush and Republican congressional leaders.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said the figure is misleading because funds for many long-term contracts aren't released until substantial work has been done. He said the more important figure shows that $5.3 billion of the total was spent or is owed for specific contracts up from $2.2 billion as of the last report, for the period through March 24.

"There can be substantial work ongoing without significant money going out the door yet," Kolton said.

The expenditures are far behind the White House's original schedule. When it filed its first report in January, it estimated $10.3 billion would have been spent through June 30.

Patrick Clawson, a former World Bank official and now deputy director of the bipartisan Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the slow spending rate was not surprising. Besides ungainly federal spending procedures, the sluggishness was typical for undeveloped countries that have limited abilities to absorb cash, he said.

"It's understandable," he said. But it will be "totally, utterly incomprehensible to the average Iraqi on the street."

The reconstruction money was part of an $87 billion package provided last Nov. 6, mostly for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure was approved after weeks in which administration officials and congressional Republican leaders said the money was needed quickly to hasten work, stabilize Iraq and improve the security of U.S. troops there.

The funds are meant to finance everything from training Iraqi police to starting small businesses to rebuilding the country's electric, water, health and oil production facilities.

The report said reconstruction in Iraq is "moving forward," in party with money that has also been spent from other accounts. It cited the immunization of 85 percent of Iraqi children, the rebuilding of 2,500 schools, and the delivery of telephone service to 1.2 million Iraqis 50 percent above the prewar total.

The report also acknowledged the harm caused by the ongoing insurgency, which has forced a reduction in crude oil exports and caused electricity production goals to be missed.

"These challenges continue to impede the actual work from being executed and completed on schedule," the report said.

The $366 million in actual expenditures includes $194 million for Iraq's police and armed forces and $109 million for the country's electrical supply.

Of the $5.3 billion committed to contracts, the largest amounts are for work on electricity, oil equipment, police and armed forces, the civil government and water.

Some progress is being made because of other sources of reconstruction money.

Congress provided $2.48 billion for rebuilding in April 2003. Of that, $2.4 billion has been committed to specific contracts and $1.44 billion has actually been spent, the report said.

In addition, $1.1 billion has been spent out of $13 billion in multiyear pledges in aid and loans from other countries, according to the report. Other money is coming from seized Iraqi assets and the country's oil revenue, though much money from oil sales is being used to run Iraq's fledgling government.

The report also said it will cost about $1.5 billion over the next 15 months to operate a U.S. embassy in Iraq. That excludes the costs of building a new, huge, secure embassy building in Baghdad, which by some estimates could run to $1 billion.

The figures exclude U.S. war costs in Iraq, which the administration said in May were $97 billion to date. The White House has said it expects 2005 military costs to exceed $50 billion in Iraq, though lawmakers of both parties say they expect a total closer to $75 billion.
abcnews (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040708_479.html)

One?
07-08-2004, 01:27 AM
as if the US is spending money from its own pocket. I wonder where all the cash money went during the invasion. I also wonder who is taking care of the oil money...

seruriermarshal
07-08-2004, 01:31 AM
That's for Iraqi !

Makaveli
07-08-2004, 01:37 AM
I wonder if Iraq is ever gonna pay back the U.S. money that we have put into their country? Maybe some of it.

VorpalDoom
07-08-2004, 01:50 AM
I doubt we have any intentions of handing the Iraqis a check for our services.

budanski
07-08-2004, 02:37 AM
I also wonder who is taking care of the oil money...
Have you asked your beloved UN? Of course not, all we can expect from you is to look the other way with its Oil-for-Food program.

kommando
07-08-2004, 03:32 AM
haha seconds budanski

Freibier
07-08-2004, 03:42 AM
I wonder if Iraq is ever gonna pay back the U.S. money that we have put into their country? Maybe some of it.
1. they didn't ask you to come
2. US destroyed lots of property and infrastructure there
why should they pay you back?
Only thing you can ask them is to become a trustworthy pro US partner because you removed their dictator and hopefully freed them in the long run
just my 2 eurocent

szr
07-08-2004, 04:16 AM
I think we were hoping to be "repaid" in the form of money saved not having to enforce the no-fly zones, lower oil prices once oil infrastructure was up and running, logistics hubs and springboard bases in Iraq, that would be easier and cheaper to deploy from, to hotspots in the mideast and things of that nature. Maybe even a new market for American consumer goods.

Kinda makes you wish we had spent more time thinking about post-war stability. Our military is so powerful that our generals could have devised the invasion plans while playing poker. They could have scribbled down the details on cocktail napkins. We still would have been in Baghdad in less than 4 weeks. It's this whole 'peace keeping' thing that we're not so hot at. We should have spent more time working those details out. However, next time we have to do this, I believe we'll get much more right the first time. ..Unless someone is deliberately being a dumbass.
p-)

Jack Mehoff
07-08-2004, 05:05 AM
I wonder if Iraq is ever gonna pay back the U.S. money that we have put into their country? Maybe some of it.
1. they didn't ask you to come
2. US destroyed lots of property and infrastructure there
why should they pay you back?
Only thing you can ask them is to become a trustworthy pro US partner because you removed their dictator and hopefully freed them in the long run
just my 2 eurocent

So they get to eat one bullet in the head and throw in mass graves by Saddam's thugs? Obviously the Iraqis are not as stupid as you. I didn't realize Iraqis had freedom of speech under Saddam.

Freibier
07-08-2004, 08:09 AM
I wonder if Iraq is ever gonna pay back the U.S. money that we have put into their country? Maybe some of it.
1. they didn't ask you to come
2. US destroyed lots of property and infrastructure there
why should they pay you back?
Only thing you can ask them is to become a trustworthy pro US partner because you removed their dictator and hopefully freed them in the long run
just my 2 eurocent

So they get to eat one bullet in the head and throw in mass graves by Saddam's thugs? Obviously the Iraqis are not as stupid as you. I didn't realize Iraqis had freedom of speech under Saddam.
blah,
whatever

Freibier
07-08-2004, 08:14 AM
I think we were hoping to be "repaid" in the form of money saved not having to enforce the no-fly zones, lower oil prices once oil infrastructure was up and running, logistics hubs and springboard bases in Iraq, that would be easier and cheaper to deploy from, to hotspots in the mideast and things of that nature. Maybe even a new market for American consumer goods.
ok, that sounds reasonable

He219
07-08-2004, 08:40 AM
1. they didn't ask you to come
2. US destroyed lots of property and infrastructure there
why should they pay you back?
Only thing you can ask them is to become a trustworthy pro US partner because you removed their dictator and hopefully freed them in the long run
just my 2 eurocent

Deja Vous to post WWII Germany?
:P

Freibier
07-08-2004, 08:48 AM
1. they didn't ask you to come
2. US destroyed lots of property and infrastructure there
why should they pay you back?
Only thing you can ask them is to become a trustworthy pro US partner because you removed their dictator and hopefully freed them in the long run
just my 2 eurocent

Deja Vous to post WWII Germany?
:P
Something like that :P
but this was in response to ghostwolfs' pay back demand and as far as I remember, we didn't have to pay the marshall plan back :D

One?
07-08-2004, 01:18 PM
I also wonder who is taking care of the oil money...
Have you asked your beloved UN? Of course not, all we can expect from you is to look the other way with its Oil-for-Food program.

who is benefitting from the food-for-oil program? All the european countries and the US.

OB Kenobi
07-08-2004, 10:31 PM
I also wonder who is taking care of the oil money...
Have you asked your beloved UN? Of course not, all we can expect from you is to look the other way with its Oil-for-Food program.

who is benefitting from the food-for-oil program? All the european countries and the US.

Let's also not forget why that program began in the first place. More than a little to do with certain US-sponsored resolutions.

Or I dunno, we could go back farther than that and maybe discuss why Saddam ever got to be ruler of Iraq in the first place. But I've already mentioned that in another thread, with the expected responses received for it.

There's little reason to use oil for fuel anymore, the half a trillion spend on the war could have transitioned us to alternative fuels. But that would mean Texas would lose all its power. That would mean Saudi Arabia would be bankrupt. I guess you all chose oil... so you chose terror too.

Romulus
07-08-2004, 10:52 PM
There's little reason to use oil for fuel anymore, the half a trillion spend on the war could have transitioned us to alternative fuels. But that would mean Texas would lose all its power. That would mean Saudi Arabia would be bankrupt. I guess you all chose oil... so you chose terror too.

So whats stopping you from buying that ultra cool electric scooter? I'll stick with my gas guzzling truck, hell..... I might even spill a little extra gas on the ground next time I fill up, just for you. ;)

Fintin
07-08-2004, 10:56 PM
There's little reason to use oil for fuel anymore, the half a trillion spend on the war could have transitioned us to alternative fuels. But that would mean Texas would lose all its power. That would mean Saudi Arabia would be bankrupt. I guess you all chose oil... so you chose terror too.

So whats stopping you from buying that ultra cool electric scooter? I'll stick with my gas guzzling truck, hell..... I might even spill a little extra gas on the ground next time I fill up, just for you. ;)

thats it...im running at 4000 rpms from now on...

the problem with these alternative fuel cars is they lack power....hydrogin cars lack power...electric cars lack power....even hybrids lack power...no one wants to go from driving a car that will do 60 in ten seconds to one that does it in 20 or 30....