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?With the cost of this "war" now bordering on bankrupting our future, what is wrong with this idea? Using Iraqi revenues to fix the Iraqi infrastructure, I seem to remember someone else floating the same idea a while back when trying to sell the war.
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.
In selling the war to voters, Bush administration officials said overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cost as little at $50 billion, and that much of the reconstruction could be paid for with the Iraq's oil revenue. (emphasis mine)Or is it only ok when the Bush administration suggests this?
Oh and how's that $50 billion in costs thing going?