Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Where did the money go?

Violence continues in Iraq today. Fattah Mahmood (CNN) counts 5 roadside bombings in Baghdad today alone. Reuters notes a Mosul mortar attack claimed 1 life and left another person injured, 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, a Mosul hand grenade attack injured four people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left nine more people injured, that 18 people were wounded in 5 Baghdad roadside bombings and a Baghdad sticky bombing targeted "a state bank official" (who was not injured).

Meanwhile Al Mada reports that Parliament's Integrity Commission has officially notified the United Nations in writing that they would like their assistance in finding out what has happened to the $17 billion they saw was lost in reconstruction funds (the money is Iraqi money from the oil-for-food program). The article reminds that the Development Fund was set up by the UN and overseen by L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. In another article, Al Mada quotes Integrity Committee member Jawad Alshahyla stating that the $17 billion is a preliminary number and it may increase as a result of additional information. He also states that prior to contacting the UN, they had notified Nouri al-Maliki's office and the Ministry of Finance. Dar Addustour notes that the original figure -- provided by the US -- was $6 billion and says that it's urgent the money is found -- possibly due to the fact that Iraq's 2012 budget has a shortfall of at least $12 billion dollars (they budgeted close to $100 billion for 2012 and are set to be short at least $12 billion).

Eamon Javers (CNBC) adds, "The New York Fed is refusing to tell investigators how many billions of dollars it shipped to Iraq during the early days of the US invasion there, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction told CNBC Tuesday. The Fed's lack of disclosure is making it difficult for the inspector general to follow the paper trail of billions of dollars that went missing in the chaotic rush to finance the Iraq occupation, and to determine how much of that money was stolen." Still on the issue of money, Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) observes, "The Pentagon says it has spent at least $1 trillion prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and defending the U.S. homeland, according to newly released Defense Department figures through April 30." And that $1 trillion is US tax payer money. Money is one of the three reasons Abby Nelson and Katerina Thorson provide the Alexandria Echo Press with for ending the Iraq War:

The first reason we believe that we shouldn’t be in Iraq is that it is bad for the economy. We have spent approximately $792,248,500,000 in Iraq so far and the numbers keep going up. We are currently in a recession and we think that it would be better to keep the money here. Think of how much $800 billion could do to create jobs, improve our infrastructure and help our schools.


Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:

Al Rafidayn offers that the meeting put an end to squabbles between Allawi and Nouri being played out in the media. That seems doubtful and not just because Allawi's very adept at manipulating the media (Nouri's a clumsy ox but he does have many flunkies he dispatches regularly). How can such an agreement be finalized when one of the two parties in the two party squabble is present? Hisham Rikabi (Al Mada) notes a majority present agreed to end to the media campaigns but, again, how can such an agreement honestly be made when one of the two parties engaging in the campaign is not present? Rikabi notes Talabani, Nouri, Ammar al-Hakim and Adel Abdul Mahdi were among those present while Saleh al-Mutlaq was the most prominent member of Iraqiya present.

And that was yesterday. Today the 'agreement' has already fallen apart. Al Mada reports Nouri's State Of Law is again attacking Allawi's Iraqiya to the media as they pin the "crisis" in Iraq on Iraqiya and state that the political slate is what has prevented Nouri from filling the security ministries. It didn't even last a 24-hour news cycle and that does not bode well for the second meeting Talabni's been promoting.


We'll close with this from David Swanson's "2012 Presidential Candidates on Wars" (War Is A Crime) and emphasize Iraq and Libya:

IRAQ

Ron Paul: I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan. I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you. -June 13, 2011, Debate.


LIBYA

Michelle Bachmann: No, I don't believe so it is. That isn't just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya. Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind. We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya. First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation's vital classified secrets. We to this day don't yet know who the rebel forces are that we're helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya. -June 13, 2011, Debate.

Herman Cain: It starts with making sure we understand the problem, which I don't think we did. We didn't have the intelligence. Number two, is it in the vital interest of the United States of America? If the answer is no, then we don't go any further. If it's not in the vital interest of America, To paraphrase my grandmother, with the situation in Libya and many of these other situations, they're not simple situations. It's a mess. It's just an absolute mess. And there's more that we don't know than we do know, so it will be very difficult to know exactly what we do until, like others have said, we learn from the commanders in the field. -June 13, 2011, Debate.

Newt Gingrich: Sure. The price tag is always a factor, because, as General Eisenhower once he was president pointed out, as Abraham Lincoln understood, as George Washington understood, that's part of the decision. But I think what Congresswoman Bachmann just said ought to really sober everybody about how much trouble we're in. Ten years after 9/11, our intelligence is so inadequate that we have no idea what percent of the Libyan rebels are, in fact, al Qaeda. Libya was the second largest producer of people who wanted to kill Americans in Iraq. I think that we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region. I think that we should say to the generals we would like to figure out to get out as rapid as possible with the safety of the troops involved. And we had better find new and very different strategies because this is too big a problem for us to deal with the American ground forces in direct combat. We have got to have a totally new strategy for the region, because we don't today have the kind of intelligence we need to know even what we're doing. -June 13, 2011, Debate.

Barack Obama: Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors. -June 15, 2011, report to Congress.

Ron Paul: I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan. I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you. -June 13, 2011, Debate.





The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



























Posted by at