U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions

[WillowTree]

why is obamallama doing this?

 

[Seawytch]

As long as those international constuction companies we over-paid to build them are happy...

Over-paid to electrocute our troops you mean...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, Cheney is still calling the shots. What else makes sense?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember the days when we were told that Iraqi reconstruction would only cost the American taxpayers about a billion dollars and that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the rest? Why didn't the contracts specify that Iraq would have to at least partially reimburse the US for construction costs if we turned the bases and equipment over to them.

We had two CEOs as president and VP? What a joke!

Those bases didn't come cheap. Construction costs exceeded $2.4 billion, according to an analysis of Pentagon annual reports by the Congressional Research Service. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alone was responsible for $1.9 billion in base construction contracts between 2004 and 2010, a spokesman told HuffPost.

It wasn't until late in Bush's second term that "cooler heads prevailed," Hurlburt said, and it became apparent that there was no political will in either country for the U.S. to keep permanent bases in Iraq, and therefore no need to spend so much to build them.

But by then, the plans had already been set in motion. As Stars and Stripes reported last year, major construction continued even after November 2008, when then-President George W. Bush and Iraqi officials signed a security agreement calling for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

Most of the $2.4 billion was spent building about a dozen huge outposts that, in addition to containing air strips and massive fortifications also have all the comforts of home. The Al-Asad Airfield in Anbar province, for example, covers 25 square miles -- about the size of Boulder, Colo. -- and is known as "Camp Cupcake" due to its amenities.

The 15-square-mile Joint Base Balad, as Whitney Terrell wrote earlier this year for Slate, is "home to three football-field-sized chow halls, a 25-meter swimming pool, a high dive, a football field, a softball field, two full-service gyms, a squash court, a movie theater, and the U.S. military's largest airfield in Iraq."

U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions

Republicans will blame this on Obama. In their unethical little world, a new president can just come in and undo everything the last president did. Wipe it away as if it didn't exist. But in this world, current presidents are bound by what previous presidents did. Whether it's ruining the economy or committing America's wealth to another country.

Look at the right zingers on this board. How many insist we "won" in Iraq? Ask them what we "won" and you are a lying fuckwit liberal. Why? Because you asked a question they can't answer. Well, they can answer it, but they are too ashamed.

Just like the economy, Afghanistan, the deficit, our failing infrastructure, jobs moved to China and all they other Republican mess and disasters, they will blame this too, on Obama.

So Obama is following he Cheney Doctrine?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Fighting the war on terror compromises the economy now and threatens it in the future.

By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
September 18, 2011

Ten years into the war on terror, the U.S. has largely succeeded in its attempts to destabilize Al Qaeda and eliminate its leaders. But the cost has been enormous, and our decisions about how to finance it have profoundly damaged the U.S. economy.

Many of these costs were unnecessary. We chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with a small, all-volunteer force, and we supplemented the military presence with a heavy reliance on civilian contractors. These decisions not only placed enormous strain on the troops but dramatically pushed up costs. Recent congressional investigations have shown that roughly 1 of every 4 dollars spent on wartime contracting was wasted or misspent.

To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spending spree that accompanied it and a battery of new homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11.

How have we paid for this? Entirely through borrowing. Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001. And not only did we fail to pay as we went for the wars, the George W. Bush administration also successfully pushed to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, which added further to the debt. This toxic combination of lower revenues and higher spending has brought the country to its current political stalemate.

War Costs
America's too-costly war on terror - latimes.com

CNN.com - Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. - Nov 1, 2004

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

Hummm....

 

[rdean]

Remember the days when we were told that Iraqi reconstruction would only cost the American taxpayers about a billion dollars and that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the rest? Why didn't the contracts specify that Iraq would have to at least partially reimburse the US for construction costs if we turned the bases and equipment over to them.

We had two CEOs as president and VP? What a joke!

Republicans will blame this on Obama. In their unethical little world, a new president can just come in and undo everything the last president did. Wipe it away as if it didn't exist. But in this world, current presidents are bound by what previous presidents did. Whether it's ruining the economy or committing America's wealth to another country.

Look at the right zingers on this board. How many insist we "won" in Iraq? Ask them what we "won" and you are a lying fuckwit liberal. Why? Because you asked a question they can't answer. Well, they can answer it, but they are too ashamed.

Just like the economy, Afghanistan, the deficit, our failing infrastructure, jobs moved to China and all they other Republican mess and disasters, they will blame this too, on Obama.

So Obama is following he Cheney Doctrine?

Uh oh, you're not making sense - again. Call your doctor. He may have proscribed the wrong meds - again. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't have health care. Oops.

 

[rdean]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

 

[rdean]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

Sometimes, I just love reading my own posts over again. No wonder the right wingers hate me. What can they say about "true history"? Must hurt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

Sometimes, I just love reading my own posts over again. No wonder the right wingers hate me. What can they say about "true history"? Must hurt.

Actually, you just disgust us.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYGrSyThSOc]Masturbation Man. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

Those bases will turn into shit holes once the Iraqis get their hands on them.

Why do you say that?

 

[American Horse]

Republicans will blame this on Obama. In their unethical little world, a new president can just come in and undo everything the last president did. Wipe it away as if it didn't exist. But in this world, current presidents are bound by what previous presidents did. Whether it's ruining the economy or committing America's wealth to another country.

Look at the right zingers on this board. How many insist we "won" in Iraq? Ask them what we "won" and you are a lying fuckwit liberal. Why? Because you asked a question they can't answer. Well, they can answer it, but they are too ashamed.

Just like the economy, Afghanistan, the deficit, our failing infrastructure, jobs moved to China and all they other Republican mess and disasters, they will blame this too, on Obama.

Basing rights, and all the logistical infrastructure were ours for the asking in Iraq, and the Obama administration did not speak up and claim them. Because, over time during his adminstration we appeared uninterested, Prime Minister al Maliki and his government saw a dangerous security situation developing for them, once the Americans were gone. It would've been an admission of weakness and appeared politically weak to opponents for them to ask America to stay. During the whole time Obama gave every signal that we would leave along a predertimined timeline. It therefore made sense for the Iraqis to make the best arrangements with Iran they could.

We spent the blood and treasure, and had an interest in the continued Iraqi ability to remain a strong independent state in the middle of despotic regimes. Our continued military presence in Iraq, and in the M.E. would've been invaluable to further that, and it was expected by them and other M.E. states, to their chagrin, that we would do so. The inroads of democracy, however flawed, seeded the ground for the so called "Arab Spring."

But Obama kissed it off, partly because he is not interested, partly because he made statements while campaigning that it was wrong to be there (Afghanistan was the good war, Iraq the bad war), and he lacks imagination to see how we can be a force for security in the M.E., to see the benefits in our ability to collect intelligence in the region, and promote democracy in the M.E. Most of all though, he doesn't want any good to come from his predecessor's efforts to result in a reshaping of the M.E., which it was bound to happen if carried to fruition.

He is a small, jealous, venal, and unimaginative man, as witnessed by the recent balloon floated by his administration to keep just three thoursand US military in Iraq, for training and asset protection. A force so small that it could not adequately defend itself, let alone accomplish what is proposed it do, provide some security for American interests and continue training of Iraqis. Recent history and the loss of life in Beirut Lebanon (1982) seems to have been completely forgotten by our president.

 

[The T]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

Sometimes, I just love reading my own posts over again. No wonder the right wingers hate me. What can they say about "true history"? Must hurt.

Actually, you just disgust us.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYGrSyThSOc"]Masturbation Man. - YouTube[/ame]

And why would deany-baby read his posts "Over and over"?Another narcissist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

So Obama is listening to Rummy?

 

[The T]

Republicans will blame this on Obama. In their unethical little world, a new president can just come in and undo everything the last president did. Wipe it away as if it didn't exist. But in this world, current presidents are bound by what previous presidents did. Whether it's ruining the economy or committing America's wealth to another country.

Look at the right zingers on this board. How many insist we "won" in Iraq? Ask them what we "won" and you are a lying fuckwit liberal. Why? Because you asked a question they can't answer. Well, they can answer it, but they are too ashamed.

Just like the economy, Afghanistan, the deficit, our failing infrastructure, jobs moved to China and all they other Republican mess and disasters, they will blame this too, on Obama.

Basing rights, and all the logistical infrastructure were ours for the asking in Iraq, and the Obama administration did not speak up and claim them. Because, over time during his adminstration, we appeared uninterested, Prime Minister al Maliki and his government saw a dangerous security situation developing for them, once the Americans were gone. It would've been an admission of weakness and appeared politically weak to opponents for them to ask America to stay, while Obama gave every signal that we would leave along a predertimined timeline. It therefore made sense for the Iraqis to make the best arrangements with Iran they could.

We spent the blood and treasure, and had an interest in the continued Iraqi ability to remain a strong independent state in the middle of despotism. Our continued military presence in Iraq, and in the M.E. would've been invaluable to further that, and it was expected by them and other M.E. states that we would do so. The inroads of democracy, however flawed, seeded the ground for the so called "Arab Spring."

But Obama kissed it off, partly because he is not interested, partly because he made statements while campaigning that it was wrong to be there (Afghanistan was the good war, Iraq the bad war), and he lacks imagination to see how we can be a force for security in the M.E., to see the benefits in our ability to collect intelligence in the region, and promote democracy in the M.E. Most of all though, he doesn't want any good to come from his predecessor's efforts to result in a reshaping of the M.E., which it was bound to happen if carried to fruition.

He is a small, jealous, venal, and unimaginative man, as witnessed by the recent balloon floated by his administration to keep just three thoursand US military in Iraq, for training and asset protection. A force so small that it could not adequately defend itself, let alone accomplish what is proposed it do, provide some security for American interests and continue training of Iraqis. Recent history and the loss of life in Beirut Lebanon (1982) seems to have been completely forgotten by our president.

Odd...Thjose that hate Reagan hold this up...so why do they suppost Obama in repeating history? (History that Obama tends to ignore or for that matter not tend to care about)?

Another paint one's self into a corner foreign policy moment?

 

[The T]

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy; Feb 7/2002 (USA Today)

The war will cost $50 billion
In 2002, Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under Bush, was ousted after he said in an interview in the Wall Street Journal that the war would cost $100 to $200 billion. Rumsfeld called this "baloney" while suggesting that $50 to $60 billion was an accurate assessment. (Wikipedia: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Iraq controversy)

William Quincy Belle: Donald Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the war on terror

And Republicans are calling Obama a liar.

From 50 billion to 3 trillion? Seems like Republicans aren't very good at "estimating cost". Who thinks they are better now?

So Obama is listening to Rummy?

Only NOW that it might be convenient to his re-election chances?

 

[Article 15]

Those bases will turn into shit holes once the Iraqis get their hands on them.

Why do you say that?

Ever been to Iraq?

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>He is a small, jealous, venal, and unimaginative man, as witnessed by the recent balloon floated by his administration to keep just three thoursand US military in Iraq, for training and asset protection. A force so small that it could not adequately defend itself, let alone accomplish what is proposed it do, provide some security for American interests and continue training of Iraqis. Recent history and the loss of life in Beirut Lebanon (1982) seems to have been completely forgotten by our president.

Odd...Thjose that hate Reagan hold this up...so why do they suppost Obama in repeating history? (History that Obama tends to ignore or for that matter not tend to care about)?

Another paint one's self into a corner foreign policy moment?

He believes he has the oratory skills to cast any blame on others, and the government owned media will parrot his line if disaster befalls our people over there. If it happened it would justify a complete pullout, and Iraq would fall back into the kind of situation that is normal for the M.E., completely nullifying Bush's work. Iraq would become another appendage to Iran just like Syria is. He has shown no desire to get crosswise with Iran's nutjob President Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

 

[The T]

American Horse said: <SNIP>He is a small, jealous, venal, and unimaginative man, as witnessed by the recent balloon floated by his administration to keep just three thoursand US military in Iraq, for training and asset protection. A force so small that it could not adequately defend itself, let alone accomplish what is proposed it do, provide some security for American interests and continue training of Iraqis. Recent history and the loss of life in Beirut Lebanon (1982) seems to have been completely forgotten by our president.

Odd...Thjose that hate Reagan hold this up...so why do they suppost Obama in repeating history? (History that Obama tends to ignore or for that matter not tend to care about)?

Another paint one's self into a corner foreign policy moment?

He believes he has the oratory skills to cast any blame on others, and the government owned media will parrot his line if disaster befalls our people over there. If it happened it would justify a complete pullout, and Iraq would fall back into the kind of situation that is normal for the M.E., completely nullifying Bush's work. Iraq would become another appendage to Iran just like Syria is. He has shown no desire to get crosswise with Iran's nutjob President Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

And all the while portend to blame it all on Bush and his response to attacks on US...Remember? According to Statists? We just need to understand WHY they hate us and act accordingly.

After all? Isn't there an Arab Spring happening where the Muslim Brotherhood has been given HOPE by Obama's "America is sorry" Tour of 2009?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Obama is going to run on what a bad job Runny and Cheney did these last few year...smart

 

[Unkotare]

Those bases will turn into shit holes once the Iraqis get their hands on them.

Why do you say that?

Ever been to Iraq?

No, I have not.