.Iraq envoy rejects Democrats' anger over US funding
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iraq's ambassador to the United States insisted Sunday his government was doing more to pay its own way as angry Democrats in Congress push to cut US funding for reconstruction.
Samir Sumaidaie told CNN: "We are taking over as fast as we can. We are taking over on the construction side. We are taking over on the security side.
"And as time goes on, the money spent by the Americans on reconstruction or on our arms (armed) services will come down to zero and we'll take on the full load," he said.
Democrats say that with Iraq profiting from booming oil prices, its government is letting billions of dollars sit idle in US bank accounts as Washington spends up to 12 billion dollars a month in the country.
The Senate's armed services committee has proposed banning US funds for all large-scale projects in Iraq costing above two million dollars, demanding Baghdad assume a larger share of reconstruction costs.
The committee's Democratic chairman, Carl Levin, said on May 1 that it "is unconscionable, it is inexcusable, it makes no common sense" for Iraq's government not to be spending more of its own funds.
Sumaidaie said his government would willingly shell out more on major projects but "there are no qualified international companies coming forward to do them, because of the security situation."
"Plus, we have our own capacity problems within our administration. The government is not yet well organized enough to spend the money under the right kind of controls," the ambassador said.
"So we have our own frustrations."
Sumaidaie said Iraq was already paying the United States for weapons and supplies to its armed forces, and this year hoped to spend 80 percent of available budget funds in general, up from just 20 percent in 2006.
"But let us be very, very clear. The amount of money that Iraqis and the country need to rebuild itself and to stabilize itself are multiple times the amount of money we have available," he stressed.
AFP
Samir Sumaidaie told CNN: "We are taking over as fast as we can. We are taking over on the construction side. We are taking over on the security side.
"And as time goes on, the money spent by the Americans on reconstruction or on our arms (armed) services will come down to zero and we'll take on the full load," he said.
Democrats say that with Iraq profiting from booming oil prices, its government is letting billions of dollars sit idle in US bank accounts as Washington spends up to 12 billion dollars a month in the country.
The Senate's armed services committee has proposed banning US funds for all large-scale projects in Iraq costing above two million dollars, demanding Baghdad assume a larger share of reconstruction costs.
The committee's Democratic chairman, Carl Levin, said on May 1 that it "is unconscionable, it is inexcusable, it makes no common sense" for Iraq's government not to be spending more of its own funds.
Sumaidaie said his government would willingly shell out more on major projects but "there are no qualified international companies coming forward to do them, because of the security situation."
"Plus, we have our own capacity problems within our administration. The government is not yet well organized enough to spend the money under the right kind of controls," the ambassador said.
"So we have our own frustrations."
Sumaidaie said Iraq was already paying the United States for weapons and supplies to its armed forces, and this year hoped to spend 80 percent of available budget funds in general, up from just 20 percent in 2006.
"But let us be very, very clear. The amount of money that Iraqis and the country need to rebuild itself and to stabilize itself are multiple times the amount of money we have available," he stressed.
AFP
posted by madtom at 7:57 PM
2 Comments:
Let's see, Iraqi Ambassador, usual Maliki official, I will translate what he really said: "We will extract as much blood and money from the Kuffir for the next twenty years and then discover we have a huge surplus of funds available to pay for own reconstruction."
Madtom, I know you're busy, but
what is the endgame for the Iranians (Shia revival) and Bush administration in the Middle East, since you believe this was all part of the plan?
Accountability question for Hayder?
I can only ask so many questions, and I like to have a mixture of humorous and serious, so people will complete the In T View. I've been stiffed many times from people agreeing to In T Views, receiving the questions, and then giving me excuses (and most were serious hard question In T Views).
Well lets see that is a big question, where to start. How about if we go back and look at the cease fire, Sadr called on the cease fire, but what was really going on. I say that what really happened is that JAM did not cease fire what they did was move their resources to Hizballah, then Maliki realized that the saderist were week because most of their resources and elite fighters had been moved to a different location, and so he decided to attack and take control of Basra and Sadr city. Hizballah seeing that it was under attack and that sadr's retreat might be cut off came out a show of strength. Playing right into our hands. Now we know where the JAM is and why Maliki is having so much success, and because Hizbollah moved we most likely have new intelligence on their numbers and whereabouts.
So you might ask why Sadr would have moved his forces. One answer is that he decided that confronting the Sunnies head on was too destructive and so decided to pull on its tail instead.
The ME is full of intractable problems, by changing the equation of power we are able to cause movement that in any other scenario would be seen as impossible.
Short answer
Post a Comment
<< Home