Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's end, according to an American oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales since 2005, appears likely to reinforce growing debate about the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself.
"The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects," Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Warner. "It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank."
From the beginning of the conflict, American officials assured taxpayers and the world that Iraq would use oil money to pay for reconstruction. But that has not happened. Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment, saying they were not familiar with the report.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/africa/06surplus.php
"Several senior Iraqi officials were either traveling on Tuesday or declined to comment..."
I wonder just how much of this money (including the $48 billions spent by the United States) is destined in reality for "offshore accounts"........
For an example of what this massive spending garners:
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930242-electrical-risks-at-iraq-bases-are-worse-than-reported
and this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/books/review/Robb-t.html?fta=y

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/11/ ... aghdad.php
a lack of foreign investors?
Now just how does this square with the article?