Had a Repuke claim that BuchCo never said Iraq Oil would pay for war

[NoAmericanTaliban]

& I need your help in finding quotes where they say that. I believe Wolfowitz did at one time. He claims I am listening to Dem talking points to much. Told him he needs to get his head out of the sand (actually meant another place) but was to polite. He claims that that was never said. Just want to get a good quote to email to him. Thanks DU.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Here you go

Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: ‘No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices’
Appearing this afternoon on MSNBC’s Hardball, White House Counselor Dan Barlett adamantly denied that anyone in the administration claimed that the Iraq war would lead to lower gas prices. The transcript:

MATTHEWS: e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas —

BARTLETT: I don’t think —

MATTHEWS: None of these promises come through.

BARTLETT: That’s not correct, Chris. The president or no one else ever said that this war was going to result in cheaper gas prices…

MATTHEWS: Ok, so just to make it official, Dan, no one in the administration has ever said that we would have cheaper gas because of war in Iraq, just to make it official?

BARTLETT: I don’t recall anybody ever saying that, Chris.

As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:

As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Bartlett is a talented spinmeister but facts are stubborn things.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/

[kurth]

2. Here:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

[rodeodance]

3. go to america progress report of today. short quote of one of his aids

saying it.

[Jack The Tab]

4. Here is a page full of quotes...

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

[jimshoes]

5. Tell your friend we don't call them talking points.

We simply refer to them as the facts. :)

[blue cat]

6. Here it is

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/19.html#a7974
Done for you

[0007]

7. Here are a few sources

Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost

The Bush administration promised reconstruction of Iraq could be financed through oil revenue, which they said would provide tens of billions of dollars. However, according to the New York Times, devastated and decrepit production systems leave the country “unable to make any significant contribution.”

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.”

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense… funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. additional related info see #16 in the Top 40 Lies of BFCE

at the City pages: Top 40 Lies of the Bush Administration from July 30th 2003

For the original Wolfie quote:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03

[NoAmericanTaliban]

9. Thanks Everyone!

I sent him the Wolf quote & told him that Faux new is wrong again.