I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
"Where were all these calls for generosity after Afghanistan?"
Afghaniwhat?!
I did quick search around bloggerville this morning and found very little on the Senate/House rubberstamp of the 87 billion. Where's the outrage? I'll leave it to Robert Byrd, "who invoked Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Göring in describing the administration's communication policies, accused his colleagues of acting like sheep," according to the NY Times: "The emperor has no clothes," he said on the Senate floor. "This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods."
It is said that the United States cannnot "fail" in Iraq. Why not? We failed in Vietnam and Lebanon, for example, and were none the worse long-term. The possibility that Baathists will return or Al Qaeda will take charge in Iraq is remote. I say let's fail.
I was kinda of disappointed to see the libburryools not taking advantage of some of the Rite's rhetoric. Such as, how about eliminating the "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the Pentagon's budget, starting with that Star Wars crap, to pay fer $87 bil "loan."
Atrios, do you have a source for the Marshall plan figure?
What would $150 billion in short- and long-term development, and a little deft diplomacy, done in Afghanistan, to enhance the image of America and to secure an island of moderate culture in the middle of Islam?
A tragically blown opportunity.
Marshall plan was about $100B or less, including occupation costs, over 5 years or so.
What happened to the conservative clutch on the purse strings? For decades they've been bitching about our excessive foreign aid. Now they seem willing to forego all their "principles" in support of W's all out assault on the economy.
Bush is appearing at the conference of donor nations, where it will be announced what the donor nations will be giving towards the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I heard (but can not confirm) that the money provided to this donor group will be managed by an international oversight body, like the World Bank, or something.
I think that any money provided by the US and earmarked specifically for reconstruction should be managed by this international decisionmaking body and not given directly to the no-bid-contractees that it is currently headed for. This is the best way to maximize the impact of our re-construction aid and reduce the chance that it will be eaten up by the excess profits garnered by Bechtel and Haliburton.
De-privatizing the reconstruction effort is the only way to do it cheaply and honestly. This is what the Democrats should be promoting. The loan idea is good, but it falls short of cutting the war-profiteers out of the equation.
Any way you look at it the money is a loan. We don’t have it so we’ve borrowed it. The entire war is being financed by debt. It’s just a question of who’s credit is being used.
Forgive me if I'm having trouble matching the lies with the lying liers, but I swear either Mitch McConnell, or Mitch Daniels (OMB head?) said that Iraq would cost something in the range of $60 million to rebuild. That's MILLION. I think this was about the same time as someone got booted for saying it would cost in the range of $100-$200 billion. Sort of like how Shinseki got snubbed for accurately predicting how many troops we'd need.
All this makes me dizzy, I've got to go lie down..
Another inspiring moment of political leadership from our Democratic Party heros.
quit yer bitchin
if god didn't want us to own Iraq, he wouldn't have elected W. it's as simple as that.
""We failed in Vietnam and Lebanon, for example, and were none the worse long-term.""
We didn't fail in Vietnam. People only believe this because the filtered press failed to report our stunning victory.
The democratic party in Congress caved, yet again. This is an outrageous spending bill. Here is where some of the money will go, from a CBS news report:
100 million to investigate crimes against humanity.
400 million for a new prison system, at a cost of 50,000 dollars per bed.
54 million to study the phone system.
100 million for a witness protection program.
What I don't get is why all of a sudden everyone is all up in arms over $20 billion for any purpose -- Iraq or whatever. In the context of today's $500 billion deficit and with Bush handing out multi-trillion dollar tax cut candy for the rich, who gives a shit about $20 billion?
Its a sign of 1) people's stupidity that they cannot keep dollar figures in perspective and 2) idiotic opposition to foreign aid of any kind for any purpose.
Wake up people! If you don't like blowing $20 billion, why were you so passive about the trillions Bushco has been looting from the treasury for the last 3 years?
I'm not saying I support or oppose the $20 billion in Iraq. I'm just saying that this strong response -- particulalrly from those who supported the war -- is a little weird.
The reason they are handing out the money so easily is because the majority of these funds will be routed into some american company's coffers with which the legislation founders have hidden or not-so-hidden connections, ties, etc such as Haliburtan.
They are simply writing themselves checks.
MYOB'
.
We didn't fail in Vietnam. People only believe this because the filtered press failed to report our stunning victory.
bingo! savvy newsreaders will also note that despite what the national media tells you, the cubs and the red sox are in the world series.
vietnam was a tie.
Everyone is missing the point. The first $67B was a lock because it was for US troops who lack chickenplate armor. Done deal.
The second part, with the loan, is a major defeat for the Bush Administration. If theloan stands, it will signal the begining of the end of Bush policy in Iraq. The Bushies prevented the amendments which should have crippled it because the White House twisted a bunch of arms. But even with all that arm twisitng, they still lost the loan battle in the Senate.
Besides, by March, US troops won't be in Iraq anyway, and most of that money will never be spent. So it's a silly debate. The upcoming civil war will prevent most reconstruction.
A tie? What part of Indo China is still under French, er, Japanese, er, American control?
Writing themselves checks is exactly right.
The Dems should have tried to tie the reconstruction dollars to Iraqi workforces. Part of the reconstruction of this country has to focus on getting Iraqis back to work that can reconstruct individual lives. I do beleive that one of the quickest ways to drastically reduce the gorilla warfare against our soldiers is to get Iraqis back to work. A guy with a decent opportunity to provide for his family doesn't have much time to plot attacks agaist his occupier.
Big country invades your country. Big country then sets up its big corporations to do the things that you would love to do. Big corporation CEOs gets fat checks.
Then they tell you this was all a loan, and you have to pay it back.
How does your heart feel, and what does your mind tell you?
Prescription for Peace? Give the Billions to, say, the French and Germans to recruit and administrate the world's best Urban Planners, Architects and Landscapers to help create an Iraqi paradise.
Public Penance!
Troops out! Artists in!
Just trying to think outside the box.
If the Iraqis had a genuine say in how, when, and where the money that they "borrow" could be spent, I think few would complain.
Is the first priority for them really to pay an American company to build a soccer field, or have a zip code system? Somehow, I think not.
The list of items to be funded in the 87 billion bill contained way too much pork. Nice fatty pork.
Vietnam was a tie because we didn't reopen any schools there. Well, sorry, maybe the christian ones.
So they want to give billions and billions of dollars to Iraq.
These are the same people who can't protest loudly enough whenever anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe we need to take the "industry" out of our health-care industry.
Everyone says how horrible it is -- huge blank checks being given to Bush/Cheney, trying to make some of it a loan. But I don't see what the Dems can do. All their proposals (tying it to a repeal of some of the tax cuts, etc.) have all been voted down.
The "Vietnam was a tie" was a Fish Called Wanda reference, I think. Come to think of it, doesn't Otto sound a lot like a right wing blogger ranting about wimpy Europeans?
"You know where you'd be without the good old U.S. of A? The tiniest province in the Russian Empire!"
Loan or gift, whatever, how about using money we actually *have* instead of going further into hock for it? The whole thing is preposterous.
Having said which, what kind of frickin' sense does it make to go and bust up somebody else's country because you have an itch in your own pants, and then charge *them* for it? Only chiselers would think that's okay.
But spending the money has to be in other hands, and Iraqis have to be hired rather than Pakistanis and Indians as is now being done.
The whole thing is so disgusting that even some Republicans must be starting to smell something.
>>Still, I am rather shocked at all the conserva-tarians who are falling all over themselves to hand out more aid money.
Follow the money... We were told in the runup to the war that the oil would pay for it all
then we were told that all Iraqi businesses would be available to be taken over by international (American) companies. But if the oil is paying for the reconstruction, what's left over for oil companies' profits?? That's why the Repubs are so gung ho about making it all grants because otherwise it comes out of oil companies' profits
Look, I think the war was stupid.
But if we liberals believe in building democratic institutions around the world, we should support the concept of foreign aid to Iraq. You can't gripe about not enough aid to Afghanistan, and then ask why we're giving so much to Iraq.
Personally, I feel like Afganistan is like
Somalia--it simply isn't a "nation." and therefore is probably somewhat immune to nation-building. As such, the order of magnitude of our commitment there is probably about right.
Loans are bad PR. We invaded them, we bombed them, we won't give them sovereignty, and now we're going to make tem repay $10 billion, much of which went to American firms instead of Iraqi firms?
THAT SAID, I believe that this particular reconstruction plan was the wrong plan. Why couldn't the Dems have come up with an alternative that:
a) Costs less
b) Uses Iraqi firms for recontruction
c) Gives the Iraqis control of reconstruction
d) Protects the bidding process from cronyism
I know there were smaller attempts to change the bill, but there was no unified, serious alternative offered. I recognize that it's tough to pull something like together because the executive branch holds all the info, but I think it cold have been done.
Maybe such a plan would have allowed the Dems in Congress to vote against the President's request.
Well now if I recall it was Bush and company that first said that Iraqi oil would pay for all the reconstruction cost to begin with.
Right now Bush is about to have another one of his campaign "government for sale" trade shows in Madrid, Spain - you know like an oilfield trade show - just like the Permain Baisn Oil Show.
The United States will ask countries attending a donors' conference for Iraq to "reach deeply" in making pledges and will discuss investment opportunities with private companies from around the world, the Bush administration said Friday.
Iraq is a woman who is about to be auctioned off and than raped--The Iraqis of course don't have any say in any of this at all. Shame on the Saudis for letting Bush do this to Mideastern people, really. Egypt was right to complain to the Saudis before the war. Only the Middle East can standup for the people now.
Anyways the loan for those choosing to rape Iraq is directly tied into Iraqis stablity - so it isn't going to be Bushie's problem if business investors default via instablity problems and the US decides to pulls out because Iraq is full blown Vietnam.
This is exactly how Bush operates - the Iraqis are NEVER going to be able to write off that loan the why failed private companies do in bankrupcy court even though they go out of businss usually. Choosing to invest in Iraq is a high risk business.
I'm sure Bush operated the same way with Spectrum Drilling and all his Harkins dealings never turn a dime -the business Bush touched mostly lost money... Bush has never earned a honest dollar in his entire life and now that he pushing 60, he's isn't going to suddenly start being honest.
why is this a big deal?
Because you don't destroy someone's home and then send them a bill for rebuilding it with inept crooked contractors. It's that simple.
Is this somehow to complex for you people? Jesus Jumping Christ on a pogo stick!
"Vietnam was a tie."
Well not for the Vietnamese is wasn't a tie...and I wonder if it turns-out that a lot of Iraqis will be refuges this spring when March rolls around and Bush thinks about pulling out of Iraq due to record low poll numbers as well as no replacement troops and no more money.
The loan gambit, however, is sheer hypocrisy. The "loan" will never be paid back. They are begging the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Russians, Germans, Omanis, Qataris, Bahrainis, and French to forgive the loans that already exist.
It is fakery at its worst conspired upon by corrupt Repubs and weak kneed Demos.
It gave them points they should have lost after voting for the 67billion they were too cowardly to analyze and take control of rather than giving in to the Bush wastrels and frauds.
why is this a big deal?
Because you don't destroy someone's home and then send them a bill for rebuilding it with inept crooked contractors. It's that simple.
Why don't we cut it down a bit?
Why can't we just go with this: Because you don't destroy someone's home.
If we had been following that method, we wouldn't be debating whether to stick the bill to the Iraqi people or our grandchildren.
The people who ordered up this war are the ones who ought to finance its aftermath. Yet when the Senate had a chance to vote on Oct. 2 for an amendment that would pay the postwar costs by temporarily reducing the tax cut for the wealthiest slice of Americans -- the less than 1 percent who make more than $400,000 a year -- it was rejected, 57 to 42. Only one Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, stepped up to the challenge; seven Democrats joined all the other Republicans in saying no.
By David S. Broder
That's the reason I think democrats were right to vote against the grant. They offered a plan to pay for it, and the republicans offered larger deficits. The republicans were the real cowards in this. Unwilling to pay any actual financial price, they continue to fight the war on credit. Doesn't take alot of backbone to pull out the plastic.
"Cynical" nailed the answer. The Iraqis don't get any say in what this money is going to be used for, or who gets the contracts. Why should they have to pay back the money that is ending up in Halliburton's pockets? We make the decisions and then tell the Iraqis they will have to pay for the US companies' caviar tastes.
We've all read lots of stories on the blogs about how Iraqi companies could have gotten the bridge rebuilt or the power back up and running for a fraction of the cost that Bechtel and Halliburton are charging. And now, on top of that, the US companies are hiring Indian and Pakistani workers because they're cheaper.
I thought we were bringing democracy to Iraq. This sure sounds like "taxation without representation" to me.
This administration makes it inordinately hard for anyone outside its ranks of true believers to support it, even when it is advocating fundamentally responsible postwar action in Iraq. Bolten, speaking for the president, can sit there with a straight face and say he is optimistic that aid from other countries and future "surplus" Iraqi oil revenue will fill the estimated gap of $50 billion to $75 billion between Iraq's reconstruction needs and the current Bush proposal. Dream on.
The president has yet to present an honest accounting of Iraq's needs and he has yet to propose a way -- other than borrowing -- to pay for them. His irresponsibility invites many Democrats less scrupulous than Biden to be equally cavalier about the nation's obligations.
By David S. Broder
Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page B07
More money in constant dollars than the Marshall Plan, yes. But in % GDP, not even close.
Oh Jeebus, read Josh Marshall's lates post
Keeping in mind that Iraqis have somewhere in neighborhood of 50 to 60% unemployment rates in Iraq. So now that Bush is going to be borrowering from Iraqis to handle reconstruction, the Iraqi people themselves have not and are not allowed to profit from their own oil in the working environment of their own country.
This is why Russia, Germany and France are right to insist that Bush hand power over to Iraqis because they have NO say in what is going on in their country.
If Hallibuton ever does starting turning a profit I'm certian that company will never leave Iraq. Companies don't like to give up profit, not ever, people don't like to give up money - this is the reason why American's Civil War was so bloody. Getting Southerns to give slave labor, or for that matter, getting companies to give up child labor, or giving control over to union labor groups has always been a bloody undertaking.
Iraq's Marshall plan shouldn't be the Japanese Marshall plan, because Iraqis didn't attack us and they didn't much like Saddam either so this situation whereby the Bush administration is making all of Iraq's business decisions is horribly wrong. Bush believes that after having conquered Iraq the oils now belongs to his campaign contributors. This is why Iraq MUST have a say in what is going on with Iraqis business deals. The Bush administrations interest in Iraq isn't in what is best for Iraq at all.
In fact John Dean wrote: "I can assure you from firsthand experience that a President acting secretly usually does not have the best interest of Americans in mind. It is his own personal interest that is on his mind instead."
And with all those unbid contracts how can anyone doubt that Bush's personal interest is ONLY thing Bush has in mind.
Considering that the Marshall Plan was put into place when that war was already over, it hardly seems sporting to put it up against this "make-it-up-as-we-go" method the Bush regime is using.
ok here is my view of the loan vs grant thing
and maybe someone know s the answer
seems to me that a grant is basically a gift money given to iraqi reconstruction to do what you will with it.
but if this money is a loan won't it have some strings on it?? i mean won't there be more instruments attatched to it to force oversight on exactly how the money is spent???
could the democrats be settig up a way to nail the croynism in iraqi contracts?
4 reasons not to be shocked at the conservatarians' newfound spirit of giving:
1) it's a way to boost Chimpy politically, without the restrictions of campaign contributions
2) it "stimulates the business climate" in an emerging market
3) it's mostly not their money anyway (they hardly pay any taxes any more, now that corporate HQs have moved overseas)
4) they're first in line for the lucrative no-bid contracts
One thing that we can be sure of is that before the Bush syndicate launches a takeover bid as big as Iraq that many a prospectus has been drawn up covering opportunities for money making. I'd guess they've had these on Iraq for more than a decade, probably going back to before our madam ambassador gave Saddam the green light to go into Kuwait (look back, I'm not making this up, you know). The mess that was likely to follow is a minor detail to be worked out after you've eliminated the present management and a few pesty potential rivals. But things look good. Their their think tanks have all told them that the people are ready for new managment, they'll welcome them with flower petals and rose water. It will fall into their hands like a ripe apple.
Then comes Sept.11, 2001. Dick Cheney see opportunity striking, immediately wants to go into action on Iraq. Only the wrong people get fingered too fast, even worse a lot of them have ties to business partners of long standing. Partners with a hell of a lot of oil and who have their uses politically too.
Looks like they'll have to go after that long wanted pipeline through Afghanistan first, even though it isn't their fondest wish. Afghanistan isn't as important to them as Iraq, not as much potential for profit. And fairly easy to take over, they've even got some of their people among the locals. The cost doesn't bother them, it isn't as if they're going to use their own money and blood but first things first.
There's oil for the taking.
Reconstruction? That's for panty waists.
Trying to think about Bush co. is useless unless you consider the money. It's really the only thing they care about.
Oh, and why Bush inc. doesn't like the loans? Paying them back with oil profits will lower their bottom line.
Cheryl, your link sent me right back to Atrios...
but thanks for sending me over to Josh, and let me recommend everyone check out this post at TPM, and click on Josh's link to a short Marketplace segment from early this week. A scary look at how this "reconstruction" business really is working...
Which points to the problem with arguing for this package to be "loans.": because to call them "grants" to the Iraqis in the first place is just absurd.
Please correct me if I'm off .. but aren't the Dem votes for 'loan vs grant' primarily a nod to constituent 'sticker shock' .. as the meanings of these terms in this case are basically inoperative?
The Dems who voted to make $10 billion of the money a loan committed an immoral act; they should know better. Almost all that money is going to Bechtel and Halliburton; they'll hire locals to do the real work at ten cents on the dollar. First we invade their country, then we pick friends of the administration to get all the contracts, then we insist that the Iraqi people pay. So what if this debt is eventually forgiven? I'll bet it would take several years before this happens, and in the meantime Iraq will be assessed interest payments, to fix what we broke.
well, what do you expect with re[ugnican rape and pillage after the invasion.
just one little detail about the marshall plan. . .that all happened in post-wwii europe. although almost no journalists will admit it, there is at this time no such place as post-war iraq. this proposal is sort of similar to a big spending program to rebuild "post-war europe" being proposed in 1939.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
