Bush asks for $87 Billion

[marylou]

I forgot that the speech was on so early yesterday and I unfortunately missed it. Can someone bring me up to date on the current excuse for invading/occupying Iraq, and also how we expect to get all of these UN member nations to go in and help out without giving any input on how this is to be done?

 

Also is the Administration still using the situation over there as an excuse to hand out rebuilding contracts to Haliburton without any open bid process? Is anyone else getting seriously PISSED off about this!?

[allthumbs]

the $87 billion isn't enough either. try another $40-50 billion before it's all said and done. just think, we could have had health care for every person in this country for that amount of money. you can kiss social security and some other programs goodbye. vote no to bush in 04

[mattp]

You may be right about that, Trask. But, sadly, I'm afraid we gotta stick it out. The question now is, how do we get other countries interested in helping pay for all of this. Ms. Rice was correct this morning when she said that they all have a stake in having this mess straightened out, but exactly how and to what extent and under what circumstances should Bush and Co. be willing to give up control? Do you think we'll be able to expect other nations to pay for all of this if they have no say in how their money is going to be spent?

[AlpineK]

mattp said:

I'm "fucking serious," Fairweather. Yes, some action against Bin Laden and Al Queda would have been justified but in fact it looks to me as if we did not target them - we took over Afghanistan and let Bin Laden and Al Queda go. If Bin Laden was the real target, wouldn't we have waited to start the invasion until we knew exactly where he was?? MAYBE there are fewer active training camps, but it is equally likely that there will be much MORE support for Al Queda - for the next 30 years or more - as a direct consequence of our recent actions. If you will recall, the 911 hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia -- but we did not attack Saudi Arabia. No, I do not believe that 911 was justification for our Afghanistan adventure.

 

I think we did the right thing in Afganistan. I figure there would be no realistic chance to find Osama's location, but we did know where all of Al Quida's training bases were. Plus the Taliban were a bunch of motherfuckers.

 

We fucked up by invading Iraq so soon. There are only a few intelligence folks who speak Arabic, so we've dilluted the pool of spy's to track down Osama. Plus Iraq is going to be a big financial drain for a long time.

 

Instead of invading Iraq we should have come down hard, diplomatically, on Saudi Arabia.

[Fairweather]

Many of these countries are owed $$billions by the former Regime. So, yes, they might be willing to "do the math" and decide what is in their ultimate interest.

 

Personally, I think if GW were to give up any military control/command to the UN (aka France and Germany) he would lose the votes of twenty million conservatives straight away. Mine included. Our soldiers swear an oath to the US constitution, not the UN charter.

 

Some of the UN's other great successes:

 

Korea: stalemate

Congo: millions dead

Rwanda: millions dead

Zaire (formerly Rhodesia): Facist/racist dictator now in charge

 

...and of course, who could forget the UN "safe haven" of Srebrenica and how the UN troops (French, I believe) stepped aside and let the Serb butchers come in to slaughter almost every man and boy in the city.

 

I would prefer to see us bring allies on board one at a time, like Russian Fed., Pakistan, others who don't have a (recent) track record of back-stabbing.

[EWolfe]

How are we going to convince the UN and Euro's that their input will be more than financial? The Bush cowboy "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is deeply imbedded.

I bet old Kofi Annan is not sleeping too well these days - poor guy.

[mattp]

He'd lose your vote if he supported just about anything I am interested in, Fairweather. Yes, the U.N. has been largely ineffective, but don't you think that has as much as anything else to do with the fact that WE don't support it?

 

Rather than playing "High Noon" in a constant repeating video loop, I'd prefer to see us try to bring as many former allies on board as we can, through showing that we are trying to cooperate with the other civilized nations in this world in making the world a more civilized place.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

He'd lose your vote if he supported just about anything I am interested in, Fairweather.

 

...but would he gain the support of liberals like you if he "compromised" on just a few issues, and not the whole liberal shopping list? ...I think not.

 

 

Rather than playing "High Noon" in a constant repeating video loop, I'd prefer to see us try to bring as many former allies on board as we can, through showing that we are trying to cooperate with the other civilized nations in this world in making the world a more civilized place.

 

Good idea. Isn't this what Bush is now trying to do?

[mattp]

Fairweather-

I seriously doubt that Bush is going to cooperate with the rest of the world. His past performance has shown that it just isn't his way, and his current plea that all of our former allies write him a blank check doesn't make me think that he has wised up at all. And yes, you are right - he'd have to do more than compromise on just a few issues to get my vote.

 

Are you going to respond to my comments about what we have accomplished in Afghanistan? (Those comments were in direct response to you.)

[Fairweather]

We effectively scattered the Taliban and Al Queda. At least for a time. The latter no longer operate training camps in the former's host country and their world-wide recruitment effort has been dealt a setback and been forced underground to a large extent.. No longer do militant muslim zealots from around the world flock to Afghanistan for training and indoctrination. Osama, if he's still alive (And I doubt he is. Kidney dialysis aint' easy to come by in the Hindu Kush.) is probably living the life of the savage he is.

 

In ousting the Taliban, we chose sides with an only slightly lesser evil. That is for sure. And not the first time, or last. But the Northern Alliance didn't help/support the 9/11 attackers. The Taliban did.

 

If the Taliban wish to attempt re-constitution, all the better. They're easier to kill when they're in large camps/groups. Bush never claimed this would be an easy task. Indeed, I recall him saying that it would take many years. How true.

 

Karzai seems sincere. I hope we help him gain control over the warlords/countryside.

 

[mattp]

I think that rather than deal their recruitment a big setback, we have furthered their cause more than they could ever have done on their own. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

I'd agree, however, that the Northern Alliance is probably better than the Taliban, and I hope we can help Karzai to get control over the country. Time will tell on that one, too. Do you think we are going to support the development of an effective and fair and independent government in Afghanistan? Iraq?

[Fairweather]

I don't know if that's possible in fiercely tribal Afghanistan. Iraq has a more highly educated population to a large degree, and has never had a reputation for strict adherance to the tenents of Islam. I have more hope for a just system of government there.

[Greg_W]

ridehikeclimbski said:

Bush needs to get AMBUSHED for ignoring the citizens of the USA that desperately need funds for education, roads, health care and etc. Now the idiot wants other countries to help bail his dogshit ass out on helping rebuild Iraq when the other countries were reluctant with the war, plus asking for UNs help now ?? , what a dipshit instead of a diplomat !

 

I suggest he use his campaign funds to rebuild Iraq ! Looks more like IRAQNAM everyday , related to TOO much BUSHSHIT !

 

Hey, dipshit with the long-ass name, nobody said Bush was "ignoring the citizens of the USA" or not spending money on roads or education (of which, there is not Constitutional justification to spend shit on education, this is a state matter).

 

If you remember, the action taken in Iraq was done with a "coalition"; if I'm not mistaken, Bush is calling on other coalition members to pony up. Nothing wrong with that. As far as the UN goes, they can get fucked; however, they do have several uses when it comes to delivering aid, medicine, etc. to these war-torn areas.

 

Further, I don't see this as a purely "Vietnam-esque" escapade; more like another Marshall Plan. The thing that pisses me off, here, is that originally the oil field revenue from Iraq was supposed to go towards recovering OUR war expenditures AND THEN go to the people of Iraq. What are the plans for recouping this mysterious $87b?

 

Greg_W

[allthumbs]

Greg, don't forget about the interest on the $87 billion Bush is borrowing. Can you imagine the total outlay? Scarry shit bubba.

[Greg_W]

trask said:

Greg, don't forget about the interest on the $87 billion Bush is borrowing. Can you imagine the total outlay? Scarry shit bubba.

 

No shit. I don't like it, not one bit. Besides, who's he borrowing it from? This money should come from oil revenue from Iraq, or we should get free oil from Iraq to cover the amount, or something. Money doesn't grow on fucking trees; we work our asses off for it.

[allthumbs]

Yeah, aren't we supposed to get some payback for liberating those Iraqi choads? I want free gas for a couple years.

[Fairweather]

Greg_W said:

The thing that pisses me off, here, is that originally the oil field revenue from Iraq was supposed to go towards recovering OUR war expenditures AND THEN go to the people of Iraq. What are the plans for recouping this mysterious $87b?

 

Greg_W

 

An excellent question, Greg. Is this money to be used for security and rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure in leiu of future repayment? If so, fine. I'd certainly like to see the long range plan though.

[Greg_W]

Fairweather said:

Greg_W said:

The thing that pisses me off, here, is that originally the oil field revenue from Iraq was supposed to go towards recovering OUR war expenditures AND THEN go to the people of Iraq. What are the plans for recouping this mysterious $87b?

 

Greg_W

 

An excellent question, Greg. Is this money to be used for security and rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure in leiu of future repayment? If so, fine. I'd certainly like to see the long range plan though.

 

Here's what will probably happen: Bush will get this loan, somehow; he'll entice all the big international construction companies to invest and go re-build the oil infrastructure. Things will go great for awhile; the construction concerns will be lured in with long-term management contracts with good money for good production. We'll all skip along nice and happy for 10 or 15 years. Then, all of a sudden, the "new, friendly Iraqi government" will decide it is better for "the people" if the oil industry was nationalized. BOOM!!! Out go the Americans and their long-term contracts, agreements, etc. "Thank you very much, don't let the tent flap hit you in the ass as you leave our country."

 

That is what happened in Saudi Arabia back in the 70's. This spells trouble with a capital 'T'.

 

In another note, however, I think Howard Dean has much to learn before he can start spewing about what is going on in Washington. Like us, he doesn't have all the information.

 

Greg_W

[ridehikeclimbski]

Greg_W said:

ridehikeclimbski said:

Bush needs to get AMBUSHED for ignoring the citizens of the USA that desperately need funds for education, roads, health care and etc. Now the idiot wants other countries to help bail his dogshit ass out on helping rebuild Iraq when the other countries were reluctant with the war, plus asking for UNs help now ?? , what a dipshit instead of a diplomat !

 

I suggest he use his campaign funds to rebuild Iraq ! Looks more like IRAQNAM everyday , related to TOO much BUSHSHIT !

 

Hey, dipshit with the long-ass name, nobody said Bush was "ignoring the citizens of the USA" or not spending money on roads or education (of which, there is not Constitutional justification to spend shit on education, this is a state matter).

 

If you remember, the action taken in Iraq was done with a "coalition"; if I'm not mistaken, Bush is calling on other coalition members to pony up. Nothing wrong with that. As far as the UN goes, they can get fucked; however, they do have several uses when it comes to delivering aid, medicine, etc. to these war-torn areas.

 

Further, I don't see this as a purely "Vietnam-esque" escapade; more like another Marshall Plan. The thing that pisses me off, here, is that originally the oil field revenue from Iraq was supposed to go towards recovering OUR war expenditures AND THEN go to the people of Iraq. What are the plans for recouping this mysterious $87b?

 

Greg_W

 

Hey George W ,oppppps Greg W ....

 

I really didnt mean to imply that Bush is totally ignoring the people of the USA but Bush hasnt done crap on education as I remember in his previous campaign he was going to make it a priority in THIS term .

 

Coalition means ? a few that suck up to USA cause they receive benefits from the USA , horray for France and Germany denoucing the war idea !

 

Adding addtional 87B to our astronomical half a trillion debt , its a ridiculous mistake . I do hope we recover the funds from the sale of Iraqi oil but I suspect Halliburton and other companies will add huge cost overuns. Along with the interest of the 87B, it will take indefinite time to credit the total cost of the war and rebuild.

 

Its his priorites that pisses me off and I will not vote for him again !

 

Enjoy the debate !

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg_W]

ridehikeclimbski said:

I suspect Halliburton and other companies will add huge cost overuns.

 

If this happens, it's just Halliburton et al doing business; they don't write the contracts or the bid requests. Many government projects leave themselves open for change orders and extras, or they are written as "cost plus" This means that the contract amount is the cost of the work PLUS a fee. So, if Joe Shmoe says it should cost him $10b to build an oil refinery and it ends up costing him $20b, and he has backup for all his bills, he gets the $20b. Not a good way to write contracts when it's taxpayer's money; I say, require hard bids and expect contractors to hold to them.

[murraysovereign]

Fairweather said:

Some of the UN's other great successes:

 

Korea: stalemate

Congo: millions dead

Rwanda: millions dead

Zaire (formerly Rhodesia): Facist/racist dictator now in charge...

 

Korea ended in a stalemate, yes, but given that the likely alternative would have entailed an all-out war with the Republic of China, at a cost of untold millions of dead and culminating in a Communist victory or nuclear war, possibly both, I'd say a stalemate was not a bad outcome. Besides, the whole Korean adventure came about in large part because the United States basically highjacked the Security Council and turned the UN into a tool of US Foreign Policy (sound familiar?).

 

Zaire and the Congo are in fact one and the same, Fairweather, and the mess in the Congo originally came about because of Belgium's utter failure to allow for an orderly transfer when they finally withdrew from their former colony. They basically just walked away, even though they knew full well a bloodbath would ensue. The UN tried, and to some extent succeeded in trying to contain the unrest and kept it from spreading throughout Central Africa. Trying to hold the UN to account for the Congo, as if it was the UN's fault somehow, is spurious.

 

Zimbabwe - not Zaire - is "formerly Rhodesia" and is currently run by a racist, fascist dictator. Kinda like the previous rascist, fascist dictator of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) - except Ian Smith was white. Again, how that is the fault of the UN escapes me.

 

And let's not forget that it wasn't the UN that helped put Saddam Hussein in power, and it wasn't the UN that put the Shah into Iran, and it wasn't the UN that installed and propped up any number of brutal dictatorships in Central and South America for most of the 20th Century. So if we're going to point fingers, let's be even-handed about it, shall we? If you want to talk about back-stabbing, there are plenty of examples to go around.

 

Certainly the UN has done an imperfect job of maintaining global peace and security, but it's not nearly as useless and ineffectual as you would make it out to be. Perhaps if the US would try working with the international community the system might actually stand a chance. Instead Washington seems intent on pissing in the world's face one minute, then browbeating them for not helping extend US foreign policy objectives the next. And they can't figure out why the same people they've spent the last year insulting and ridiculing and lying to at every opportunity are now reluctant to help clean up the resulting mess?

 

If GWB is feeling lonely and isolated all of a sudden, I'm afraid he's got no-one to blame but himself.

[mattp]

murraysovereign said:

So if we're going to point fingers, let's be even-handed about it, shall we?

 

Sorry, Murray. Most Americans have little interest in any balanced history and even less willingness to be "even handed about it" if by that you mean a willingness to recognized the fact that our foreign policy is driven by corporate greed and a fundamental belief that we are and should be able to run the world.

[murraysovereign]

mattp said:

murraysovereign said:

So if we're going to point fingers, let's be even-handed about it, shall we?

 

Sorry, Murray. Most Americans have little interest in any balanced history and even less willingness to be "even handed about it" if by that you mean a willingness to recognized the fact that our foreign policy is driven by corporate greed and a fundamental belief that we are and should be able to run the world.

 

Actually, I don't agree. In my experience Americans individually are more than willing and able to take a balanced view of things. Granted, there is a tendency for them collectively to adopt something of a herd mentality in times of crisis, but to attribute to the whole of the American people some sort of deliberate obstinance or willful short-sightedness is grossly unfair to the vast majority.

Edited September 9, 2003 by murraysovereign

[mattp]

I hope your are right, Murray, but I think that, on the whole, we are pretty much known for willful obstinance and short-sightedness. To make matters worse, I'm afraid that as we become more and more polarized on issues related to our rightful place as rulers of the world or to such things as the environment or the value of public education, nobody is going to stand up to corporate greed. One thing's for sure, our friends who run Haliburton are going to come out of this OK even if the whole damn thing falls apart, and they are going to max out every possible donation to GW's reelection campaign (though for political reasons, the money may be "laundered" through intermediate sources).

[JayB]

mattp said:

I hope your are right, Murray, but I think that, on the whole, we are pretty much known for willful obstinance and short-sightedness. To make matters worse, I'm afraid that as we become more and more polarized on issues related to our rightful place as rulers of the world or to such things as the environment or the value of public education, nobody is going to stand up to corporate greed. One thing's for sure, our friends who run Haliburton are going to come out of this OK even if the whole damn thing falls apart, and they are going to max out every possible donation to GW's reelection campaign (though for political reasons, the money may be "laundered" through intermediate sources).

 

Matt, I think you are right to be concerned about any interest group acquiring undue influence in our political system, but of the many ills which have beset mankind this century, "Corporate Greed" is by far in a way the least dire of them all. How many corporations have been responsible for perpetrating genocides? Torture? Political repression of entire societies? How many states? More importantly, how many states in which corporations and other forms of private wealth were commandered by the state in pursuit of the left's most enduring political fantasy? I'll personally take corporate greed over state-sponsored plunder any day.

 

And as far as the environment is concerned, take a look at how the environment fared in the Eastern Block, China, or any other nation where the state has had sufficient power to control the economic output for any length of time. I think you'll find that on a global basis, there is a direct relationship between corporate profitability and the well-being of the environment in the nations in which they operate. This is not because the people that run the corporations are angels, but rather because the ability to sell a product or service for a profit requires social stabilty, and the rule of law, both of which are more likely to exist in a democratic state where people have a voice in matters such as environmental policy, and the surplus wealth required to address them.