Iraq Owes Billions To The United States

Sprayber · October 17, 2003, 00:59

But don't blame Bush for this one...

Quote:

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate defied President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday and voted to convert half his $20.3 billion Iraqi rebuilding plan into a loan, dealing the White House an embarrassing foreign policy setback.

Despite an administration lobbying blitz that in recent days involved Bush himself, Vice President **** Cheney (news - web sites), Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and others, the Republican-run chamber voted 51-47 for a bipartisan proposal making $10 billion of the aid a loan.

"They rolled out all the heavy artillery they could find," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a one-time Bush rival who sided with the White House.

"Back home, people were asking for loans," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. in explaining the vote.

But Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said the roll call was a slap at Bush's policies in Iraq (news - web sites).

"The Senate sent a strong, bipartisan message to this administration: It must do more to ensure that America's troops and taxpayers don't have to go on shouldering this costly burden virtually alone," Daschle said.

The loan proposal was the most dramatic change lawmakers have made in the mammoth spending package that the president proposed on Sept. 7.

Its approval by the Senate marked the first congressional vote in opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq. It was also the latest of several setbacks that Congress has dealt him in recent months on issues including concentration of media ownership, new rules on overtime pay, and travel to Cuba.

The administration argued that loans would worsen Iraq's foreign debt, slow its recovery and hand a propaganda victory to America's enemies. But the vote underscored that with presidential and congressional elections 13 months away, many lawmakers were more worried about vast new spending for foreign aid at a time of record federal deficits at home.

"It's very hard for me to go home and explain that we have to give $20 billion to a country sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil," said one loan supporter, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

The vote came as the House and Senate edged toward approval of similar $87 billion measures to finance American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), as well as the reconstruction of both countries. The lion's share of both bills is about $66 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, funds over which there was little controversy.

About two hours before the Senate roll call, the GOP-led House voted 226-200 to kill a similar loan proposal introduced by Democrats. The two chambers will have to negotiate compromise language before a final bill is sent to Bush for his signature — which congressional leaders hope to do before next week's conference of donor nations in Madrid, Spain.

Frist and other GOP leaders said they would try to restore the grants in House-Senate bargaining.

"They've counted him (Bush) down and out before. It's just another bump in the road," said Tom Korologos, a congressional lobbyist for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority now running Iraq.

Eight Republicans abandoned Bush and voted to change his plan: Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Democrats who opposed the loan proposal were Joseph Biden of Delaware, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia.

Under the bipartisan loan amendment, the money would be transformed into a grant if other countries agreed to forgive at least 90 percent of the debt they were owed by Iraq. That debt is usually estimated at between $90 billion and $127 billion.

While the Senate bill provided the full $20.3 billion for rebuilding that Bush sought, the House measure chopped it down to $18.6 billion. It did so by erasing politically fragile proposals: funds for buying $50,000 garbage trucks, creating Iraqi ZIP codes and restoring the country's marshlands.

The administration and its supporters wanted the rebuilding assistance to be entirely grants financed by U.S. taxpayers. They warned that loans would nurture Arab suspicions about the United States' true motivation in Iraq.

"The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over by a long shot," said McCain. He said the amendment "will send a clear signal that the United States is really, really there for the oil."

Cheney called senators during the day hoping to block the loan plan, congressional aides said. And two senators — Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who had initially said they supported loans switched Thursday and said they had been persuaded to oppose them.

But as the day wore on in the Senate, expressions of optimism by administration officials and GOP Senate aides faded.

The White House budget office released a statement saying the administration strongly opposed loans. But the letter omitted any mention of a veto threat, which the office sometimes includes to send a strong message of opposition.

The sponsors of the Senate loan amendment were Republicans Chambliss, Collins, Ensign, Graham, and Snowe and Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) of New York, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., did not vote.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=512&ncid=716

Nubclear · October 17, 2003, 01:09

Why the **** didn't Joe and Byrd vote against this?! Why the **** did the dems vote for this?!?!

Oerdin · October 17, 2003, 01:16

Very conservative Republicans hate spending money so it's no surprise many of them voted for this. The Democrates mostly did this so they could thumb their collective nose at Bush.

Sprayber · October 17, 2003, 01:18

Daschle claims it's a victory. I guess he means against Bush though.

Shi Huangdi · October 17, 2003, 01:19

Congress

Anyway, there really isn't any Iraqi government to accept this, so perhaps Bush can simply make it clear that Iraq will never be expected to pay this loan back?

Nubclear · October 17, 2003, 01:23

Well...Way to go dems. Got your dig at Bush at the expense of the Iraqi people...

This digusts me beyond words. Politics as usual.

Jack_www · October 17, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Why the **** didn't Joe and Byrd vote against this?! Why the **** did the dems vote for this?!?!

So I take you did not want it in the form of a loan? I think that the recall in california, the fact elections are coming close and the 500 Billion dollar debt for this year all made this sure to happen.

Mordoch · October 17, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
But don't blame Bush for this one...

Ah, but I pretty much can. The Bush adminstration was the one arguing before the war the Iraqi oil could pay for all the recognstruction, and now that Bush has made that bed he's going to have to lie in it. This doesn't mean I approve of this measure, but the Bush adminstration's statement are partially responsible for it occuring.

DinoDoc · October 17, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
So I take you did not want it in the form of a loan?

That depends on how open you wish to be about your desire for Iraqi oil.

Jack_www · October 17, 2003, 01:40

ALso keep in mind that US with the new UN resolution might be able to get other countries to pay the loan off for Iraq and maybe the US can get India and other countries to send peacekeepers to Iraq, thus reducing the money US has to spend to keep all those troops in Iraq, since they would be able to withdraw some of them.

Ted Striker · October 17, 2003, 01:41

This is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever

Jack_www · October 17, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That depends on how open you wish to be about your desire for Iraqi oil.

Well US would most likely buy most of it anyways. Maybe Iraq could give us a price break once they have full controll and US can forgive the debt.

Jack_www · October 17, 2003, 01:43

IT seems as if Bush is damned if etheir way the way you guys talk . . .

DinoDoc · October 17, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
Well US would most likely buy most of it anyways.

That isn't anywhere near the same as saddling them with loans to be paid from oil revenue.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 01:48

One could always argue that a more realistic assessment of the costs beforehand wouldn't lead to this sort of little problem.

DinoDoc · October 17, 2003, 01:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
One could always argue that a more realistic assessment of the costs beforehand wouldn't lead to this sort of little problem.

That horse has already left the barn and is far in the distance by now.

Asher · October 17, 2003, 01:50

But the jockey is an incompetent deaf-mute and the horse is running towards the slaughterhouse.

DinoDoc · October 17, 2003, 01:51

/me is curious how much we can torture this metaphor

Sprayber · October 17, 2003, 01:54

Stop beating a dead horse

Ted Striker · October 17, 2003, 01:56

wait wait be patient Sprayber. Let's not put the cart before the horse

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 02:00

Maybe we can hope that the Iraqis won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That horse has already left the barn and is far in the distance by now.

But it's a nice thing to remember the next time you get a horse.

There are still parts of the Islamic world we haven't invaded yet.

Another part of the equation is how much Bush & co. just seemed to assume until very recently that a Republican Congress would give him whatever he asked for.

Asher · October 17, 2003, 02:03

Like a pure-bred stallion, all things must die off sometime.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 02:03

And let's not be horse's asses about it, either!

Gatekeeper · October 17, 2003, 02:08

I believe that what Congress did was short-sighted. McCain made very *good* points, IMO.

The last time I checked, we never forced Europe to repay costs incurred to us while helping to rebuild that part of the world following the devastation of World War II. Why should Iraq or Afghanistan be any different? I don't care if Iraq is sitting on a trillion dollars in oil. One hundred to one odds are most of it is inaccessible, what with the current state of Iraqi oil equipment (and add to that the possibility that they don't have the technology to make it financially feasible to recover some of the oil).

Daschle voted wrong on this one.

Gatekeeper

Drake Tungsten · October 17, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Daschle voted wrong on this one.

Agreed. Hopefully he'll come to his senses and admit his mistake. I'd like to hear this new policy condemned, straight from the horse's mouth.

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 02:13

Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. That's why there was never going to be an easy out with Iraq, no matter how the post invasion situation develops.

With a slow economy, lots of people unemployed, relatively low confidence in the economy, and a record deficit, people aren't particularly in the mood to be generous with their tax money in support of Bush's policy.

At the same time, it doesn't do us much good if we screw around and create resentment in Iraq among the general population, because Bush put a lot of US prestige and influence on the line with his "model of democracy in the mideast" rhetoric.

Gatekeeper · October 17, 2003, 02:20

All very true, MtG. Thing is, now that we've gone in and driven Saddam Hussein, et al., from power in Iraq, she's our baby now. We have to bring them back up from the cellar, so to speak. I mean, that's how I feel. I was torn on the decision to go to war, but now that we're there, dammit, we have a *duty* to do what's right. In this case, that means helping Iraq out financially. And if we do the right thing, maybe other nations will, too (i.e. in terms of forgiving some or all of Iraq's debts to them).

Gatekeeper

Uncle Sparky · October 17, 2003, 02:27

Sounds like a real night-mare... Especially when you consider a possible Arabian response, old pal-o-mino !
... and how will this play in filly ?

(I'd keep talking, but I'm feeling a little horse right now...)

MichaeltheGreat · October 17, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
All very true, MtG. Thing is, now that we've gone in and driven Saddam Hussein, et al., from power in Iraq, she's our baby now. We have to bring them back up from the cellar, so to speak. I mean, that's how I feel. I was torn on the decision to go to war, but now that we're there, dammit, we have a *duty* to do what's right. In this case, that means helping Iraq out financially. And if we do the right thing, maybe other nations will, too (i.e. in terms of forgiving some or all of Iraq's debts to them).

Gatekeeper

We may have a duty, but it sure is a tough sell when the economy and the deficit are in the present condition. Some people would argue we have a higher duty. To ourselves.