← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 10021 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-09-24
2003-09-24 21:07 | User Profile
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Can Afford $87 Billion for Iraq By KEN GUGGENHEIM, AP
WASHINGTON (Sept. 24) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress Wednesday that President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan was an affordable and needed investment in international security.
But a top Democrat questioned whether the American people have ever blessed the U.S.-led Iraqi reconstruction effort now under way.
''Is $87 billion a great deal of money?'' Rumsfeld said before the Senate Appropriations Committee. ''Yes. But can our country afford it? The answer is also yes. Because it is necessary for the security of our nation and the stability of the world.''
Rumsfeld cited progress in reopening Iraqi schools and hospitals and training a new Iraqi army.
Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, the Joint Chiefs chairman, and Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, were appearing before the committee as the Bush administration continued its intensive push for approval of the $87 billion request.
At the same time, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, was making his third Capitol Hill appearance in three days, appearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. He was also going before the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday afternoon and meeting with two other panels on Thursday.
Vice President Dick Cheney also met in a closed-door session with House Republican members. Lawmakers, said Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, gave Cheney a warm reception but also gave ''notice to the vice president that we intend in the appropriations process to ask some tough questions.''
Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., head of the Republican Policy Committee, said Cheney made clear that no U.S. money will be used to repay Saddam Hussein's debts to other countries.
Bremer and Rumsfeld's appearances at hearings come at a time when partisan fighting has increased over Iraq.
In a bristling exchange, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., challenged Rumsfeld on the $20.3 billion part of Bush's plan that would go toward rebuilding Iraq and establishing a democratic government.
''Secretary Rumsfeld, where is the mandate from the American people to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq?'' Byrd said. ''When did the American people give their assent?''
Rumsfeld cited the resolution Congress approved allowing force against Iraq and defended rebuilding as being in U.S. interests.
''Once having gone in, the last thing we need to do is turn over that country to another dictator like Saddam Hussein,'' he said.
Underlining the partisan tensions over Iraq, when Byrd continued asking questions, committee chairman Ted Stevens, R-Ala., cut him off, saying Byrd had already exceeded his allotted time by seven minutes.
''Seven minutes,'' Byrd said. ''Think of that, on an $87 billion request.''
Bremer was appearing before a panel whose leaders had been urging the administration since before the war to lay out its strategy for rebuilding Iraq. Both Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., have criticized the administration for failing to acknowledge the long-term costs and commitments involved.
The Foreign Relations hearing specifically addressed what a five-year plan for Iraq would entail. Lugar said he has advocated a five-year plan ''not because I believe the United States must stay in Iraq for exactly that length of time, but because such a plan would demonstrate commitment, promote realistic budgeting, and help prevent policy drift.''
He said a plan is needed to build confidence among Iraqis.
''Many Iraqis have had a difficult time understanding how the most powerful nation in the world could defeat their armed forces in three weeks and still have trouble getting the lights turned on,'' Lugar said.
Biden said Bush's foreign policy ''so poisoned the well'' before the war by failing to build a broad international coalition, that next month's international donors conference is unlikely to generate more than $2 billion or $3 billion in support.
''It's a terrible indictment, in my view, of our foreign policy and a harsh example of the price of unilateralism,'' he said.
The contentious mood in Congress is a striking change from last year. Bush was soaring in opinion polls then, and, with midterm elections approaching, Democrats were wary about being seen as undermining him on national security issues so soon after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Opinion polls now show rising doubts about Bush's Iraq policies. Lawmakers do not face re-election this year. And criticizing the aftermath of a war isn't as risky as criticizing the war itself.
With the $87 billion request coming on top of a $79 billion package approved in April, Democrats argue that Bush woefully underestimated the costs of the war, the difficulty of rebuilding Iraq and the amount of international help available.
But many Democrats acknowledge that the $87 billion request likely will be approved. They say they can't deny the money that the Pentagon says is needed for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday he doubts most senators support the $20.3 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. But he said it is not clear whether that money may be considered separately. Republicans, who control both Houses, adamantly oppose splitting the bill.
09/24/03 12:02EDT
2003-09-24 21:20 | User Profile
But can we afford $87 billion to rebuild our nation's inner cities? To uplift our nation's inner-city youth? To educate, clothe, house and feed those America casts aside? To provide opportunity for... oh, wait. Wrong website.
2003-09-25 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But can we afford $87 billion to rebuild our nation's inner cities? To uplift our nation's inner-city youth? To educate, clothe, house and feed those America casts aside? To provide opportunity for... oh, wait. Wrong website.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the inner cities were made into ghetto's by the residents of said inner cities. It's not like Caucasians went in and turned them into dumps for the hell of it. One of the things that constantly amazes me is how poor folks in certain areas maintain their property. Some are neat, clean, sanitary. They may not have much, but they are proud people. These people are largely rural. The inner cities are sh*theaps because the rot comes within the residents who live there. They just don't care. This problem won't get fixed by throwing money at it. They'll just trash it again, no matter how many trees you plant, buildings you paint, stupid after-hours basketball sessions you create or how many condoms or clean needles you give away. I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just rebutting throwing away 87 billion on a lost cause.
We don't need to be in Iraq. We should have ended it 12 years ago. Or better yet, just stayed out of that, too, and let the rags fight it out amongst themselves. England and France threw down two or three times and we stayed out of it.. we even traded with both sides until Britain started pirating our ships, kidnapping our sailors. We threatened Canada and they backed off. Screw the middle east. Our responsibility ends 15 miles off our nations coast. They cross that line and I'll be happy to pick up a rifle again. If they don't, I'm just as happy living my life.
Ausonius :starwars:
2003-09-25 03:50 | User Profile
Il Ragno,
$.87 cent can of corn is about the way the neo-cons view it. From the neo-con media I've really heard some asinine explainations about this request. One of the funniest is where the comparision is made between the cost of WW II and this abomination. The logic, for lack of a better word, goes like this. WW II cost the U.S. 135% of it G.D.P. This war, on the other hand cost us "only" 2% of the G.D.P. and it is implied that this is a bargan. (yes, for the Jews and the plutocrats it was, everyone else gets stuck with the tab) Apples and oranges, I say. To compare the War for Jews and Oil with the Second World War is just plain ridiculous. I won't even go into whether this was necessary or constitutional, for we know the answer to that.
The neo-cons are so hell bent to try to convince the lemmings that the Iraqis with their obsolete equipment and demoralized army are the equivalent of the Germans, one of the finest in history, is downright insulting to those who fought in the European theater of operations. They can try to dress this any way they want, but you can't take :dung: and turn it into sourcream.
2003-09-28 22:10 | User Profile
ll ragno: Did you miss the Rumsfeld quotation about that $87 Billion being an 'exit strategy'?
[url]http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1059480137901[/url] RUMSFELD DEFENDS $87BN WAR REQUEST 'EXIT STRATEGY' by Guy Dinmore and Deborah McGregor
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary, last night defended the Bush administration's request to Congress for $87bn to spend on Iraq and Afghanistan, saying the US would not get involved in nation building and that the funds represented an "exit strategy" for American troops.
Sounds to me like ransom...a payoff for the return of our troops.
Maybe we should look at this way, after all and get out before the Bush Wars break our bank(s).
I pity the next president who's going to have to clean up after this crew...and I voted for Bush...ohmigod!
2003-09-28 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I pity the next president who's going to have to clean up after this crew...and I voted for Bush...ohmigod![/QUOTE]
A lot of us did, Arjurg.....no shortage of red faces around [I]this [/I] joint, that's for sure!