* leopold's interview with ian masters is up
* ap:
"The son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is widely seen as his father's heir-apparent, met secretly last week with top White House officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney (and Hadley and Condoleezza Rice)... Egypt did not report Gamal Mubarak's trip to Washington... Gamal Mubarak's last visit to the White House was shortly before the United States launched its 2003 war on Iraq"iran war cabinet? (thnx damien)
* flashback: one of the weirdest decisions the egadministration ever made was when it took a stand and demanded that the $87billion to invade iraq was to be a gift to the iraqi people, and there was no way that any part of it would be in the form of a loan. i've never been able to work that one out...
----------
update: apparently some people were unaware of the 'loan' story. here's a brief reminder
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on a vote in the House this afternoon on a Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the Supplemental spending request. The motion contains a loan provision for reconstruction of Iraq... Despite White House pressure, the motion passed the House by a vote of 277 to 139, with 84 Republicans joining 192 Democrats and one Independent in voting for the measure.the WH threatened to VETO the bill despite majorities in both houses wanting to carve out a part of the funding to be paid out of oil revenues. (i'm not arguing that the president was wrong, heck, the americans should be paying reparations for decades to come - but it was just a really weird thing for them to dig their heels in on this issue)
"A strong majority of the House of Representatives has sent the President a clear message -- we want to do more for the troops serving in Iraq at less cost to American taxpayers.
"The three provisions in the Democratic motion to instruct were similar to ones approved by the Senate last week, despite lobbying by the Administration against them. Yet the President’s response to a clear majority of both the House and the Senate is to continue to dig in his heels and threaten to veto the bill.
12 comments:
* i've just noticed that the wongers are referring to PreznitBlinky as "Jorge" - is this new? is it derogatory? where did it come from?
In their view, a less than flattering way to refer to El Presidente in the wake of his (again, in their view) latino-friendly, spineless approach to securing the border, belying their usual venomous, xenophobic racist tendencies.
First I saw of it was the Monday before the speech, can't remember where. While there are some well-written, respectful conservative blogs, this wasn't one of them.
* flashback: one of the weirdest decisions the egadministration ever made was when it took a stand and demanded that the $87billion to invade iraq was to be a gift to the iraqi people, and there was no way that any part of it would be in the form of a loan. i've never been able to work that one out...
When exactly was that?
eg this from oct 03
""I think that there is a real possibility that the $22 billion now requested by the administration [for reconstruction] does not have the support in the Senate sufficient to pass," Daschle told reporters on Sept. 23.
But congressional efforts to separate out the requested reconstruction funds, or to make them a loan, ran into a wall of resistance from the administration. When Bremer testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sept. 24, he made the case that the package must be kept intact. He even suggested that if this "urgent" request were not approved, the troops could suffer.
"No one part of this $87 billion supplemental is dispensable, and no part is more important than the others," he said. "This is a carefully considered, integrated request. This request is urgent. The urgency of military operations is self-evident. The funds for nonmilitary action in Iraq are equally urgent. Unless this supplemental passes quickly, Iraqis face an indefinite period with blackouts eight hours a day. The link to the safety of our troops is indirect but no less real."
Such words put a heavy onus on Congress. The Senate began debating the Iraq supplemental spending bill on Oct. 1, although Democrats were successful in delaying a final vote until after the chamber returns on Oct. 14 from a weeklong recess. In the House, the Appropriations Committee is expected to mark up its version of the legislation during the week of Oct. 6. In the end, some experts predict Congress will pony up the money, even if partly as a loan, given the pressure not to undermine the military in Iraq and the sway that the commander-in-chief holds."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/100303nj1.htm
re jorge - right - so it's just popped up then. is it just foreign-sounding? it's a euro name right? do euros love mexicans? i dont really get it (not for the first time). is it just a withusoragainstus thing?
i've also posted a better descriptor of the loan-fight in an update to the post. there was a really weird battle going on at the time where the WH seemed desperate to give the iraqis more money - for no apparent reason
I might be missing something here, but who's handing the money out? What makes anyone think it will get to the Iraqis anyway?
well thats why it was kinda weird. blinky dug his heels in and spent some of his 'political capital' so that his friends could steal from the americans, rather than from the iraqis. (this is back in 03 mind you)
re "who's handing the money out?" i'll asume that you are being serious. the usg was trying to raise $87bn to pay for stuff in iraq. most repugs and dems figured that given that the war was to help the iraqi people (sic), and given that iraq is oil-rich, then rather than treat the 87bn as a pure cost, they were trying to shift the cost back to the iraqis, and off the am-taxpayer - so they were trying to treat it as part cost, and part as a loan to the iraqis (ie the usg would spend the $, and at some point the iraqis would pay some of it back).
for some reason or other, blinky thought this was completely unacceptable and threatened to veto - even when people from his own party were really grumpy about it. i could never work out why he thought it was so important.
(this issue has had me confused for three years - and every now and again i throw up the question to see if anyone has come up with an answer)
Yeah, I followed all that. I guess my point was that in practical terms the money had to be distributed for various projects in Iraq - and would ultimately find its way into the pockets of the US reconstruction companies. I don't know who was in charge of that spending there, Bremer, whoever, but I would imagine that it would possible to ship a lot of that money in a fairly unaccountable fashion to whoever you wanted to. Stipulating the money as a gift rather than a loan would ensure a lower level of accountability on its expenditure and hence more opprtunity for theft. Sounds par for the course for Bush (I'm just guessing here, I haven't really followed this topic in detail)...
"Stipulating the money as a gift rather than a loan would ensure a lower level of accountability"
didnt they steal $8-9bn from iraq's oil-for-food fund anyway/as well? i think the cpa was in charge of *all* the 'accounts'
you might be right - itd be kinda funny that its easier to steal directly from americans than from foriegners in a warzone.
From your fp update(tks):
the WH threatened to VETO the bill despite majorities in both houses wanting to carve out a part of the funding to be paid out of oil revenues.
If Palast was right, then the WH (at least the big oil contingent) may have had it in mind that Iraq's oil revenues wouldn't be available because oil production would have been severly limited, if not neutralized. Thus, any concern (or mention) of it had to be removed from the dialogue.
Re: Jorge. This is a Spanish variation of "George" (pronounced 'HOR-hay') and a fairly common name in Spanish speaking countries, including Mexico. In this use, they identify Dubya with Latino illegals they see him as soft on.
thnx re Jorge - that makes sense now.
"Thus, any concern (or mention) of it had to be removed from the dialogue."
hmmm - that seems a bit tenuous - they could have just written the loan such that the payments started in 2009 or something, subject to iraq's capacity to pay. i.e the egadmin spent some short-term capital for a problem they could have pushed way into the future...
No way, Jorje.
Post a Comment