Could Bush be correct about the loan to Iraq?

[keopeli]

I can't help but note that I think that this is one occasion when Bush* is probably correct. We broke Iraq, basically, and we, well...

Um, ok, in a Utopian society, an idealic society, Iraq would be grateful for our rescuing them, no matter what the cause, and we would be correct in assuming that, once their oil supplies begin running again, we can count on their repaying the loan.

But, this is the real world. In the real world, Iraq will be a political representation of the people in power, just as we are now. In our present situation, I believe that we need to set an example by taking the high road. Congress should censor the pentagon or something and tell Iraq that we will not spare a dime in helping her to rebuild. This may, in fact, be our salvation in the eyes of the world, who do not regard us fondly right now.

You know, even if it is only for one term, our next president will need to do a LOT of fixing on all fronts. This includes fixing international affairs in addition to our economy. It's not going to be easy. I know that this is just politics, but we need to elect a fixer, not just someone with good ideas. We need to find consensus. We are going to have to fix our own fiscal problems, and that starts with elections. We need to fix our eye on the prize, and the target is fiscal responsibility. Can we afford Iraq? Yes. Can we improve our economy? Yes. Can we fix our rediculous taxation system that has everyone up in arms? ...we can start. Can we fix health care, medicare, social security for heavens sake?!? Yes we can! But we cannot do it with crooked good guys and a purchased Congress. Our only expression by and large is the vote. For as long as I can remember, that vote has reflected the economy. Even the 2000 debaucle. It is time to be declamatory about reality when it comes to elections. The reality is that, it was always the economy, stupid! 10B before the last recession would have been a drop in the bucket. Iraq is not the cause of the problem, no matter what her intrensic wealth. I believe that Iraqis are good people. They may just want to pay us back someday. In spite of the fact that I protested the handling of this war, that is simply the reality. And it may happen if we find common ground. A call to principles at this point is certainly affordable in the big picture, and might even lead the right voice into the appropriate placement of our current ire, which is on the thoughtless political criminal in the Administration who has leaked information, thereby polluting our intelligence on, of all things, WMDs. And we have absolutely no checks and balances with which to do anything.

California will be fine. I wish Shwrzngr all the best in fixing things over there. He has a Democratic legislature to do it with, and I have a lot of friends in California who I wish the best for.

As for me, I'm looking to stop the bleeding from 9/11. To speak euphomistically, our enemies shot us while a lion was at the gate. Are we at war? Yes. Has the enemy, whoever that may be, been caught? No. Will that have to happen? Yes. How do we do that? It starts in 2004, and it starts with the economy.

[JackSwift]

1. With a loan, accounting will be a lot closer

the Junta just wants to steal this money. Let's stop giving money to the BFEE with the excuse that it is for humanitarian purposes. This filth has no humanity.

[AP]

2. I think it would make sense that the US pay for the damage it caused

but when we go beyond that, to build infrastructure in Iraq, Iraq should invest in that themsleves and reap the full benefits of their investment.

I think the question thought is more like, who's going to pay for the infranstructure investment which makes Bechtel and Haliburton rich.

Any money that's essentially an capital investment for their benefit should be a loan to them, paid back out of whatever profits they make. But the fucked up think about that is that they shouldn't be making a profit off Iraq. And the American taxpayer DEFINITELY shouldn't be making capital investments the benfits of which accure solely to Bechtel and Haliburton.

[NJCher]

3. naive

JackSwift is right: there is not a humanitarian bone in anyone in that administration. The reason they want it to be grants instead of loans is because it's easier to steal from the U.S. taxpayer than it is to finagle with the politics of stealing Iraqi $$.


Cher

[Guaranteed]

5. Right, this is not an ethical issue. It's economics.

The issue is that if Iraq has to pay back the money, that means they will have to charge more money for the oil that Bush's buddies plan to buy from them at super-low, out-the-door prices.
The concept that the Bush administration is consistently working with is this: whereever one can pay for something with taxpayer money to either directly or indirectly lower costs for their business buddies, it should be done. It also helps if the taxpayer's money is going directly TO Bush's buddies, like Halliburton. It's win-win, and it's bankrupting our federal government. They love it.

[Guaranteed]

9. Another example I just thought of...

The Bush/Arnold/Enron thing. Instead of Bush's business buddies actually paying back the money that they stole from California, Bush is going to use taxpayer money (or NOT use it) to bail the state out of their financial crisis. And he gets to look like a hero, too (if he actually does it).
See? Win-win.
Unbelievable.

[keopeli]

19. I thought of this a few weeks ago, and I agree

Bush* and Kenny Boy have been trying to escape the wrath of California since they robbed the state blind in front of our eyes. He will use Schwrzngr to do just that if he can. The question is, will Arnold let them get away with it. He will definitely accept federal money to help the state, and that will be popular, no doubt. BUT, Californians will be watching to see if Arnold is a Bush* activist, or if he is a California activist. It will be obvious by this time next year. Here, we must hope that the Kennedy's will have Arnold's ear. Because, if he does not jump on the Bush bandwagon in 2004, Arnold will be in for a long career.

[Booberdawg]

4. Agree with JackSwift, AP, and NJCher, and

also disagree with your suggestion that "California will be just fine". He plans to bypass the Democratic legislature and govern by ballot initiative, as a matter of fact, and thereby get things through by using an uninformed public. He's got an obviously biased media on his side already.

I don't have any idea what your last paragraph means. Could you elaborate?

[onebigbadwulf]

6. theory

Bush's extremely odd sense of 'generosity' claiming that none of the package should include loans makes me think there are alternate motives at stake. Most likely, oil related. My theory is that his big business oil buddies don't like the idea of loans for some reason.

[Guaranteed]

7. See my post above. n/t

[trof]

8. Why not a loan?

When we bought our first house, I borrowed most of the $5,000 down payment from my granny. We made the monthly payments to her, but it was a struggle. We still owed her around $2500 when we were together one Christmas. She said "Honey I'm so proud you have your first house and I know you're having a hard time making ends meet what with the new baby and all. I don't need this money and you do." She handed me an Christmas card that just said "Merry Christmas, paid in full".

If it turns out Iraq really can't repay, THEN we can forgive it & make it a grant.
If it starts out as a straight gift, then there's no way we can change our minds later.
This ain't rocket science.

[sangh0]

11. Another vote for "naive"

and for wondering when liberals will finally "get it" about Bush* and how he exploits reasonable sounding arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with his motives.

[Q]

10. What's this 'we' shit?

- Bush* broke Iraq. He lied to rush this nation to war...used shock and awe for maximum damage...and now wants the American people to make his friends and business associates even richer.

- The war is a fraud. It's time we let Bush* know that we know.

[quaker bill]

12. Grants are the only moral course

Sorry guys, as much as I hate to agree with Bush* on anything, on this one thing I have to give him a passing grade. Although, I am sure, as many of you are I expect, that he is doing it for the wrong reasons.

We went to war on a lie. We started dropping 2000 pound bombs on a city filled with 4 million civilians without "reading the entire report". We preempted a non-existent threat.

We blew up their homes and their kids based on a lie. We are not even done blowing them up yet. Now, they are supposed to pay to put their country back together? Why don't we just bill them for the bombs as well?

We need to get the f*** out of Iraq. We need to apologise and pay reparations (through the nose if necessary). And most importantly, as an act of true contrition to the entire planet, impeach, convict, and remove from office the entire batch of bozo's that got us here in the first place.

Sorry guys, just my morning rant.

[Guaranteed]

13. I know what you mean, but

don't you see how they planned this whole thing out? They saw ALL of this coming. They knew there was going to have to be a ton of money exchanging hands, and they knew that reasonable people would think that we would grant Iraq the money. These guys are making HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS!!! They haven't even started really making money off of the oil yet!
THIS IS WHY THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP AND SAID "NO" THE VERY SECOND BUSH STARTED TALKING ABOUT INVADING IRAQ.
Man I'm sorry I'm acting like a jerk but I am SO FUCKING ANGRY at our leadership. Dean needs to use this as ammunition to knock Kerry, Gep, Lieberman on their asses.

HOWARD DEAN! 2004!

[RichM]

14. Your remarks about California are ridiculous. The rest is even worse.

Your "argument" that California will be fine is apparently that:
1) you wish Schwarzenegger the best in "fixing things"
2) you have a lot of friends in Calif that you "wish the best" for, &
3) Schwarzenegger has a Democratic legislature to work with.

Is it necessary to point out that what you personally wish has nothing whatever to do with whether California will be fine?

Only #3 even qualifies as a serious thought, and it too, is completely without foundation. Even when Davis was governor, with the same legislature, California was a fiscal mess, & the Republican minority was able to veto anything they wanted. How is having Arnold as governor going to make that better?

And did you seriously say that in an ideal world, "Iraq would be grateful for our rescuing them"? ROTFLMAO. Suggestion: try to think a little more before you start typing.

[Guaranteed]

15. This is important....KICK.

[keopeli]

16. Following up...

Some wonderful thoughts in your responses...thank you!

I did not take the time to elaborate on every point in my short message. Let me do that on a couple of issues.

Re: California - I am not claiming to be very familiar with the situation in California, though I lived there for 7 years. My point is that we need to focus on national issues rather than California. Republicans are using CA as a distraction from their own misdeeds. Let us focus on the CIA leak instead. I wish CA the best, and I'm sure they will be fine...really. Californians have a lot of work to do, just as we do in Washington state. Schwrzngr is a different Repub than Bush*, period. I know the Bush thinking well. I've worshipped at his church, I've dined with his friends. I also know CA Repubs well, being in their midst through the 80s and 90s. They are different than Bush*. Arnold was elected because he is not Gray Davis. He was in the right place at the right time. I believe that the Republican frontrunners in the next 20 years will look much more like Arnold than Bush*. My friends live there, I lived there, and I wish them well. Don't read anything into that, please.

Re: Iraq loan v. grant - Big picture, everyone. In the big picture, I want a new president in 2004, and I want that person to repair international relations and Iraq. That person may have the opportunity to forgive this 'loan' which would be good PR. But, we must be clear from the beginning what we believe and let the Repubs be on the wrong side of the issue. The ethical issue here is simple. It doesn't matter how rich Iraq is. In fact, that's part of the reason we went in there in the first place (I believe). We went in for WMD and that was wrong. We now are trying to look humanitarian, and that is right...that is RIGHT. Do we want Bush* to get credit for being a humanitarian? Not really. And I don't believe he will be seen that way unless he has to fight to be a humanitarian...fight against the Democrats. Then people will think he fights to be a humanitarian. Not everyone, but swing voters might.

I believe this was all planned ahead of time by Bush* et al. They know exactly what they are doing.

Finally, I believe that the comment about us paying to rebuild damages while they pay for their infrastructure to be valid. But Bush* will never be that specific. He will lump it all together. He hates details. If we can make that point salient and clear, then it might work. But we need to start from the humble position that we are willing to pay for the occupation. We own Iraq right now. It's our responsibility. If we are going to stay and fix it (which is what we are doing), then we should pay to do that.

Thanks for great thoughts and discussion! Keo

[slor]

17. If bush thinks...

it is best, I'm going to suspect it on its' face.

[keopeli]

18. Bush wanted the money to be a loan in the beginning, but now

he wants it to be a grant. Bush just wants the money for his buddies, any way he can get it. What I'm talking about is what the correct policy is for money to Iraq.

[shanti]

20. wtf?

"California will be fine. I wish Shwrzngr all the best in fixing things over there. He has a Democratic legislature to do it with, and I have a lot of friends in California who I wish the best for."

what the heck does this mean, california will be fine? california is NOT fine! i know, i live here! :grr:

[keopeli]

21. Friend, I didn't say CA IS fine, I said it WILL BE.

Ca WILL BE fine, and I mean that. Currently, the situation is bad and needs everyone's attention. And it won't be fixed in the short term. I would never have voted for Arnold, had I still lived there, although most of my old friends did. But, Arnold is not Bush*.

Please, everyone, I'm not saying CA IS FINE. I'm saying it will be. If you read my original, you'll see that my next statement is about my interest being focused on 9/11, the war, and the economy. The media frenzy over Issa's recall and the fallout has been fuel for the Repub fire. Arnold is a GREAT distraction for Rove to use at will. We, all Americans, need to refrain from being distracted by Arnold in the media. The exception is for Californians, who must remain focused on their predicament. But nationally, our priority is to uncover the sinister and selfish behaviors of the Bush* Rove-mobile.

Understand? I'm not surprised your upset and even mad as hell. You should be! As am I! But our anger must not dictate our actions.