Rumsfield's pathetic excuse for opposing LOANS to Iraq:

[AP]

Did anyone hear this on NPR today? Apparently a Republican congressman from FL proposed that the US should not give $87 billion outright to rebuild Iraq. This congressman wants to give the money in the form of a loan, which will be secured by and paid off with oil profits.

He pointed out that, if we didn't do this, we're basically going into debt and paying interest on the debt to rebuild Iraq since the US is in debt right now.

Rumsfield's respons was that we couldn't do that because it looks bad to invade a country and then make the country pay to be rebuilt.

Uh, Dick, as far as the US looking bad, that horse is way out of the barn. Nothing that the US does is going to make this invasion look good.

It's so obvious that Rumsfield doesn't want to do this because this was supposed to be free money for Haliburton. They don't want to have their oil profits cut into by having it paying back a loan with interest.

[ixion]

1. the neocons just won't be happy until they bankrupt 'Murika

at our expense, the Bush Buddies get rich, and we pay for it. :argh:

[pw]

2. It does look bad to make a country pay for being rebuilt

Especially when pretty much all the money is going to US companies.

How would you feel if someone busted into your house, broke all your possessions, and then demanded that you take out a second mortgage to pay for the repairs and replacements, buying only from stores and contractors selected by them?

This reconstruction is already immensely profitable for US-based companies (if not for US citizens as a whole) so why should Iraqi citizens, who have just survived (well, most of them) an invasion be the ones left holding the bag?

[AP]

7. It's better than having it look like you're invading a country to shift...

massive profits to private corporations.

Like I said, the invasion part was the bad thing. Making them pay to be rebuilt isn't going to make it look any worse.

[revcarol]

3. Loans are just and excuse to OWN THE COUNTRY FOREVER.

Talk about colonialism!!

[AP]

8. Not defending loans, but, in theory, if Iraq is getting money to build up

an infrastructure that will make the nation wealthier, who SHOULD pay for that? America?

So, sure, the US should foot the bill for what we destroyed, but anything over and above that that makes Iraq wealthier, why not loans?

But that avoids the real issue. We invaded Iraq so that we could justify giving Haliburton millions of dollars in taxpayer money so they could make capital investiments which didn't have to be paid back. And, Halliburton wants the profits from those capital investments (oil money) to be undburdened by loan repayments.

At the very least, if Halliburton stands to make millions of dollars from oil, Halliburton should pay back the US treasury.

So, it isn't colonialism to make Halliburon pay back the money.

It is colonialism for Halliburton to be there in the first place. If we don't have the political will to get Halliburton out of there, we should at least have the political will to make sure that any money they get which goes to capital investments which end up making them money, should be in the form of a loan.

If there were a precenedint that they had to pay back the money, it might discourage Haliburton from having the US taxpayers foot the bill for the next war they're considering. (Let Haliburton raise their own fucking army.)

[Resistance Is Futile]

12. Footing the bill for what was destroyed

If you look into the matter, you'll find that America has, in one way or other, destroyed everything in Iraq. Anything not destroyed by the Bush family's respective power-grab wars was destroyed by the sanctions. America broke Iraq and it is Amercias's responsibility alone--not the responsibility of future generations of Iraqis or the UN--to fix it.

[AP]

13. But if the US is overpaying Haliburton to rebuild it and then Haliburton

keeps the profits created from whatever it is they've built, you don't think it's a good idea to make Haliburton to pay back the US treasury out of their profits?

[ComerPerro]

15. The problem is, they won't

They will pay out of the treasury of the new government. Haliburton won't lose any profits over this.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. I don't agree. This may be the most sane thing Rumsfeld has ever said.

The fact is, the US committed a WAR CRIME by invading Iraq, and as such should be liable for reparations. This money can be considered to be partial reparations for that crime, although I doubt the US could EVER pay the kind of money that TRUE reparations would involve.

So the question is, why is Rumsfeld suddenly acting sane? Why do they care how it looks? Simple: The US, and more importantly Bush NEEDS to get the rest of the world on side because they NEED help to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. If the US refused to pay its share, why would ANY other nation pay?

Bush needs this because Iraq has become a lead weight around his shoulders, and the room is filling fast with water. If he can't get rid of the weight (or lighten it a bit) before the election he is a goner, and he knows it. So does the rest of the world.

I would never have believed a US President would be so desperate for foreign help, but with this pack of idiots in the White House anything is possible.

I mean, did you EVER expect a REPUBLICAN President to go begging for foreign help? Well, he is doing it, although he is trying to disguise it from his base because if they figure it out, he is just as surely gone.

[AP]

9. It's Haliburton who should be paying back loans, not Iraqis.

The pay back should come from the people who are getting the money to build the shit which is going to make them money.

[HFishbine]

5. Say Whaaaaa?!?!?!

I agree with Rummy? Yep. It looks that way.

We'll bomb you to oblivion and then lend you the money to pay American companies to come in and fix things. Uh-uh.

[im4edwards]

6. while the "looking bad" ship has already sailed I can see his point

on the other hand, Kuwait paid us to liberate them.

[Unknown Known]

10. The Dems are dragging this out so it gets more exposure

I watched Byrd give it to Bremer last week. Bremer thought he could just appear once and they'd cough up the money. Byrd was demanding that he come back because there were too many questions. Bremer was making all kinds of excusing.

This is funny because BushCo didn't want much light on where the $87 billion is going and now it's being broken down piece by piece in front of 'Muricans and the public is getting PISSED!

Letters from constituents must be pouring in now because even some of the die-hard repukes (like Arlen "magic bullet" Spector) are trying to reconstruct this payment. HeHe

I would imagine unemployment in Pennsylvania right now is pretty high - heh Arlen?

:mad:

[Padraig18]

11. We broke it, we bought it

[ComerPerro]

14. I don't approve of the idea of a "loan"

I think it is extortion. Its like paying mobsters for protection. And its criminal.

However, I don't approve of the administration just spending whatever the hell it wants of taxpayer money either.

The thing that really has me confused is: Where the f**k is the outrage?

Just wait until next spring, when Bush cuts taxes YET AGAIN!!!!