Respond to Bush Deceit About the $87 Billion by Eric Jaffa
July 22, 2004
Thus, it was no surprise that the $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan which Congress passed last year came in multiple versions. George W. Bush liked some versions of the $87 billion bill and threatened to veto other versions. Specifically, Bush said he would veto any version of the bill which made part of the reconstruction money a loan to Iraq. John Kerry liked some versions of the $87 billion bill and didn't vote for other versions. Kerry wanted to pay the cost by repealing tax cuts on the rich. Yet, Bush is saying that Kerry's vote against the version of the $87 billion bill which passed, which uses deficit spending we'll have to repay with interest, proves that Kerry doesn't believe in "supporting our troops."3 Most media is reporting Bush's disgusting attacks on Kerry's patriotism WITH NO MENTION of the fact that Bush threatened to veto the bill, depending on whether part of the money was a loan. Examples include The New York Times and Bloomberg News. Please email news organizations, television, radio, newspapers, etc., when you see them report a Republican attack over the $87 billion without putting it in context. Some points you can include such an email: 1) Bush said he would veto the $87 billion if part of the money were a loan.4 2) The bill was so unpopular that the US Senate voted for the final version by secret voice vote, November 3, 2003.5 3) The $87 billion included $20 billion for reconstruction, it wasn't all for "Funding for U.S. Troops" as a Bloomberg headline implies.1 4) A 53 page report-only 53 pages!-was submitted by the Bush Administration to Congress to explain where the money would go.6 No business would pay $87 billion to a partner based on a 53 page outline. Furthermore, if you were representing a business and a possible partner presented outrageous items in a proposed contract, you would go back to square one. The Bush request included spending "10,000 per person for a four-week management class"6 and $153 million that included money to buy garbage trucks for $50,000 apiece.7 While obviously outrageous items were dropped from the final bill (even House Republicans approved of dropping certain items), ideally the outrageous Bush items would have provoked Congress to refuse to pass the bill without thousands of pages of details in how the money would be spent and strict oversight procedures. Congress made no such demand, and the result is fraud and profiteering in Iraq.9 5) Congress was going to fund the troops, and there was plenty of time to get it right. Instead, the bill was rushed through. The excuse for rushing it was that Bush was going to ask other nations for money and therefore Congress had to pass this bill first (as if the US hadn't already spent a lot of money on Iraq. Actually, Congress had already appropriated $79 billion at the start of the Iraq War.) 6) The Bush Administration had claimed the occupation would cost little or no money because revenue from Iraqi oil would be used. As Senator Tom Daschle on the floor of the Senate floor on March 3, 2004:8 Administration officials stated that the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the American military presence. On March 27, (2003) eight days after the war had started, (Deputy Defense Secretary Paul) Wolfowitz was again pressed on a figure and indicated that whatever it turned out to be, Iraq's oil supplies would keep it low: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." When $1.7 billion for reconstruction turns into $20 billion for reconstruction, the proper response for Congress would have been to slow down. Instead, Congress rushed ahead to approve the $20 billion included in the $87 billion appropriation. 7. Democrats wanted to separate the military spending and the reconstruction spending, but Republicans refused. Rushing to spend the $87 billion all at once led to the profiteering and fraud going on in Iraq now. Large sums of our money shouldn't be spent by Congress without details in advance and strict oversight during implementation. We, the taxpayers, got neither regarding Iraq spending.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more on this issue, visit "The Daily Howler."2 Please, when you see a news article or tv news report which doesn't tell the full story about the $87 billion, email the newspaper or tv network. You can include one of the points above, and/or a link to this webpage.
References 1. "Edwards Defends Vote Against Funding for U.S. Troops in Iraq" by Jeff St.Onge, Bloomberg News, July 14, 2004. 2. "THERE HE WENT AGAIN! Bush is still playing the voters for fools. Michael Janofsky allows it:" by Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler, July 17, 2004. 3. "Bush Assails Castro and Human Trafficking" by Michael Janofsky, New York Times, July 17, 2004. 4. "White House Groans Over Loan," CBS News, October 21, 2003. 5. "Senate OKs $87.5 billion Iraq aid package: Approved on voice vote," AP via CNN, November 4, 2003. 6. "Democrats Dissect Bush Request For Iraqi Aid, Highlighting Cost" by Neil King, Jr., Wall St. Journal, September 24, 2003. 7. "House GOP cuts funds for Iraq ZIP codes, garbage trucks," AP via USA Today, October 7, 2003. 8. "Leader Daschle's Floor Statement on the Bush Administration's Post-War Planning for Iraq," March 3, 2004. 9. "The $87 Billion Money Pit: It’s the boldest reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan. And we cannot afford to fail. But where are the billions really going?" by Rod Nordland and Michael Hirsh, Newseek, December 10, 2003.
|