The Senate's Iraq Loan Amendment

This is really great. Have a look at an excerpt from this Yahoo article:

"A bipartisan coalition of moderate senators, saying that American taxpayers should not bear the entire burden of rebuilding Iraq, prevailed against strong administration opposition in a 51-to-47 vote Thursday evening. Their amendment approved shortly after Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) failed to bring wavering senators in line through a round of phone calls would require half of the $20.3 billion in reconstruction aid to be a loan to Iraq, unless the administration persuaded other countries to forgive 90 percent of Iraq's existing debt.

<snip>

Sponsors of the amendment said that by linking the loan to a forgiveness of Iraq's foreign debt, they hoped to provide an incentive for the administration and other countries to reduce Iraq's burden of payments. The amendment essentially says that if other countries forgive Iraq's debt, the United States will forgive repayment of the $10 billion. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&e=2&u=/nyt/20031017/ts_nyt/defyingbushsenatevotestomakeiraqpaybackloan

This is basically the Senate waving a $10 billion carrot in front of the administration's face. The administration has been trying to convince other countries to forgive Iraq's $150 to 200 billion debt for a long time (because the less debt Iraq has, the cheaper US oil companies can buy oil from them). However, the administration hasn't wanted it bad enough that they would actually hand over any kind of power to the UN in order to get the debt forgiven. They still think that as long as they have the oil, they have the leverage. They'd rather hold onto control of it than give up control and take their chances competing with other countries over cheaper wholesale (is that the word?) prices on the open market.

However, this adds onto the money that Iraq owes its debtors, which will decrease the profit margin of Bush's buddies, AND, on the positive side, increase the incentive of the administration to STRIKE A DEAL WITH THE UN.

This is genius. It's a very subtle, but substantial, victory for the Democrats (and moderate Republicans- no "repukes" there).

Edited for terminology.

MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday in an afternoon edition of their e-mail alerts, the Daily MisLead.

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf

the finest champagne then!

Look, the pressure has been that Congress must pass this because they need the money to support the troops. And for reconstruction, but the hurry was because the troops need it now.

Jan Schakowsky said it well in her October 15, 2003 press release:

<snip>

“President Bush and the Republican leadership can no longer blackmail members of Congress into voting for an $87 billion blank check for the Bush Administration in the name of our brave soldiers. The non-partisan CRS report is proof that the Bush Administration has enough money to support our troops without yet another emergency funding bill from Congress,” Schakowsky declared.

In April, Congress voted for a $79 billion wartime emergency supplemental and just recently, for a nearly $400 billion Pentagon budget

“There is plenty of time to answer in detail all of the questions raised by Republican and Democrats alike about how the money for Iraq was spent and will be spent without compromising our obligations to the troops or the Iraqi people,” Schakowsky concluded.

more:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il09_schakowsky/pr10_15_2003iraq.html

drinking the finest champagne!

that you all agree with my analysis!
Or does my breath smell?
Does anyone care? :(