This post by Matt Stinson is so important I am copying the whole thing and pasting it here, because he is absolutely right, and this is so damn infuriating everyone should be outraged:
It’s time for a new caucus in the Senate and the House: Democrats and Republicans United on Behalf of Saddling the Iraqi People with Crippling Debt. Why? Here’s why:
Defying weeks of intense White House lobbying, a narrowly divided Senate voted last night to convert half of President Bush’s $20.3 billion Iraq rebuilding plan into a loan that would be forgiven if other donor nations write off the debt incurred by the ousted government of Saddam Hussein.
The 51 to 47 vote came an hour after the Republican-controlled House defeated a similar loan amendment, 226 to 200, setting up potentially difficult House-Senate negotiations next week as lawmakers rush to conclude a final spending plan for Iraq before an international donors conference next Thursday in Madrid.
This reckless and unilateral move — what other country in the world supports this decision, hmm? — by the Senate will doubtless alienate our allies. It also stands to anger the Iraqis themselves, who already must toil under the burden of Saddam’s debts to Russia, France, and other countries. Democrats who are likely to dance with glee after the passage of this amendment are dancing on the backs of Iraqi people. But Democrats aren’t the only villains of this piece. Lest I forget to mention it, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a Republican co-sponsor of the loan amendment, is an ass for waxing populist with this quote about the legislation:
“I don’t want to give in to a great lie. You can’t buy your way out of this problem. . . . You can’t take $10 billion of taxpayer money, [while] people are losing their jobs, to buy your way out of a great lie. It would be terrible if the people of this country who have sacrificed so much wound up not getting a dime back.”
By “great lie,” Sen. Graham means the charge by the left that the war was “all about the oil.” How much do you want to bet, however, that the left will seize upon this loan as evidence that the US really is out to rape Iraq? (Wouldn’t the left do that, regardless? –ed. Yes, but that’s besides the point.) Thank you, Lindsey, for making us look like tools.
Stepping away from the name-calling, two questions come to mind in the wake of this amendment. First, where were all the debt relief lobbyists and activists while this amendment was being discussed? What, is third-world debt not third-world debt when it’s Iraqi debt? Second, if this amendment doesn’t get defeated in conference, will other countries refuse to give money to Iraq unless they, too, can get loans? Haven’t 43 Democrats and 8 Republicans effectively crippled international aid for Iraq by going this route?
Postscript: When the Iraqi government emerges and democracy is consolidated, I’m all for negotiations with the government to see if they’ll be willing to pay the US back for our investment in Iraq’s future. But I am morally opposed to forcing someone to choose between debt and anarchy, especially when we, by invading Iraq, were responsible for creating the conditions that made the anarchy possible.
Think of what all the America haters (both the ones overseas and within our borders) are going to say about this- they are going to claim this is nothing more than a racket, we occupy a country, destroy it, rebuild it, and charge them for the construction. Cute deal. Here is what Matt left out of his post:
Bush had sternly warned Congress yesterday not to convert any part of his rebuilding plan into a loan. “The administration strongly opposes efforts to convert any portion of this assistance to a loan mechanism,” the White House said in a statement. “Doing so would slow efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raise questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impair our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional unsustainable debt.”
That argument won the day in the House, although 18 Republicans voted for a Democratic amendment to turn half of the reconstruction aid into a loan. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) used a parliamentary tactic to prevent a GOP loan amendment from reaching a vote, then he appealed to his colleagues’ patriotism.
“We will pay any price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty,” DeLay told lawmakers. “And after the shock and awe of major combat, the price and burden of human hope shifted from the battlefield to the town hall and the town market. And that hope cannot come in the form of a promissory note.”
Bush, the dummy, and DeLay, the evil Nazi, making more sense than any of the asshats that voted to saddle a nation that does not even really exist with 10 billion in debt. Jackasses. I wish I could express how angry this makes me, and I can guarantee you that Matt Stinson is angrier. BTW- If you thought Senatorial grandstanding was limited to the camera, check out the number of amendments offered to this bill.
And if you guys aren’t ready Matt’s Fearful Symmetry every day, you are missing out.
*** Update ***
Max SPEAKS, and people should listen:
Bush is right and the Senate is wrong on the Iraqi aid package. I’m not a fan of the occupation, but if the Dems want to do it right because we broke it/we bought it, imposing further debt on the country is not the way to go. They’ve got a ton already.
The Democratic line that aid to Iraq should be matched by more domestic spending is idiotic, though it seems to make great politics. If domestic spending is worthwhile — a case the Dems seem to have trouble making — then how much we give to Iraq is irrelevant. The converse is true as well.
The other stupid idea in this stew is to dedicate Iraqi oil revenues, whenever those babies start coming in, to an Alaska-style permanent fund that would pay out the proceeds in cash to Iraqi individuals. If there is anything that Iraq needs now, it is the reconstruction of its infrastructure and public services.
The way things are going, there won’t be any of those revenues because the nation’s debt — including reparations to the vile Kuwaiti regime — will have first claim. By rights, the Iraqi people to whom our leaders are so devoted ought not to pay for their country’s reconstruction, nor ought they to surrender any oil revenues for this purpose. By contrast, U.S. policy is we blow you up, then we squeeze you dry to make you pay our contractors to put you back together.
There is nothing in the occupation to compare with the barbarism of the Saddam regime, but that’s a low standard. If you’re going to pose as a liberator, you have to be a light unto the nations. If you can’t be a light, then you need to leave the liberation business.
From a practical foreign policy perspective, I would say the economic exploitation of Iraq by the U.S. is not the way to win popular support and prosecute the war on terrorism in the Middle East.
Right on.
*** Update #2-7 Consolidated and Re-Written ***
The CalPundit agrees this is a lousy idea, and you can add the Daily Kos to the list of those who are against the loans. TacJammer also belongs on the list of those opposing loans. Also infuriated are Ipse Dixit, The American Mind, and Signifying Nothing, Oliver Willis, Anthony at Three Years of Hell, Thought Mesh, A Small Victory, the Captain’s Quarters, and Pejman.
Sgt. Stryker insists the loans are a good idea at the wrong time, Hawken Blog calls this “indefensible and an embarassment,” Kimmitt states that “framing reconstruction costs as a forced loan is immoral and stupid,” John Wilson at Crazy but Able claims that “this is like helping someone up with one hand and punching them in the face with the other,” while one of the Volokh Conspirators and Geoff Matthews agree this is idiocy.
Clayton Cramer notes that this is bi-partisan foolishness, stating “Bush, fortunately, knows better than to play the skinflint that many members of Congress (not all Democrats, either) seem intent on showing the world,” Broken Masterpieces points to this Morton Kondracke article and to this round-up of a Fox News panel discussion of the issue, while Josh Chafetz, who wrote about this yesterday, continues to be outraged by this vote, while Moe Lane has a more partisan take on the issue.
The always mild-mannered Kathy Kinsley (who also designed this weblog in case you need some web-work done) notes that we should be setting an example, not following the European one, and the NZ Pundit seconds (Thirds? Fourths?) the notion that this will just “provide ammunition to the it-was-all-about-oil wingnuts.” American RealPolitik states that this is a betrayal of the Iraqi people and Dale Franks also agrees this is a bad policy. Justin Katz thinks this is so stupid there has to be some sort of conspiratorial ulterior motive, while Robert Tagorda, Thomas Vago, and Sean Collins all wish to express their outrage.
One Fine Jay notes the plight of Filipinos who are still struggling to pay back loans and hopes we have learned from history, Blaster at Overpressure wants people to remember one of the reasons Kuwait was initially invaded, and Vero just wants to give the Senate the middle finger. Reid Stott notes this is a “simple matter of right and wrong” while Matthew Yglesias believes we are getting worked up over nothing, and the House version is going to pass the conference. Regardless, the symbolism of the idiotic vote is bad enough for me.
Elsewhere, the Spoons is on the fence.
And, in the most humorous comment to date, Atrios uses this issue to bash the Bush administration policy on…. Afghanistan. The word idiot comes to mind.
That means that a coalition of greens, sociaists, liberals, center left Democrats, center right Republicans, little-l libertarians, and conservatives in the blogosphere all think this is a shitty idea. Can we all be wrong?
Also, for those of you who wanted to know how your Senator voted, all Republicans voted against this except for Sam Brownback (KS), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), Saxby Chambliss o(GA), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Ensign (NV), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Lisa Murkowski (AK). All Democrats voted for this except for Joseph Biden (DE), Maria Cantwell (WA), Daniel Inouye (HI), and Zell Miller (GA). Byrd (WV) and Lieberman (CT) did not vote.
Let’s not turn this into a partisan issue, though, unlike our senate. This is just a bad idea, and everyone should contact their member of the Senate and their Representative in the House so that when this goes to committee the right thing is done and this is ripped out of the bill like a bad tooth. Thomas Bianchi has a humorous sample letter that you might want to use as a template:
Dear Senator Miller:
It is with great sadness that I am made aware today that the world’s greatest deliberative body has degenerated to a circus of fools and ingrates; lacking the honor and common decency found in even the most degenerate primate. These troglodytes that you are forced to call
Who’s looting now?
There’s much afoot in blogdom (from much bigger dogs than Yours Truly) about the Democrat-led Senate plan to extract repayment from Iraqis for the help we are giving them. The Senate — courtesy of Democrats and a handful of defecting…