363 Tons (of Dollars) And What Do You Get?

[chefmike]

363 Tons (of Dollars) And What Do You Get? Tales from the Provisional Authority...

Among the many examples of gross ineptitude about the Iraq war, this one has a special place in the Hall of Shame.

363 tons of cash were shipped to Iraq on giant wooden pallets before the "hand over" of the government--that's about 4 billion bucks for those of you who don't usually weigh your hundred dollar bills.

This news was first revealed in the summer of 2005, but more details were provided yesterday in oversight hearings chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, who asked, "Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?"

L. Paul Bremer, the guy who was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority back when the Bush Administration thought the Mission Was Accomplished, told the committee that the Iraqi finance minister asked for the cash.

Almost nine billion of that money was never accounted for. Hey, they were in the middle of a war, and there was no banking system, he said.

"I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently," Bremer said.

Ya think?

The timing of this vivid war story is especially bad, coming as it does on the heels of the President's just submitted budget for 2008. Of course, most of us find our eyes glazing over at the mere mention of a federal budget (which, of course, the White House is counting on). But let's make it real. Start with this simple question:

Who do you think is going to be asked to pay for Bush's Iraq war?

If you guessed grannies, kids and the working poor, you've obviously been paying attention these last six years. You see, finally, the President is asking Americans to share the sacrifice for his war. Not all Americans, mind you--just the needy ones.

To cover the costs of the war machine, and, of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, the President suggests cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, for starters. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont breaks it down. (So did Diane Feinstein and others, by the way). Here's just a sample from Sanders:

Eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is a vital nutrition program primarily for low-income seniors but also serving mothers, infants and children across the country.

A $379 million cut to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps senior citizens and low income families pay for home heating.

A $100 million cut for Head Start, at a time when only about one-half of the children eligible for this program actually participate due to a lack of funding.

A complete elimination of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Program even though each and every year more people are diagnosed with TBI than those who suffer from breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Spinal Cord Injury and Multiple Sclerosis combined.

A $310 million cut in the National Institutes of Health.

A $172 million cut in elderly housing and a $115 million cut in housing for persons with disabilities.


Fortunately, with a Democratic majority, much of this is DOA. Even Republicans who won't debate the war will debate the kinds of domestic cuts that lose them elections.

Speaking of things that are DOA, how about that Joe Lieberman terror tax? Just when I thought he couldn't get more annoying, he proved he can piss off both Republicans and Democrats at exactly the same time by proposing that Americans support the Bush war with a "war on terrorism tax." Doesn't he know that to Republicans, every tax increase is like terrorism?

I can't write about war and numbers without noting the most important numbers of all: 3103 troops killed, more than 22, 800 wounded, and who knows exactly how many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Some costs cannot be recouped.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shelle...d_b_40624.html

[White_Male_Canada]

Where did the Trillions of dollars go for the War on Poverty ?

After spending Trillions that have disappeared isn`t it time to cut and run?

[chefmike]

Where did the Trillions of dollars go for the War on Poverty ?

After spending Trillions that have disappeared isn`t it time to cut and run?

WTF?

The war on poverty?

Are you so desperate that you need to sidetrack this thread into some tired repug BS like that? So fucking weak...it all started with that commie FDR, didn't it?

Oops, never mind WMC...save your long-winded diatribes for the other wild-eyed believers on whatever frequency you broadcast on.

LMFAO!

Sucks to be you, eh?

Karl Rove must have jumped ship for good...how embarrassing for you.

[White_Male_Canada]

The war on poverty?

Are you so desperate that you need to sidetrack this thread into some tired repug BS like that? So fucking weak...it all started with that commie FDR, didn't it?

You`re a clueless wonder.

Try read something else besides Fluffington which only ends up making you look lost.

The fact is fiscal 2008 inflation-adjusted growth rates for spending increase a total of 4.1%. From 2001 to 2008 the budget has increased 22.4 %

How does socialist Sanders figure that`s a "cut" ?

In JFK's final budget, he had Human Resources at just 29.8 cents of every dollar and JFK had Defense at 46.2 cents of every dollar.

By 2010 almost 70 % of a 3 TRILLION dollar budget will be spent on welfare. And I`ve already informed you that the poor do not pay taxes.

Let`s not forget GWB`s 400 Billion dollar Prescription Drug Bill , expected to expand to 1 Trillion.

Before you kooks complained of deficits,now a 4.1 % budget increase is considered cuts and the mantra deficit has flown out the window.The list of 140 programs slated for termination are composed mainly of programs that have been on the chopping block in each of the last two Bush budgets. That`s when the Republican`s controlled both houses. Are the `Rats gonna now agree to bring down the deifict by cutting? Since Federal revenues soared to 18.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 you can`t say it`s because of a lack of money.

Compassionate Conservativism- code words for socialism.

[specialk]

Where did the Trillions of dollars go for the War on Poverty ?

After spending Trillions that have disappeared isn`t it time to cut and run?

WTF?

The war on poverty?

Are you so desperate that you need to sidetrack this thread into some tired repug BS like that? So fucking weak...it all started with that commie FDR, didn't it?

Oops, never mind WMC...save your long-winded diatribes for the other wild-eyed believers on whatever frequency you broadcast on.

LMFAO!

Sucks to be you, eh?

Karl Rove must have jumped ship for good...how embarrassing for you.

Here Chef, I found this BS bag in another thread (thank you). It was originally used to carry all the money ever spent on the War on Poverty...plus a quarter pounder with cheese.

[White_Male_Canada]

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

We`ve been told we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

For decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had decades of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater.

So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.

As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

RONALD REAGAN

[guyone]

Here here!!!

Oh yeah, one point I don't think was mentioned. The money belonged to the Iraqis...Silly me I forgot, Demorats like to steal everybody elses money.

[chefmike]

Here here!!!

Oh yeah, one point I don't think was mentioned. The money belonged to the Iraqis...Silly me I forgot, Demorats like to steal everybody elses money.

[chefmike]

God bless ronnie reagan!

You bible-banging hypocrites can rest assured that if there was such a thing as hell, that your hero reagan would damn sure be there right now roasting on a spit, just like the pig he was in life...


Killer, Coward, Conman - Good Riddance, Ronnie Reagan
By Greg Palast
Jun 6, 2004, 20:51




June 6, 2004 -- You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.



Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.



In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.



People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.



Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother of three.



And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog ... then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.



I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to million-dollar homes -- from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be called bribery.



And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.



The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.



"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.



And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, his last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini.



Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages.



Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah -- no kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.



Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters.



I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper.



In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas, anyway?



Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.



In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.



Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.



Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.



Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. www.GregPalast.com

[guyone]

The money actually belonged to the Iraqis in the first place. What they do with it is their business.