THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

What do you think about that?

Quote:

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Falah Aljibury
Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

Phil Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA
Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ms Amy Jaffe
Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

0 Replies

NATO (news - web sites) newcomer Bulgaria said on Thursday it would reduce the number of its troops in Iraq (news - web sites) by around a quarter in June and decide this month whether to pull out completely by the end of the year.
The Balkan U.S. ally has sent 450 infantrymen to Iraq but its centrist government has been under pressure to bring them home from the unpopular mission ahead of summer general elections.
"There is a significant decrease of around 100 troops in the fifth contingent in Iraq," Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov told reporters.
Bulgaria is the latest ally in the U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing" that occupies Iraq to announce it was preparing to pull out. Italy, Ukraine and Poland also signaled they were eager to scale down their presence.
Svinarov said the government, led by former king Simeon Saxe-Coburg, would decide by the end of the month whether to withdraw all troops by the end of 2005.
"There is no decision yet, but we have prepared a report," he told reporters. "It is normal (to think) that if there is a presence in Iraq in 2006, it should be different from a military one."
Eight Bulgarians were killed In Iraq since the start of the war and last week's shooting of a junior sergeant by U.S. forces triggered calls from opposition parties for the country to set a timetable to pull out.
This week, leftist President Georgi Parvanov told the government it should withdraw troops by the end of the year.
Bulgarian army Chief of Staff Nikola Kolev confirmed the military commanders were now awaiting a political decision on the withdrawal.
"The most suitable timetable is for the fifth battalion to be reduced ... and to gradually prepare for a withdrawal," Kolev told BNR radio. Parliament has the final say on troop deployments abroad.
More than 70 percent of Bulgaria's eight million people disagree with the war and the opposition Socialists have promised to pull out if they win general elections expected on June 25.

0 Replies

According to the following article, the marines still claim there isn't a problem, but with the reduction of volunteers, I'm wondering what the future holds for our troops now in combat?
******************************

Richard Patterson for The New York Times
Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia last month in Florida after he was released from military jail. He was among the first soldiers to refuse to return to Iraq.

Un-Volunteering: Troops Improvise to Find Way Out
By MONICA DAVEY

Published: March 18, 2005

The night before his Army unit was to meet to fly to Iraq, Pvt. Brandon Hughey, 19, simply left. He drove all night from Texas to Indiana, and on from there, with help from a Vietnam veteran he had met on the Internet, to disappear in Canada.

In Georgia, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, 40, whose family ties to military service stretch back to the American Revolution, filed for conscientious-objector status and learned that he will face a court-martial in May for failing to report to his unit when it left for a second stint in Iraq.

One by one, a trickle of soldiers and marines - some just back from duty in Iraq, others facing a trip there soon - are seeking ways out.

Soldiers, their advocates and lawyers who specialize in military law say they have watched a few service members try ever more unlikely and desperate routes: taking drugs in the hope that they will be kept home after positive urine tests, for example; or seeking psychological or medical reasons to be declared nondeployable, including last-minute pregnancies. Specialist Marquise J. Roberts is accused of asking a relative in Philadelphia to shoot him in the leg so he would not have to return to war.

A bullet to the leg, Specialist Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., told the police, seemed his best chance. "I was scared," he said, according to a police report on the December shooting. "I didn't want to go back to Iraq and leave my family. I felt that my chain of command didn't care about the safety of the troops. I just know that I wasn't going to make it back."

Department of Defense officials say they have seen no increase in those counted as deserters since the war in Iraq began. Since October 2002, about 6,000 soldiers have abandoned their posts for at least 30 days and been counted as deserters. (A soldier who eventually returns to his unit is still counted as a deserter for the year.) The Marine Corps, which takes a snapshot of how many marines are missing at a given point in time, reported about 1,300 deserters in December, some of whom disappeared last year and others years earlier. The figures, Pentagon officials said, suggest that the deserter ranks have actually shrunk since the years just before Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, many things have changed since then, including the seriousness of deserting during a time of war.

Many of the tactics also defy simple categories like official desertion.

"There are a lot of people, many more than normal, who are trying to get out now," said Sgt. First Class Tom Ogden, just before he left for a second trip to Iraq with his Army aviation unit from Fort Carson, Colo. He said he had seen fellow soldiers in recent months who seemed intent on failing drug tests because they believed they would be held back if only their tests "came back hot," while others claimed bad backs and necks, with the same hope.

"I'll tell you what," Sergeant Ogden said, "they're coming up with what they consider some creative ways to do it now."

In the fall of 2003, Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia of Miami, in the Florida National Guard, was among the first to announce he was refusing to return to Iraq and filing for conscientious-objector status. A year ago, Pfc. Jeremy Hinzman, a South Dakotan, vanished from his post only to reappear in Canada, his family in tow.

Word of such cases spread among soldiers. Some reacted with disgust, accusing their colleagues of cowardice: how could they let down other soldiers in a time of war, when, unlike the draftees of the Vietnam War, they had all volunteered? Others, though, say the cases made them think more about their ambivalence.

"What I've seen is that soldiers are more afraid to make a stand for themselves than they are to go into combat," said Sergeant Mejia, who was released in February after nearly nine months of confinement at Fort Sill, Okla., for desertion. "Until I took a stand, I was really going against my own conscience. I was so afraid to be called a coward."

In the months since his case, more organized efforts have arisen.

A group of former soldiers who succeeded in achieving conscientious-objector status has created a Web site, www.peace-out.com, showing people how to apply. The site reported 3,000 hits the first day.

0 Replies

And again to counter the rabid doomsday prophets from the left, the following should give heart to the rational and hopeful.

Excerpt (remainder following in entirety as the Post archives its articles after a few days.)

Quote:

. . . .When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

. . . .The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.

Washington Post
What's Left? Shame.
By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A23

At his news conference on Wednesday, President Bush declined an invitation to claim vindication for his policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East. After two years of attacks on him as a historical illiterate pursuing the childish fantasy of Middle East democracy, he was entitled to claim a bit of credit. Yet he declined, partly out of modesty (as with Ronald Reagan, one of the secrets of his political success) and partly because he has learned the perils of declaring any mission accomplished.

The democracy project is, of course, just beginning. We do not yet know whether the Middle East today is Europe 1989 or Europe 1848. In 1989 we saw the swift collapse of the Soviet empire; in 1848 there was a flowering of liberal revolutions throughout Europe that, within a short time, were all suppressed.

Nonetheless, 1848 did presage the coming of the liberal idea throughout Europe. (By 1871, it had been restored to France, for example.) It marked a turning point from which there was no going back. The Arab Spring of 2005 will be noted by history as a similar turning point for the Arab world.

We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadist allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it. But we do know one thing: Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly -- that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial "stability" they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45508-2005Mar17.html

0 Replies

That simpleton cowboy has sacrificed our soldiers, our financial well-being, and the future of our economy to bring the vote to Iraq. Was it worth it? Many claim security in the world has worsened since our preemptive attack on Iraq. That's still to be determined - not now, but in our future years.

0 Replies

Many also claim that it has improved since our attack on Iraq.

Only the future will tell.

0 Replies

Quote:

List of Foreigners Taken Hostage in Iraq

Friday March 18, 2005 7:01 PM

By The Associated Press

Insurgents in Iraq have kidnapped more than 200 foreigners:

HELD:

- Ibrahim al-Maharmeh, a Jordanian businessman. Kidnapped in Baghdad on March 5. The Jordanian foreign ministry says his captors demanded $250,000 ransom. His brother was abducted earlier and freed after the family paid $50,000 ransom.

-Florence Aubenas, a journalist for the French daily Liberation. Disappeared Jan. 5 after leaving her Baghdad hotel. Seen appealing for help on a videotape made public March 1.

-Joao Jose Vasconcellos, 55, an engineer from Brazil. Seized in an ambush Jan. 19 en route to Baghdad airport. An Iraqi and a British security contractor die in the attack, which was claimed in a joint statement issued by the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Mujaheeden Brigades.

-Abdulkadir Tanrikulu, a Turkish businessman. Abducted by gunmen from the Bakhan Hotel in Baghdad on Jan. 13. Reportedly ran a construction company that worked with U.S.-led occupation.

-Badri Ghazi Abu Hamzah, a Lebanese businessman. Abduction reported by Lebanese government. Lebanese media quoted his family as saying he was seized on the road to Tikrit Nov. 6.

-Sadeq Mohammed Sadeq, a Lebanese-American who formerly worked for SkyLink USA, a Virginia-based contractor. Kidnapped by gunmen around midnight Nov. 2 from his home in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Shown on a video released Nov. 11.

-Roy Hallums, a 56-year-old American, and Robert Tarongoy of the Philippines, workers for a Saudi company that does catering for the Iraqi army. Kidnapped Nov. 1 from their office in the Mansour district after a gunbattle kills an Iraqi guard and an attacker. A Nepalese and three Iraqis are also abducted but later freed.

-Aban Elias, 41, Iraqi-American civil engineer from Denver. Seized May 3 by Islamic Rage Brigade.

KILLED:

-Margaret Hassan, 59-year-old director of CARE international in Iraq and a citizen of Britain, Ireland and Iraq. Abducted Oct. 19 in Baghdad. Makes videotaped appeals for the withdrawal of British troops and the release of female Iraqi prisoners. On Nov. 15, her family in London and Al-Jazeera television say they believe she is the female hostage whose shooting death is shown in a videotape. The tape is not broadcast.

-Shosei Koda, 24, of Japan. Found decapitated, his body wrapped in an American flag, in Baghdad on Oct. 30. A video posted on the Internet had said he was kidnapped by followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who threatened his life unless Japan pulled its troops from Iraq. Japan rejected the demand.

-Three Macedonian contractors, Dalibor Lazarevski, Zoran Nastovski and Dragan Markovic. Abducted Aug. 21; Macedonian government confirms their deaths Oct. 22.

-Ramazan Elbu, a Turkish driver. A video posted Oct. 14 on the Web site of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army shows his beheading.

-Maher Kemal, a Turkish contractor. Internet posting Oct. 11 shows his beheading. A statement says he was captured by the Ansar al-Sunnah Army.

-British engineer Kenneth Bigley, 62. Kidnapped Sept. 16 with two American co-workers for Gulf Services Co. A video issued in al-Zarqawi's name threatens their lives unless the U.S. frees all Iraqi women in custody. The Americans are beheaded first; Bigley's decapitation is confirmed Oct. 10.

-Jack Hensley, 48, a civil engineer from Marietta, Ga. Seized Sept. 16; an Internet message posted Sept. 21 reports his killing by al-Zarqawi's followers.

-Eugene ``Jack'' Armstrong, 52, formerly of Hillsdale, Mich. Kidnapped Sept. 16; video made public Sept. 20 shows his beheading by al-Zarqawi.

-Akar Besir, a Turkish driver. Body found Sept. 21.

-Durmus Kumdereli, Turkish truck driver. Beheaded in video made public Sept. 13 but digitally dated Aug. 17. Video posted on a Web site that carries statements from al-Zarqawi's group.

-Twelve Nepalese construction workers. One beheaded and 11 shot in the head in a video posted on the Internet Aug. 31. Killings claimed by Ansar al-Sunnah Army.

-Enzo Baldoni, Italian journalist. Reported killed Aug. 26; Islamic Army in Iraq had threatened his life.

-Murat Yuce of Turkey. Shot dead in video made public Aug. 2 by followers of al-Zarqawi.

-Raja Azad, 49, engineer, and Sajad Naeem, 29, driver, both Pakistani. Slain July 28. The Islamic Army in Iraq said they were killed because Pakistan considering sending troops to Iraq.

-Georgi Lazov, 30, and Ivaylo Kepov, 32, Bulgarian truck drivers. Al-Zarqawi's followers suspected of decapitating both men.

-Kim Sun-il, 33, South Korea translator. Beheaded June 22 by al-Zarqawi's group.

-Hussein Ali Alyan, 26, Lebanese construction worker. Found shot to death June 12. Lebanon says killers sought ransom.

-Fabrizio Quattrocchi, 35, Italian security guard. Killed April 14. Unknown group, the Green Battalion, claimed responsibility.

-Nicholas Berg, 26, businessman from West Chester, Pa. Kidnapped in April and beheaded by al-Zarqawi's group.

FREED OR ESCAPED:

-36 Turks, 19 Jordanians, 19 Lebanese, 13 Chinese, 13 Egyptians, six Italians, five Japanese, five Chinese, four Americans, four Indonesians, three Kenyans, three Czechs, three Indians, three Poles, three Frenchmen, two Canadians, two Russians, a Sri Lankan, a Bangladeshi, a Swede, a Filipino, a Syrian, a Sudanese, a Nepalese, an Australian, a Briton, an Iranian, a Pakistani, a Somali, a Syrian-Canadian, and an Arab Christian from Jerusalem.

MISSING:

-U.S. Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio, and Timothy Bell of Mobile, Ala. Disappeared April 9 after attack on a fuel convoy. Arab television reported June 29 that Maupin had been killed; he is listed as missing by the U.S. military.

Source

0 Replies

Many who claim the situation in the US and Iraq has improved has blinders on.

0 Replies

If a country will pay a ransom for the release of a hostage, if effectively guarantees there will be many more kidnappings of that country's citizens.

0 Replies

Walter posts

Quote:

List of Foreigners Taken Hostage in Iraq

What is reprehensible to me is that such a list could be posted without comment and thus giving the impression that the terrorists are being successful and even giving an implication of approval. It seems to me that people who give a damn about people could not post such a list without denouncing in the most specific terms the viscious international criminals who abduct and murder innocent citizens.

0 Replies

Like you perhaps C.I.?

When all you look for is crap, that's all you'll find.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What is reprehensible to me is that such a list could be posted without comment and thus giving the impression that the terrorists are being successful and even giving an implication of approval. It seems to me that people who give a damn about people could not post such a list without denouncing in the most specific terms the viscious international criminals who abduct and murder innocent citizens.

Quote:

The Associated Press

Founded in 1848, The Associated Press is the backbone of the world's information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats. It is the largest and oldest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video for more than one billion people a day.

AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with 3,700 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus.

AP supplies a steady stream of news around the clock to its domestic members, international subscribers and commercial customers. It has the industry's most sophisticated digital photo network, a 24-hour continuously updated online news service, a state-of-the-art television news service and one of the largest radio networks in the United States. It also has a commercial digital photo archive, a photo library housing more than 10 million images and provides advertising management services.

The Associated Press has received 47 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization in the categories for which it can compete. It has 28 photo Pulitzers, the most of any news organization.

0 Replies

Yes, and I can say I'm pure royalty too, but it doesn't make me the Queen of England.

0 Replies

Hey, McG, no surprise there! Most think your posts are all crap.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hey, McG, no surprise there! Most think your posts are all crap.

I wonder if Lola will use this as an example of a typical liberal arguement?

It's at least typical of C.I.'s posts.

0 Replies

It seems even our congress is beginning to wake up a little. You see, Bush is destroying many benefits for Americans while spending our money in Iraq, and increasing our national debt. People like McG will NEVER understand.
*****************************************

In Blow to Bush, Senators Reject Cuts to Medicaid
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 18, 2005

ASHINGTON, March 17 - The House and Senate passed competing versions of a $2.57 trillion budget for 2006 on Thursday night. The two chambers provided tens of billions of dollars to extend President Bush's tax cuts over the next five years, but differed sharply over cuts to Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor.

The votes, 218 to 214 in the House and 51 to 49 in the Senate, set the two chambers on a collision course. The House budget included steep cuts in Medicaid and other so-called entitlement programs. But in the Senate, President Bush's plans to reduce the explosive growth in Medicaid ran into a roadblock when lawmakers voted 52 to 48 to strip the budget of Medicaid cuts and instead create a one-year commission to recommend changes in the program.

In a surprise move, the Senate also voted to approve a total of $134 billion in tax cuts, $34 billion more than President Bush requested and $64 billion more than the Senate Republican leadership had initially proposed.

In addition to extending the cuts on capital gains taxes and dividend income, the move was intended to repeal an unpopular tax, enacted in 1993, on Social Security benefits for the wealthy.

"It provided a huge amount of tax cuts," said Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and one of five Republicans to vote against the provision. "We didn't know what we were doing."

While the tax cuts brought the Senate budget resolution closer in line with the one passed by the House, the Medicaid issue moved the two further apart.

That vote was a rebuke to both the White House and the Republican leadership, and it threatens to prevent Congress from adopting a final budget this year.

"We have arguably our work cut out for us now," said Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the House Budget Committee. He characterized the Medicaid vote as a setback for Mr. Bush's domestic agenda, suggesting that "the momentum" of the entire package, including spending control, Social Security and tax code changes, was now at stake.

"If the Senate is not going to follow in the first item on the president's agenda," Mr. Nussle said, "then that is, I think, a signal that the president needs to receive and react to immediately."

Mr. Bush praised the House budget in a statement released by the White House, saying, "It closely follows my budget proposal and reflects our shared commitment to be wise with the people's money and restrain spending in Washington." The president did not comment on the action in the Senate.

Though debate on the House budget went smoothly, the Senate debate turned into a chaotic, daylong voting marathon as lawmakers rushed to finish before leaving for their two-week Easter recess. They broke briefly from the budget to consider legislation that would have allowed a federal court to review the case of Terry Schiavo, a Florida woman whose feeding tube is scheduled to be removed on Friday.

Senators spent nearly the entire day in the chamber, voting on more than two dozen budget amendments, on matters including national security, vocational education grants and prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. By 10 p.m., after the vote on tax cut measures, some senators appeared a little confused about what they had done. The measure, sponsored by Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, passed 55 to 45, with five Democrats backing the plan and five Republicans breaking ranks to oppose it.

"I think I did vote for this," said Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota. But Mr. Coleman said he thought the vote was mostly symbolic, a statement of opposition to the Social Security tax, "which has been a sore point for a long time."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said he, for one, applauded the cuts. "There are those of us who think that tax cuts are a stimulus and are good," he said.

The Senate also approved, 66 to 31, a proposal by Senator Coleman that restored $2 billion in proposed cuts to urban development grants, over the objections of the White House, which called for trimming back the program. "I'm thrilled," Mr. Coleman said afterward.

0 Replies

Social Security won't do someone much good if they get killed by a terrorist. Of course C.I. and his ilk will NEVER understand that.

0 Replies

"Yes, and I can say I'm pure royalty too, but it doesn't make me the Queen of England."

well it might, there have been stranger claims. Caroline of Brunswick. Camilla Parker-Bowles. Her Royal Highness Queen Foxfyre I sounds ok to me.

0 Replies

The Irratios are hard to figure! Rolling Eyes

-----------
They accuse the US of supporting and having supported murderous tyrants for the sake of maintaining stability.

But, they accuse the US of sacrificing stability for the sake of freeing people from their murderous tyrants.
-----------
They accuse the US of not doing enough to protect the American people from murderous terrorists.

But, they accuse the US of causing the number of murderous terrorists to increase by its attempt to permanently remove terrorist bases from two countries in which they reside.
-----------
They accuse the US of descrimination, because the US doesn't try to permanently remove terrorist bases from all countries in which they reside.

But, they accuse the US of imperialism, because the US has declared its intention to exterminate terrorism wherever it's based.
-----------
They accuse the US of failing to remove and/or keep terrorists out of the US.

But, they accuse the US of descriminating against suspected terrorists by denying them trial before they are denied entry or removed.
-----------

0 Replies

ican, From the arguments from both sides, it seems it's a lose-lose situation for all concerned - except for those who think the American Sacrifice is worth trying to bring democracy to Iraq. We still don't know two things: 1) how much more it's gonna cost us, and 2) whether Iraq will ever have security and democracy.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know