"Iraq Reconstruction Or US Infrastructure?"

Senate candidate Al Franken called on the U.S. to rescind $7.1 billion that's committed but not yet obligated to Iraqi reconstruction, and spend it instead on highway infrastructure improvements in the United States.

Franken, the Democratic candidate in Minnesota's Senate race, said at a State Capitol news conference Monday that there's no reason for U.S. dollars to keep flowing if Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction.

"There's a line between being responsible for rebuilding a country you helped destroy, and being a chump, and I think we crossed that line," Franken said.

Last week, Franken's opponent, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, said the U.S. should take back $1.1 billion committed to Iraqi reconstruction after a government report found that Iraq has a cumulative budget surplus of up to $50 billion for 2008, thanks mostly to oil and gas revenues.

The Coleman campaign issued a statement Monday applauding Franken for joining in seeking to have the Iraqis pay for more of their own reconstruction. But it said Franken's proposal includes money that has already been returned, plus more that will be returned in the coming weeks, and that it would put U.S. troops at risk by taking money away from a program that provides funds to field commanders for emergency responses.

Franken's call for taking back more money set off a new round of tussling between the campaigns over Iraq, which has been a central issue in the race. Franken returned to one of his most persistent criticisms of Coleman — that as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from 2003 to the end of 2006, Coleman failed to provide any oversight of U.S. funds being diverted to Iraqi reconstruction.

"Senator Coleman at any time could have done these hearings on reconstruction and he did none," Franken said, arguing that to have done so might have run Coleman afoul of the Bush White House and Republican congressional leaders.

Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan said Franken was being deceptive in how he characterized the work of the subcommittee on investigations. Sheehan said its small staff and budget would make it the wrong entity to undertake a comprehensive investigation of the Iraqi reconstruction.

Sheehan pointed out that the panel's ranking Democratic member could have instigated an investigation of the reconstruction but did not. That senator, Carl Levin of Michigan, also hasn't initiated such an investigation since becoming chairman, Sheehan said.

Coleman has supported investigations of U.S. spending and policies in Iraq by other entities including the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction, a nonpartisan group established by Congress to conduct oversight in Iraq.

"It's a matter of dollars and resources and not duplicating effort," Sheehan said.

The Marshall Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger foundation for the allied countries of Europe, and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.

The earlier public discussions of the need for reconstruction had largely been ignored, as it was not clear that it was establishing official administration policy. It was decided that all doubt must be removed by a major address by Secretary of State George Marshall. Marshall gave the address to the graduating class of Harvard University on June 5, 1947. Standing on the steps of Memorial Church in Harvard Yard, he offered American aid to promote European recovery and reconstruction. Marshall outlined the US government's preparedness to contribute to European recovery. "It is logical," said Marshall, "that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the U.S.A." Marshall was convinced that economic stability would provide political stability in Europe. He offered aid, but the European countries had to organise the programme themselves.

The speech, written by Charles Bohlen, contained virtually no details and no numbers. The most important element of the speech was the call for the Europeans to meet and create their own plan for rebuilding Europe, and that the United States would then fund this plan. The administration felt that the plan would likely be unpopular among many Americans, and the speech was mainly directed at a European audience. In an attempt to keep the speech out of American papers journalists were not contacted, and on the same day Truman called a press conference to take away headlines. By contrast Acheson was dispatched to contact the European media, especially the British media, and the speech was read in its entirety on the BBC.

    The question of whether billions of dollars earmarked for Iraq Reconstruction should be diverted to US infrastructure is a no brainer, as I see it. The corrupt Iraqi government and inept Bush Administration bureaucracy has already wasted billions of reconstruction money for Iraq, even as Iraq is making billions in oil and gas revenues. Though the Marshall Plan of reconstructing European nations after World War II was a success, The Bush Administration's Iraq reconstruction efforts are a failure. America needs to move on and concentrate on America's bridges and other infrastructure. The Constitution gives Congress control of the Federal government "purse strings", if only America had a Congress loyal to the Constitution and the American people.

tags: iraq  bush  congress  marshall plan  politics  takebackamerica  us  america  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit