Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Funds for Iraq Are Far Short of Pledges, Figures Show
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 � Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004.
The vast gap seems to have occurred largely for two reasons: some countries, like Japan, changed the nature of their commitment after the conference from immediate aid to slower, long-term help; and some that had left their intentions unclear were incorrectly assumed to be giving immediate aid.
Many experts also say that donation pledges often do not materialize in the end, or come in the harder-to-tally form of credits for the purchase of commodities.
The grant money for immediate needs was part of a total $13 billion that organizers said was raised at the conference.
The Bush administration does not dispute the gap, but officials say it is too early for an accurate count, asserting that the number of grants will probably grow.
Some United Nations officials concur. "We know the Japanese are rethinking what they're going to do," said Julia Taft, director of the Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery at the United Nations Development Fund. "But once we get our trust funds up and running, about 15 donors will come forward. It's like, the money is in the bank, but the bank doesn't exist yet."
An independent trust fund was promised at the Madrid conference and is due to be set up next week.
Posted by P6 at December 7, 2003 09:28 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2450Now the U.S. knows what it feels like when a country pledges money and doesn't deliver-- like Bush's (so far hollow) promise to spend billions to fight AIDS in Africa.
It isn't that Bush's promise was hollow. It takes an act of Congress to enact spending measures. It is called the presidency, the executive branch, because it isn't a monarchy.
Knowing his party as he does, being its leader and all, don't you think Bush knew how his crew would react to this? I believe he did, and that his promise was cynical.
And if Bush didn't know, is that really the level of naivety and ignorance we want in a president?
I don't know. It seems to me that you guys are looking for something to pick on. There are all kinds of republicans, just as there are all kinds of democrats. In fact, a lot of republicans are unhappy with many things Bush has done lately, such as his dealing with the Taiwan issue, the Medicare bill, and a couple of other things I can't think of right off the top of my head.
To say we're "looking for something to pick on" would be like saying you're looking for reasons to distrust government involvement in your daily life.
Seems like a lot of Republicans are looking for any excuse they can give Bush. So it seems we're even.