It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Dems, Citing Corruption, Block Reconstruction Funds For Afghanistan

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

House Dems, Citing Corruption, Block Reconstruction Funds For Afghanistan


www.huffingtonpost.com

The House Democrat who oversees funding for Afghanistan's redevelopment and reconstruction said on Monday that she is stripping money from her foreign aid bill in reaction to pervasive corruption. Dave Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, supports the move made by subcommittee chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), according to an Obey spokesman.

Lowey cited pervasive corruption in Afghanistan as the cause for her decision to pull the funding from the appropriations bill working its way through her State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.

"I do not intend to appr
(visit the link for the full news article)

Other stories
www.reuters.com...

thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

[edit on 28-6-2010 by polarwarrior]




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
This sounds like a cop out so one corrupt country can cease to give money it promised to another. Do they ever stop and think maybe the money to help re-build Afghanistan will reduce corruption there as the country becomes stronger and more able to look after itself.


On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she recently traveled to Afghanistan and found the corruption staggering. "I was just there for Mother's Day, in Afghanistan, that weekend, and traveled into the country even more remotely than Kandahar," Pelosi said in an interview in her office. "And the corruption issue, it's problematic. And you know what? A lot of it is our money."

"This is about systemic, huge money," she said.


Yep Pelosi, but you see if it werent for the US destroying so much of the country they wouldnt need the money, and probably woudnt have been weak enough to allow so much corruption to run rampent as it is in the war torn society. I say they should take a little responsibility for the corruption, help out more with finally getting this beautifull country back on its feet, not jumping on excuses to back out of cleaning up the mess they helped cause.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 28-6-2010 by polarwarrior]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
you see if it werent for the US destroying so much of the country they wouldnt need the money, and probably woudnt have been weak enough to allow so much corruption to run rampent as it is in the war torn society.


I'm with you on Pelosi being wrong, but not on the above. Yes we need to help them.

Afghanistan was not a country. It had no government or infrastructure. It was under the rule of Warlords and Terrorist Groups. There was nothing for us to destroy. This is not Iraq you are talking about.

Afghanistan was a no-mans land with no government or protection for anyone. That is why the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were there to begin with. That and the drug money. That is why almost the entire world backed the action in there (oops). Of course they never came through with their share of the load with a few exceptions. As always, they leave the dying to us and the bulk of the costs to us.

Pelosi knows the truth. She is pandering for the radical vote. She knows she will not be re-elected, so she will do anything to keep her Jet and her power.

Did you hear that speech she made when she tried to pander to the Christians? The famous "Word" speech? I did not know whether to laugh or puke.

What has always amazed me is how anyone could hear her give a speech and then still vote for her? She is so incredibly transparent. What are they putting in the water in San Francisco?

She does like Obama though. I wonder if his skin crawls when she swoons over him?

[edit on 6/28/2010 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Yeah I see what ya mean, but a history of conflict of which the U.S is partly to blame had meant the country was the way it was before the 2001 war. Had the Soviets in the 70's and the U.S left the little nation alone its may have developed a growing economy over the decades from its rescource sector and would be a much different country today, one most likely not so suitable for the type of corruption it experiences or a safe haven for terrorists. I heard recently that they found something like a trillion dollars worth of key minerals there, now thats enough to get some critical infrastructure built and hence some stability but untill then they need some quick dough to get through the tough times....and they are sadly being denied a chance.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join