Pentagon Bars Three Nations From Iraq Bids

The turkey was a FAKE!

Guess I'm that old too, PDiddie.

It's all about the money
The Republicans know that war is good for the economy. How does $18 billion to American companies sound? Excellent excuse to put money into our economy. This small matter is all about keeping as much of that money as possible in the US. Bush isn't as dumb as he looks... but he's pretty damn close. Once again 9/11 is used as a front. The first time it was Afghanistan but that wasn't enough bloodshed for the Bush Assministration. This man is a threat to world peace. HE IS THE TERRORIST.

Re: It's all about the money



*phew* Had to wipe the tears from my eyes on that one!

Me too!... as if we are going to profit. LOL

Re: It's all about the money




Yeah, me three... but just at the two of youse.

Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the December 12, 2003 edition

How Not to Win Friends

The timing couldn't have been worse: Hours before President Bush was to call the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia to seek their help in easing Iraq's foreign debt, the Pentagon announced it would bar those same countries from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction contracts - on the basis of their opposition to the war.

To be sure, the resulting flap is overblown: First, the ban applies only to the $18 billion in aid supplied from the US Treasury. Countries often tie foreign aid to their own companies or route it to favored foreign firms. By contrast, anyone may bid on the $13 billion in pledged multilateral aid.

Second, the ban applies only to the 26 prime contracts, not to subcontractors. Since subcontractors do most of the work in such situations, the ban is more apparent than real. Siemens AG, along with several other German firms, is already a subcontractor in Iraq. French and German firms built much of Iraq's infrastructure; they'll almost certainly supply spare parts for repairs.

What really rankled Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Ottawa - the ban also includes Canada - was the Pentagon's wording, which implied that firms from the countries in question were a threat to US national security.

The spat highlights the continuing tone-deafness of large parts of the Bush administration to how its words play overseas: The administration's neoconservatives and the Pentagon in particular, frequently pushing justifiable policies, often couch them in unnecessarily inflammatory language. The dispute also displays the administration's difficulties in coordinating its foreign-policy actions - the job of the National Security Council staff.

The administration is bringing back former Secretary of State James Baker III to help reduce Iraq's debt. He returns not a moment too soon.

The administrations stupidity on display again. They are diplomatic Neanderthals.

I suspect this effort isn't going to go well.

Writing off $141 billion to get a piece of $18 billion. Yup, I know I'd sign on for that. If I was incredibly stupid. Yup, I think people would sign on for that. If I was incredibly stupid.






err, that was from the Globe and Mail. I'd left the site before I realized I hadn't grabbed the link. Anyway - I found it at the Globe through a Google search.

Much as I like a lot of you Americans, I am coming to the conclusion you are more trouble that you're worth

It's a good thing you weren't alive during the British Empire...I don't think you would have been able to live with yourself.

He could post this here as well, only send it by pigeon post :wink:

Heh!

The point about the 18 billion being chump change is that 18 billion divided by 100+ countries is not much. It's even less so when the reality that it's 18 to bid on (as opposed to in the bag) sinks in.

Then when you consider that 13.5 billion already is available to them and that the 18 billion can find its way to them through subcontracting the point I was trying to make becomes clearer.

This is an insult to said nations but not much other than a gratuitous insult. As far as money goes this is not punitive. It was an attempt to be punitive through the slap in the face, and 100+ nations are not crying about the lost revenue from being excluded from bidding on the 18, but rather that the US continues to try to punish the nations that did not agree with the war campaign.

Since I don't believe the 18 billion is financially punitive I consider this gratuitously punitive on the same level of a "No Girls Aloud".

It's just childish and it has backfired (officials already having to explain it away and try to say it wasn't a punitive attempt).

Login to read about it

About Those Iraq Contracts
Help our allies, or the French? You decide.

Friday, December 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

OK, it was probably bad timing. Just at the moment the U.S. is going to ask Germany, France and Russia to forgive a big chunk of Iraqi debt, the U.S. put its finger in their collective eye.

We mean, of course, the list released by the Defense Department of the 63 countries that are eligible to bid for $18.6 billion of Iraq reconstruction work. The excluded countries--those that didn't lift a finger to help the U.S. and its coalition partners--immediately went berserk. Germany pronounced the list as "unacceptable" and Russia threatened to withhold any debt forgiveness.

But beyond the issue of possible bad timing, the Bush Administration is right on target in principle. The U.S. and its allies have spent blood and treasure to liberate Iraq and will spend a lot more to put Iraq back on its feet economically and politically. This particular $18.6 billion was pledged by the U.S.; it has nothing to do with money offered by the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. And the American taxpayers who stand behind it undoubtedly have an interest in seeing it spent on those countries that were there when the U.S. needed them.
The list of eligible countries reflects not so much a punishment for those that were missing, but recognition of those that--some at great political risk--made the sacrifice. Britain and Poland sent fighting troops, for example, and Italy, Spain and others have provided security forces. They've all taken casualties.

Germany and France not only opposed the war but actually tried to obstruct the waging of it. They did not pledge any money at the donors' conference in Madrid this fall. And they, along with Russia, have not sent any troops to postwar Iraq. Worse, these countries, which took what they implied was the high moral ground against the war, are now complaining that they cannot make private profit from its aftermath. It's not a pretty sight.

In fact, given their opposition to the war, U.S. reconstruction plans can be seen as generous. The prohibition applies only to the 26 prime contracts. The majority of the money will be spent at the sub-contractor level and all countries--except for a few outlaw states--are welcome to bid on those. And it is expected that the currently outraged countries will indeed be successful bidders.

Moreover, the Bush Administration has hinted that the door is not closed. A friendly gesture to Iraq, either in debt forgiveness or the provision of troops, might elicit a friendly gesture from the U.S. On Wednesday, President Bush talked to the leaders of Germany, France and Russia about debt forgiveness. In characterizing those chats, a White House spokesperson, while reaffirming the policy on reconstruction contracts, said that the President had made it clear that "the lines of communication would be kept open."

This makes sense to us. Debt forgiveness is a crucial step in reconstituting Iraq as a healthy, functioning democratic state. If Germany, France and Russia agree with that goal--as they should, but we're beginning to wonder--then making their contribution to Iraqi reconstruction in the form of debt forgiveness is a reasonable route.

Put baldly, when the U.S. drew up its list of contractors to bid on its own money, it had a choice--put a finger in the eye of the countries that sat out the war or in the eye of its allies. We think the Bush Administration chose wisely.

"Put baldly, when the U.S. drew up its list of contractors to bid on its own money, it had a choice--put a finger in the eye of the countries that sat out the war or in the eye of its allies. We think the Bush Administration chose wisely."

This is false. The assumption that eyes needed to be fingered is typical of this administration.

There was another option, with no fingering going on.

The same could have been accomplished by simply not publishing a criteria for the bidding.

I really like the "threat to national security" bit. It really adds to the Seriousness of the Bush Administration in fighting terrorism.

That's the part that US officials are trying to divorce, by going to the NATO allies and telling them that we really don't think they are a threat to national security.

No, it wasn't. And after the photo op with the plated bird he fed the troops in the chow line. Everyone in the military knows that Thanksgiving dinner is one of the best of the year, and to have it served up by the Commander in Chief, well, that makes it even tastier.

Back on topic, the fact is, much of the stuff in Iraq that needs to be rebuilt was originally produced by some of the countries barred from bidding. Thus, they will likely wind up getting quite a bit of the spoils since there is no other way to reproduce them other than going back to the original manufacturer.

This is akin to saying "I don't want to go to little Johnny's party but I want to stop by and pick up the party favors when it's over. And I don't want to give him a toy either, but I'll go over and play with his new stuff later".

I had several "friends" like that when I was growing up, and they all grew up to be democrats.

"you weren't alive during the British Empire"

do you have any idea how old I am?

or how long the BE survived?