2
   

Left hand -- meet right hand! Bush style!

 
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:44 am
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals
By DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: December 11, 2003


ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 ?- President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,249 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:39 am
It's mind-boggling that the Bush team would be so petty re these contracts at the same time the U.S. should be trying to rebuild some sort of western alliance. Absolutely mind-boggling...
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:44 am
Frank,
I believe that you are misunderstanding what happened and why. This kind of thing happens when the military is irritated about the way the Administration is handling a situation.
Our military establishment, unlike those of other countries, don't assassinate our leaders, don't stage military coups and don't have direct representation in our government. BUT when the higher ups aren't listening to what is being said by the military commanders, they will 'accidentally' say something to the press that might cause some embarrassment to the Administration just to 'get their attention' and make them realize that they need to start listening to the military people about the solutions to situations.

As one U.S. General once said:
The U.S. military is an excellent hammer. But not all problems are nails.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:47 am
Lest you forget, the civillian elected officials are in charge of the military, not the other way around.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:51 am
Hobit is right on that, Fedral.

But you made a good point.

What do you suppose the Pentagon was trying to say?

Or, if you prefer, what do you suppose Paul Wolfowitz was trying to say?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:54 am
Thats exactly my point Hobit and Frank.
The military KNOWS that the civilians are in charge and wouldn't have it any other way.
BUT when professional soldiers are unhappy with a situation that the civilians have put them in and feel that the civilians aren't listening to them, they do little 'oopsies' like this to let the civilians know they are unhappy.
Thats the point I'm trying to make.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 10:56 am
If it's any consolation, I understood your point and I think they did to. They are just being obstinate.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 11:06 am
Nice to see that you are willing to give your fellow forum-members the benefit of the doubt in any case which is not completely clear, McG.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 12:00 pm
Hey, I'm a giver, what can I say.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 01:05 pm
So, if I understand this correctly, the US military made this call? I love it. This was the administration that started out with the idea that everything would be structured from the top down, no leaks, highly disciplined. Seems to be unraveling now, as it had to...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 01:08 pm
I wouldn't go to that extreme. Seems that Wolfowitz doesn't want to keep his job is all...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 03:30 pm
McGentrix wrote:
If it's any consolation, I understood your point and I think they did to. They are just being obstinate.


I was just starting to think that some of your posts have been getting more thoughtful, McG -- and then you say something stupid like that.

I did not understand the point.

And since the gaff (or message) was made (or sent) by Wolfowitz, a civilian, the point should have been obscure to everyone.

Shape up.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 05:05 pm
Foot in mouth.
Then they take it out and shoot it.

Dubya is clueless. He merely follows orders and tries to read the speeches.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 06:02 pm
This just in: The Pentagon is accusing Halliburton of price gouging. I consider myself as cynical as the next guy, but that's too rich...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 06:19 pm
WASHINGTON Dec. 11 ?- A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in Iraq reconstruction contracts worth $15.6 billion that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, two defense officials said Thursday.
An audit of Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary found substantial overcharging for fuel and other items, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The problems go beyond overcharging, they said, declining to elaborate.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031211_1991.html
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:46 pm
Bremmer the New King of Iraq.
Bremmer is the new King, He and his elite live in palace spleandour while most of the Iraqies live in poverty and the American troops live in constant danger in tents.

The Iraqies know about this but the American people do not.

King George and his band of bundling thieves need to be ousted. Too bad they cannot be prosecuted.
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 07:57 pm
This might just be a ruse to create some leverage and bargain-power for Mr. Baker in his new endeavors.

The security issue raised in the memo is perplexing, which uses the following "finding" to argue the necessity of limiting competition:

Quote:
It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the US, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit prime contracts to companies from these countries



Full memo
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:00 pm
gravy said:
Quote:
protection of the essential security interests of the United States

so we are saying we need to protect our "security interests" from fellow members of NATO? Gravy I also find it perplexing.
0 Replies
 
gravy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:04 pm
Just to be clear, the quote from my post is transposed from the memo.

I don't want any "credit" for Mr. Wolfowitz's statements.

but to answer your question, it sure seems like we are treating allies like insubordinate subordinates.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 08:06 pm
understood
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Left hand -- meet right hand! Bush style!
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 11:57:24