Bush & company the antidiplomat

The BBQ Pit
#1

I will admit to violently disliking the administration. I did not think the war was a good idea. I am trying to believe that they did not intentionaly lie about the war, but rather chose to use shakey information that backed up something they were positive of. ( For some odd reason a leather glove comes to mind.)

That all said I do not think we can leave Iraq. We broke it. We can not destroy it then cut and run. We are not in good shape for fixing it ourselves though. We need help. It is time to mend fences to get us out of the mess and to help Iraq. I thought that the Bush administration had been making some attempts (half assed as they were) to do just that. Imagine my suprise when I heard thistoday

What the hell!!! Canada, a country that has poured millions of dollars into the rebuilding effort has been excluded. Russia, a country who we want to forgive tens of millions of dollars of Iraqi debt has been excluded. France and Germany have been our closest allies for over 50 years, and one time that they chose to follow a different policy than ours they get pushed away from the table. Not to mention, I can’t think of a better way to get French and German soldiers in Iraq than to have French and German civilian firms to protect.

Frankly the only thing that scares me more than one more year of this, is five.

#2

If they the had the best interests of the people of Iraq at heart, they would open bidders to all. If you want the best fit for the job, you have more possible contacters, not less, right?

Regardless of whether the war was justified or not, it sure looks like they are putting politics before the welfare of the people of Iraq.

#3

So they’ve got James Baker, on the one hand, trying to sweet talk these people into forgiving the Iraqi debt and Wolfowitz, on the other hand, freezing their companies out of the bidding. You know what that says to me? No one is in charge. There is no plan. Department heads are doing their own thing and jockeying for position. We are adrift.

#4

Regardless of whether it’s true or not, the administration seems to be going out of its way to give the impression that this war wasprimarily about helping its big business cronies.

#5

The impression?

#6

From today’s whitehouse press briefing:

It keeps getting better from there on.

#7

What do you want to bet the buck doesn’t even slow down and rubberneck on its way past the Oval Office?

#8

Even if Canadian corporations were allowed to tender bids, who’d go? I wouldn’t. A guy could get hurt working in Iraq these days.

Which isn’t to say that this doesn’t make the Bush Administration look bad. Again.

#9

Ugh, unbelievable.

#10

Defenders? Spinmeisters? Anybody willing to try to get behind the Bushies on this one?

Anyone?

Hello?

<-- crickets -->

#11

Italics mine. Rumor has it the initial draft read both “USDA prime” and “juicy”, but in committee it was changed to a more innocent ‘prime’ contract.

#12

The excuse, as I understand it, is that restricting responsive and qualified bidders on these really big engineering contracts (remember the $87 Billion injected into the budget as an off budget item) enhances the “security interests of the United States.” It will enhance the security interest of the United States to contract with a Tongan engineering firn instead of a French, German, Canadian or Russian one. Guess how many international engineering firms operate out of the Republic of Tonga. If there are, they are eligible and qualified bidders to go head to head with any number of outfits headquartered in Houston, Dallas and Midlands.

How the national security interests of the United States are enhanced by excluding French, German, Canadian and Russian engineers from the bidding is too profound a concept for me.

What is not too profound is this paraphrase of Finley Peter Dunn (Mr. Dooley): If you turn on a light in the darkest heart you will find a good and virtuous reason for doing the worst things–reasons like needing the money, or punishing the wicked, or teaching people to be more careful, or protecting our liberties, or needing the money.

Someone else said that when you’re told that it isn’t about the money you can be reasonably certain that it is about the money.

#13

Freaking Fucking disgusting!

To me, the intervention in Iraq could have been saved as a humanitarian democratic move, by paradoxically giving important responsibilities even to the ones that opposed this operation. It would have stopped many anti-US talking points the opposition in the ME is using to get people against us.

IMO the administration, with this action, has ensured that now all the soldiers killed died mostly to protect interests, if not the ones of America, the ones of Bush’s cronies.

Since the hamsters refused to work, that gave me time to quote this:

Not in this case you pea brain.

(enphasis mine)
This cannot be remarked enough: for these yahoos, the beginning of the Iraq war is really not considered a continuation to the war on terror! Ergo, all sacrifices Canada gave to us in Afganistan are invalid to be considered in the Iraq case! I bet this concession that Iraq began something else will whoosh over the “liberal media”.

Later you said that the US is expanding the coalition, this will mean countries that were not present from the begining, but did not oppose us will have a chance to that pie.

As an American taxpayer, I respectfully tell you to go fuck yourself.

#14

Sure. Not for leaving out Canada or any other countries that are in fact giving significant amounts of help relative to their abilities. And I hope that that part of it will change.

But France, Germany, Russia? Fuck 'em.

They did not help overthrow of Saddam, have declined to give significant amounts of aid to Iraq and they refuse to forgive any of the debt incurred by Saddam. Remind me exactly what the Iraqis owe them?

“As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had,” Allawi said. “I don’t think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq.”

Not that this is money the Iraqis had lying around, anyway; we’re talking about the money that the US is providing to rebuild Iraq. The American government decides that they’d prefer American tax dollars not go to countries that do not support American policy … dunno, sounds good to me.

“You can do what you like with your own money.”

If these guys want to start actually doing something to help for a change instead of sitting on the sidelines bitching, we’ll talk. But so long as they just want to circle around like vultures looking for something to scavenge off the battlefield, well, I have no problem telling Jacques where he can shove it, sideways and with both handles sticking out.

In the unlikely event that the only company in the world that can make a certain widget is based in Kiev, they can subcontract with a Japanese firm. But we sure as hell aren’t going to slap in the face the people that have been our allies. “Hey, Poland, Denmark, Australia … thanks for risking your troops’ lives, but we’ve decided that Germany is the one we’d like to see make a few bucks. Yeah, we’ll call on you again the next time we want help.”

Does it look weird to have Baker simultaneously asking for debt relief? Sure, unless, he is also simultaneously telling them that if they come through with some actual help for a change, that subcontractor loophole might get quite large. In any event, it’s no weirder than people who did nothing to help acting outraged when they can’t feed at the trough.

Lemme help:

  1. America, acting in what it thinks to be its self-interest, invades Iraq.

a)Denmark supports this.
b)France does everything they can to thwart this.

a) Danish industry gets some postwar reconstruction deals.
b) France watches longingly.

  1. Both nations conclude that the America is a nation that rewards those who help it, and does not reward those who oppose it. Both nations will take this into consideration the next time the US requests their help.

Clear now?

#15

not at all since Canada is included by the administration but excluded from your analysis.

#16

Even less clear, after one realizes those countries were right in their opposition to an invation, specially in the case of the WMD.

#17

Wring, you might want to read my first sentence again. I do not agree on excluding Canada.

#18

Gotta love it. From the NYTimes

"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. "

What was that book Casey Stengel wrote about the Mets? Something like Can Anybody Here Play This Game?

Maybe it’s the ol’ “lower the expectations” ploy? Like, if thermonuclear world war doesn’t break out by next November, we’ll be so grateful we’ll relect him?

No, that’s stupid, that can’t be it, it must be…ah…um…

There’s been a super-secret Constitutional Amendment by the Supreme Court that says next year, its the guy who comes in second who wins! Again.

#19

I did read it. You attempted to justify the administrations ’ position, however you did it by changing the position, which, from where I stand doesn’t clear anything up. consider this:

Administration’s position = A.

We ask “who can defend that?”

You post “I can. If we consider Administration’s position as A minus B then here is the defense. CLear now??”

me “Nope, since the administration’s position includes B, while your defense of it excludes B.”

see how that works?? It’s easy to justify part of a fucked up position. Much more challenging to justify all of it.

#20

Okeey fine. Didn’t realize it was Pedant’s Night Out in the BBQ Pit, and figured that my disclaimer would be enough to help readers to infer that I was addressing the basic principle underlying the policy.

In the future I will assume my readers are incapable of that. Or not.