December 12, 2003
THE STANDARD WOBBLES:
Contracts for Iraq: Reverse the Pentagon's Decision (William Kristol and Robert Kagan, 12/11/2003, Weekly Standard)
President Bush, we suspect, is going to overrule the Pentagon's attempt to exclude from the bidding for Iraq reconstruction contracts certain countries that have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. He might as well do it sooner rather than later, so as to minimize the diplomatic damage done by the Pentagon's heavy-handed and counterproductive action.We hold no brief for the Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin governments. We are also very much in favor of finding ways to work more closely with other governments -- such as those of Britain, Spain and Poland -- who have courageously stood with us, and who hold the promise of continuing to be more helpful to us. We have even been critical of the Bush Administration for a certain lack of imagination in finding ways to work constructively with these friendly governments. But this particular effort by the Pentagon to reward friends and punish enemies is stupid, and should be abandoned.
Boy, these two aren't ready in any way, shape, or form for the odious debt decision, are they?
WHILE A WAHHABI UNWOBBLES:
Saudi envoy praises U.S. terror fight (The Associated Press, 12/12/2003)
Countries that opposed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq have no right to protest U.S. initiatives restricting reconstruction contracts to allies, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States, said Friday.Posted by Orrin Judd at December 12, 2003 4:56 PM
Bandar said he thought it was "amazing" that war opponents now "feel they have a right to share in the pie" of reconstruction contracts.He said even more dangerous than terrorists themselves are those who say they condemn terrorism but don't actively fight it. Bandar repeatedly praised Bush's decisions to fight terrorism, invade Iraq and send troops to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban.
Man, what is heck is wrong with these guys???!!!??? I'm kinds glad that I let my subscription expire.
And...what is this malarky about "diplomatic damage ... heavy-handed and counterproductive action"?? Have they been taking lessons from Jimmy Carter?
Anyway, they were proved out to be wrong. Bush just said in no uncertain terms that this decision stands. YAAHOO!
And how come it's always us that has to "find ways to work constructively with these friendly governments."? How comes it's never incumbent on *them* to find a way to work with *us*?
Posted by: ray at December 12, 2003 6:16 PMI am not sure they are the only ones wobbling on this. While reasonable people could argue about whether the Administration could "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", the linkage has been to the "odious debt issue". This linkage reveals the moral bankrupcy or, at best, bad negotiation skills of the critics. The Administration need not "be nice" to Russia, Francem, and Germany to make them "understand" that these debts can not, should not, and will not be paid. (Incidentally, if Krugman were still capable of serious economic analysis, he would aim to show how much less debt will free Iraq be able to borrow from the markets, and at what higher cost, were these debts not forgiven but instead were left unpaid. My sense: $0 and 0 basis points.)
Posted by: MG at December 12, 2003 6:40 PMIt's almost like this is a parody.
Reasonable people can claim that the way the policy was announced was unhelpful.
However, even if it wanted to, it is no more appropriate for the admin to throw these countries plum contracts than to throw them to Haliburton, etc. Their column essentially shares the ANSWER assumption that large government contracts are issued through a corrupt process.
And this issue is only loosely related to the odious debt issue which is ultimately a matter between the new Iraqi government and Sadaam's creditors.
Posted by: JAB at December 12, 2003 6:57 PMBill Kristol has been bitter and against Bush ever since his man , John McCain, lost the primary election in 2000.
Posted by: Sam at December 12, 2003 7:28 PMMG -- That's why the Provisional Authority should repudiate the Ba'athist debt before turning over the government to the Iraqis.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 12, 2003 8:22 PM"But this particular effort by the Pentagon to reward friends and punish enemies is stupid, and should be abandoned."
Clearly these people don't want the policy to be abandoned. The language they use here shows that. If I want to persuade you to change your mind, I won't tell you that your ideas are stupid and should be changed.
Posted by: Henry IX at December 12, 2003 8:25 PM[Bandar] said even more dangerous than terrorists themselves are those who say they condemn terrorism but don't actively fight it.
Hearing this from a Saudi prince breaks the irony meter....
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 12, 2003 9:17 PMSome people will say anything to avoid being called rubes.
Wonder what Kofi Annan thinks about odious debt?
Also, Bush should get Bono to appear in the Rose Garden and sing about wiping out odious debt. Let the NYT put that down.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 12, 2003 9:24 PM"But this particular effort by the Pentagon to reward friends and punish enemies is stupid"
I am still stunned that anybody thinks there is any other way to do business. They want to play they have to pay.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at December 13, 2003 12:12 AM