White House defends policy on Iraq pacts

The Washington Times ^ | Dec. 11, 2003 | James G. Lakely and David L. Sands

[seamus]

Excluding countries that opposed the war in Iraq from those that will reap the largest profits in the country's reconstruction is "perfectly appropriate and reasonable," a White House spokesman said yesterday.

The Pentagon on Tuesday announced its policy to allow only companies based in the 63 countries that have supported the Iraq war to bid on the "prime contracts" for reconstruction.

[seamus]

Boo, hoo, hoo, France. You deal with a tyrant, you get the shaft. However, it appears to me that Canada has a point. They have contributed troops to the Afghanistan campaign, and six have been killed. (Not a huge sacrifice, but not meaningless). They have also pledged $300 million to Iraq's reconstruction. They should be on the "favored" list, too.

[sboyd]

I agree on Canada. But I find it amazing that Germany, France, and Russia are screaming that this will only divide us on Iraq. That house divided 10 months ago. In my view, they are accomplices with Saddam because they traded with his government for decades. And I guess the weaponry of the Iraq army was designed by Colt and Smith and Wesson? No, they were and still are using Russian and Chinese made weapons. The UN has turned its back on Iraq and I do not believe the Iraqi Council will forget.

[seamus]

Actually, Germany isn't as angry as I expected. A government spokesman said today that there was "no direct link" between debt relief and the U.S. exclusion of German companies from reconstruction contracts. That can be read to say that Germany is open to debt relief for Iraq and does not consider the contracting snub a deal-breaker. Good deal.

Chretien told reporters today that Bush assured him on the telephone this morning to "not worry about" Canada not being on the list of 63. We'll apparently, and justly, make sure they are taken care of.

As for the reactions of France and Russia, can't say that is a shock. Typical French diplomacy. They were the one's being jerks -- FOR MONTHS -- and when we retaliate, they say it's "not helpful." Well, sorry Frenchie. You were not merely "unhelpful" during the justified and necessary war in Iraq, you were obstructionists. You reap what you sow. If France wants primary contract, they can dip into the $13 billion fund that is supposed to be availible from the international community. Of course, when we sent Powell over to Madrid to negotiate the size of international aide, France led the way in making sure "the world" gave as little as possible. As usual, France has cut off its nose to spite its face.

If France tried harder to get the "international community" to make a significant contribution to the reconstruction, there'd be a HUGE pot of gold for France to bid for. Instead, they approached the Madrid talks as yet another opportunity to bash the U.S.

It's pathetic that the U.S. alone donates $18.6 billion, and every other economic power in the world can only raise about 60 percent of that.

[Sunsong]

My view is that Canada does not deserve to profit from the Iraq war that they chose to condemn. Canada has been far too anti-American to complain now. This statement:

" Canada has committed nearly $300 million for the reconstruction of Iraq, Mr. Martin said, and is "carrying a very, very heavy load" in the war on terrorism. "

is laughable, imo. Give them their money back if they so begrudge helping the Iraqis. $300 million is a pittance and to claim they are carrying a "very, very heavy load" is hilarious and should be seen as such by honest people.