Posted on 12/11/2003 12:45:16 PM PST by Dunedain
Every network on Wednesday highlighted the angry reaction of nations excluded from receiving U.S.-paid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, but CBS went the furthest in treating the decision to limit the contracts to the 63 nations in the anti-Hussein coalition as some kind of scandalous punishment when it could also be seen as a reward to those who helped or as an incentive to others to join up.
Dan Rather managed to work “Halliburton” and “war-profiteering” into his introduction of his lead story: “President Bush has decided to punish some major countries by excluding them from the rebuilding of Iraq. American companies with contracts in Iraq, especially those like Halliburton with close ties to the administration, are being paid handsomely. Some critics are saying Halliburton is unfairly war-profiteering. But countries that wouldn’t join the President’s coalition of the willing to oust Saddam Hussein are now saying, 'unfair,’ about being denied a share of the big money reconstruction pie.”
CNBC’s Brian Williams saw retribution, teasing his December 10 newscast: "Tonight on 'The News,' getting even: After claiming, 'You're either with us or against us,' the Bush White House now goes after those who weren't on board during the war in Iraq."
Williams, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth observed, opened his The News with Brian Williams, by noting how critics worried that Bush’s “with us or against us” rhetoric had too much “swagger,” but now, he warned, “it is much more real.” Williams announced: "Good evening. Few people alive in this country during those scary days after September 11th will forget the President's speech to Congress, which became known later as the 'Bush Doctrine.' To other nations, he said, 'You're either with us or against us.' Critics later worried it was swagger -- too blunt, not realistic. Tonight, it is much more real. The bill has come due for the nations that failed to step up and help the U.S. fight terrorism. It's not that those nations will have to pay for it as much as it is about how much they will perhaps lose because of it. And so we begin here tonight at the Pentagon with NBC's Carl Rochelle."
Following Dan Rather’s opening of the December 10 CBS Evening News, as quoted above, David Martin reported: “If you haven’t sent troops to occupy Iraq, you can forget about winning any of the prime contracts to rebuild Iraq. And that means you -- Germany, France, Russia and even Canada -- four of the most conspicuous countries to refuse to send troops to Iraq. That, in so many words, is what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says in a memo naming the countries eligible to bid on $18.5 billion worth of reconstruction contracts, a memo which left Canada’s incoming prime minister railing against the unfairness of it all.” Paul Martin, incoming Canadian Prime Minister: “I find it really very difficult to fathom. First of all, Canada has put in close to $300 million in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq. We have troops in Afghanistan and are carrying a very, very heavy load in that country.” Martin: “Germany and France, which also sent troops to Afghanistan, and Russia which granted the U.S. overflight rights for the war against the Taliban, were equally indignant and could get even by refusing to forgive any of the $7 billion debt Iraq owes them. The White House suggested the surest way to get a piece of the action is to send troops to Iraq.” Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary: “If countries decide they want to participate in the efforts and join the efforts of the coalition forces in Iraq, then circumstances can change.” David Martin: “Ever since 9/11, one of the Bush administration’s slogans has been, 'If you’re not with us, you’re against us.’ This order translates that into dollars and cents. One reconstruction contract is to import hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fuel into Iraq, which despite its vast oil reserves, is still short of gasoline for cars and propane for cooking. That contract is currently held by Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Cheney. Today, Congressman Henry Waxman demanded an investigation into why Halliburton charges up to three dollars a gallon to import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq where it sells for as little as five cents at the pump. Specifically, why Halliburton tacks on a ten percent markup in a business where a profit of a penny a gallon is normal. Halliburton claims it’s only a two percent markup and blames the high cost of transportation since it is dangerous to truck fuel into the middle of a war. One thing is clear: Whether you’re a country or a company, it pays to be a friend of the Bush administration. David Martin, CBS News, the Pentagon.”
A baffling sentence: “Today, Congressman Henry Waxman demanded an investigation into why Halliburton charges up to three dollars a gallon to import gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq where it sells for as little as five cents at the pump.”
How exactly is Halliburton “war-profiteering” if they are paying $3.00 for a product unit they sell for 1/60th that price? Sounds like they are providing gift to the Iraqis.
I’d assume this was a jumbled explanation for a complaint from a Congressman, whom Martin failed to identify as a liberal Democrat, about how Halliburton is over-charging the U.S. government for bringing gas into Iraq, but then why not just charge more for it in Iraq?
Martin and CBS also failed to point out how non-U.S.-paid contracts are still available to Canada, France and Russia. ABC’s Kate Snow asserted that “the new reconstruction policy drew anger around the world,” but she pointed out on World News Tonight how “the contracts in question represent only the U.S. portion of all the money committed for Iraq's reconstruction.”
On one hand, what do French and Germany expect for their virulent anti-Americanism. They need to get off their high horse and maybe this will get their attention.
As far as my nation, Canada, I think we deserve better. This was in fact the first time I was onside with Cretien. We simply told Bush that his argument was not convincing enough for us. Every nation has to make up its own mind whether to deploy troops. We are our own army, not a secondary American force. We did in fact provide naval support - as token as it was. And we are deeply involved in supporting America in Afghanistan, while France and Germany are not.
I am in fact happy that Bush has decided to share at all. I was getting worried that all the business going to American companies and I'm relieved he's sharing with those that supported the war.
Why were you worried? After all, the administration had always been clear that closed operations were only for a short time, and a more open bid process would come eventually. Do you doubt the Bush administration as a rule, or just on this matter?
If French and German soldiers are too afraid to go to Iraq...how would they ever talk French laborers into it...
If nobody believes that we'll play hardball, we will always get fleeced, and countries can always snub us and then expect us to concede to them in the end because we're the USA who is so big and powerful that we'd be bullies not to give in to their requests.
-PJ
My understanding is they are excluded from being a PRIME contractor for any rebuilding effort. They can be sub to their hearts content.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.