Bush Laughs Off Critics Of 'Spoils Of War' Bidding

Independent (UK) ^ | 12-12-2003 | Rupert Cornwell

[Right_in_Virginia]

And this is why I can no longer stand O'Reilly...

Honestly, the sound of this egomaniac's voice gives me hives.

[Piranha]

I agree with President Bush's sentiment, and I think this is a brilliant negotiating ploy to get these countries to pony up on the debt forgiveness that Baker is negotiating.

International treaties are important, though. They are mentioned in the US Constition, which gives the President the right to negotiate them (with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate). Nevertheless, the President can unilaterally terminate any US treaty, see Kucinich v. Bush, decided August 5, 2002 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

If the limited-bidding program proposed by the Pentagon violates an international treaty that the US is party to, this would be a very serious thing. If the Germans are just blowing smoke, that's another story.

[solo gringo]

Kofi's demands will carry a lot of weight.He cut and ran when it got a little rough.Closed shop and shipped his agents to another country.Now up yours kofi.

[dasboot]

Priceless. I wonder if the Independent, seething with resentment, understands how any normal person would respond to Bush's remark.

...like the English knights at Agincourt. I kiss GW's dirty shoe!

[Southack]

BWAAAA ha ha!

[Right_in_Virginia]

O'R was opining last night that the government should be in control of the medical and pharmaceutical professions. The man has lost his mind.

I wish he'd figure out who he is and what he believes in. He's had 50+ years to do this, and I'm not holding my breath.

[blam]

"O'Reilly's having a hissy-fit over this. Had to turn off his show. (Again)"

Yup. Saw that, he's way off base on this.

[Sabertooth]

George Bush poured fuel on the flames of the Iraq contracts dispute yesterday with a sneering dismissal of a suggestion by the German Chancellor that the decision to bar Germany, France Russia and Canada from bidding might violate international law.

"International law? I'd better call my lawyer," the American President joked in response to a reporter's question at the White House.

Good for Bush. The Coalition of the Cowardly can pound sand.

[Mark17]

Mr Annan called the decision by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, "unfortunate" and likely to damage attempts to rebuild transatlantic ties bruised by disagreement over the war.

Isn't that kind of their responsibility, to rebuild ties?

[Right_in_Virginia]

O'Reilly's having a hissy-fit over this.

Oh, really? What, he doesn't like anybody stealing his shtick?

LOL! Good point. Wasn't Mr. O the one who led a boycott on the French????

[Normal4me]

I say let them bid. Give them the scope of the project(s) and let them spend their time and money to write contracts,etc. Then promptly thank them and toss it in the trash! Everyone is happy (well, almost) ;-)

[RckyRaCoCo]

thing is, i've heard the threats today of these country's not forgiving Iraq's debts thus not helping in the reconstruction in retaliation for not getting contracts. Far as i'm concerned, the debt is owed by Saddam Hussein's goon's government, not Iraq....find HIM and ask HIM to pay it back.

[Piranha]

You're right, according to this Reuters (gasp) article (which I got off the Forbes website)

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/12/11/rtr1178720.html

U.S. braces for legal battle over Iraq contracts
Reuters, 12.11.03, 7:46 PM ET
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In defending its decision to bar France, Germany and Russia from Iraq reconstruction contracts, the Bush administration is asserting that the American-led and funded Coalition Provisional Authority that runs Iraq is not bound by U.S. free trade commitments.

The administration has cast the CPA as a multinational agency -- not a U.S. government entity that signed onto the World Trade Organization's rules. But trade experts say it is unclear whether the WTO would agree since the authority's funding comes almost exclusively from the United States.

European Commission officials say they are studying the 26 contracts at stake to determine whether the restrictions violate the WTO's government procurement agreement.

"International law? I better call my lawyer," Bush joked with reporters when asked about the legal merits.

Bush, who ran for office as a free-trade advocate, defended his decision on Thursday, saying: "It's very simple. Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

Administration officials have yet to spell out how they would defend against a possible WTO complaint by Europe -- except to say it would not use a national security exemption.

But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in a notice about the contracts: "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 United States, Iraq, coalition partners and force contributing nations."

U.S. trade officials say they would make the case that the Coalition Provisional Authority is "not covered by the WTO."

Though it is run by American officials and funded by U.S. taxpayers, experts say the administration would assert that the authority is technically not a "U.S. entity" but rather a multilateral organization composed of dozens of member countries -- what Bush famously dubbed a "coalition of the willing."

Whereas the United States agreed to follow the procurement rules, the CPA never did, allowing it to ignore the agreement, which bans governments from discriminating against foreign companies based on their nationality.

If that legal avenue fails, the administration could use loopholes and exemptions in the WTO rules to classify reconstruction contracts as foreign aid. Food aid from the U.S. Agency for International Development is already exempted.

But some trade experts were skeptical the White House would prevail.

"I'm not sure that's a slam dunk argument," said Greg Mastel, chief international trade adviser for Miller and Chevalier, a law firm specializing in trade issues.

Attorney John Howell, a partner with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney, said the administration's case was on the legal "fringe" and would not "be easy to defend" -- both in U.S. court and the WTO.

Other experts said the administration's strategy may pay off. "I don't believe that has ever been litigated," said one leading U.S. trade lawyer who asked not to be identified. "Treaty law is limited to the parties that take on those obligations. Normally those obligations are construed narrowly."

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

[Piranha]

I'm not an international trade lawyer, but it seems that the relevant treaty is the Text of the Agreement on Government Procurement, Article III, and Articles VII-XVI, at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/agrmnt_e.htm.

I don't know whether the US ratified this agreement (it's not apparent from the WTO website).

[gatorgriz]

I just don't get old Europe... They poke us in the eye, screw us over at every opportunity, and then they have the unmitigated gaul to suggest that our denying them the opportunity to bid on reconstruction contracts in Iraq will damage the transatlantic alliance?

Give me a BREAK! Those thumbsucking panty waists don't deserve a bloody damn thing after the way they treated our country. The next time those lilly livered chickensh*ts find their collective asses in a crack we should tell 'em to go pound their puds...

[Williams]

It's the American left you really have to watch. These traitorous scum will go to bat for the French to get a contract from our U.S. Treasury, just as they went to bat to protect Sadaam Hussein. They couldn't care less about your kids who died while these scumbag socialist countries undermined the effort. They will sacrifice all of us on the altar of the U.N., and they regret nothing more than the fall of Soviet communism. They are the nincompoops who are pushed aside every time this country's life is at risk.

[Judith Anne]

What the lefties choose to ignore, hoping we are too naive to know it, is that Europe would not respect us if we did cave in on this--in fact, if GWB did not take the stance he did, Euroweenies would rush to steal us, the American taxpayers, blind, and still have contempt for us.

The only way to get the respect of the Euroweenies is to ignore them, mistreat them, and laugh at them. They understand THAT tactic.

[marron]

It seems to me that France and Germany will be perfectly free to fund their own reconstruction projects from their own taxpayers' money.

They just aren't being invited to spend US taxpayer money.

And if they really want to help Iraq they can forgive Iraqi, Saddamist, national debt. They may as well, they aren't going to collect in any case.

[sarasmom]

"How do we get a coalition together when we're putting it out on a government website that a country like Canada is a national security risk to the United States?" Marty Meehan, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, said."

Some people just have to get used to the concept of a drug free workplace!
ROTFLMAO!

[WhiteGuy]

I'd like to publicly commend our president on this one......

Way to go! Tell the rest of the world to go pound sand!!

(Now if he'd just apply the same attitude to iraq....)