Former U.S. officials, analysts blast Bush adm. over new rift with Europe

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for reopening a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. "And I think it's petty. I really do think we should not be in the business of alienating people."

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger said the decision did not make sense. And Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the job in the Carter administration, called the announcement Tuesday by the Pentagon bizarre.

President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and President Vladimir Putin of Russia all raised the contracts issue when President Bush telephoned them Wednesday with an appeal to ease Iraq's debt burden.

(snip)

"There are perfectly good reasons to discriminate between those who are very helpful and those who are less helpful," Brzezinski said in an interview. "But why rub it in with a political announcement that will further diminish the probability of serious European participation with men and money in the effort to internationalize the Iraqi conundrum?"

more…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/10/national0153EST0419.DTL

[aquart]

1. Brzezinski gets to the heart of it.

Of course we're going to reward friends and punish perceived non-friends. It's the classic carrot and stick.

But make an asshole announcement? Jesus, what amateurs.

[TheLastMohican]

13. Brzezinski is PNAC ideologist all the way

The last person I will trust in this bunch of adventurers. He likes the covert ops rather than open show of hostility. He is just a more timid and careful cannibal than the rest.

[el_gato]

18. your right, the diff b/t CFR and PNAC gangs are just use of discression

the neocons aren't interested as much in hiding the truth
but other than that they are the same

as far as Albright goes, she didn't give a rats ass about the massive death caused by UN sanctions on the iragi people

she is scum as far as I'm concerned

[NJCher]

2. backpedaling

Boy is this going to backfire and you can see they already know it by the backpedaling that's going on in the quotes in the second half of the article.


Cher

[annagull]

3. Wolfie's "No Soup for You!" strategy

is yet another miserable failure. Didn't I hear Wolfie is resigning in February?

[TacticalPeek]

21. The Soup Nazi.

:evilgrin:

[fishnfla]

23. Actually shrub has a long history of this

he never forgives what he perceives as disloyalty, ask Wm Kristol.
This petulant attitude goes back a long way.

[Manix]

4. I thought the whole point was to help the people of Iraq....and now we

get childish games!

[leesa]

16. The US had no interest in helping Iraq. They are there solely

to loot the country and murder Muslims as a "message" to the rest of the subjects of the American Empire.

[NoKingGeorge]

19. Two partys in power leads to confusion.

The neoCon party wants to 'send a message' the rePub party wants to loot for corporations.

[radfringe]

5. Baghdad Bush exceeds my expectation everyday...

he's F**king up worse than I ever expected..... I'd guess that he's never read "How to win friends and influence people" - or maybe that's because it's not out in coloring book form... :evilgrin:

talking heads were spinning this last night - said that the implimentation would be "different" from the statement and would allow sub-contracting to companies from the "banned" list of countries.... :eyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54443-2003Dec10.html
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher pointed out that all such partners would be eligible and said, "As a general proposition, I would tell you it was not done to exclude, it was done to include." The administration was criticized last spring for reserving all contracts for U.S. contractors.

Once the primary contracts are awarded, Boucher said, the winning bidders will be entitled to hire subcontractors from any country they choose, including France, Germany, Russia and Canada.

the memo - http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/D_F.pdf

Iraq contract info - http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cba/iraq/

meanwhile - here's my letter to the editor:

Dear Editor:

With deaths and casualties mounting daily in Iraq and what is appearing to be a long hard slough of a quagmire - the Bush administration had reached out it's hand to the world and slapped it in the face.

Barring countries (who did not support the Iraq Invasion) from submitting bids for rebuilding contracts is not the way to build international support. With one lip Bush is calling for international support - with the other lip he is alienating the world.

That we need international support in terms of money, troops and resources is obvious - yet Bush continues with the "My way or the Highway" policies. That we need international support to fight a war on terror is also obvious - yet Bush continues with the "..for us or against us.." policies.

It's becoming more apparent every day that any significant United Nation or world support won't be forthcoming as long as Bush remains in office. Many will say "...the hell with the world we will go it alone..." - however when the next terrorist attack occurs, or when Bush decides to invade another country, the world is more likely to say "..to hell with America, let them go it alone..." .

[radfringe]

6. duped my own post - sorry

[NJCher]

7. good letter, radfringe

I'm gonna' write one, too.


Cher

[radfringe]

8. Bush has his scorecard and an "axis of evil" list

we should start referring to this latest "F***-up" as the
BANNED in BAGHDADlist

[Capt_Nemo]

9. I suddenly realized that this is not so much about confronting...

France and Germany, but to keep SPAIN, DENMARK, PORTUGAL and ITALY, among other european states, from
breaking away from the coallition in the event the current right wing
goverments are thrown out in new elections. (Denmark may not be eager to
get that money but the others are and companies would pressure
any gov. to keep the troops there)

If you read carefuly Wolfowitz memo, that's what stands out on the
whole thing.

This is no blunder. They had to make it in order to keep the whole
thing from colapsing. Wolfowitz is a fascist but he is no moron like
the shrub, or blinded by greed like Cheney, people on the
left should realize that.

What riles me up about this issue is that this is a matter that should
be up to the Iraqi people to decide and not to the self-styled US
vice-roys.

[radfringe]

10. to keep SPAIN, DENMARK, PORTUGAL and ITALY in coalition

question: What is the mood of the people in these countries regarding Iraq involvment?

How far will a few contracts go to "buy" votes and keep the right-wingers in office?

[Capt_Nemo]

22. It depends

In Portugal (where I live) people just care about soccer and the
comming European Cup.

In Spain the majority is very hostile to the occupation and a general
election is comming soon. If they quit that could generate a chain
reaction.

In Italy media manipulation (by ownership) has enabled the Goverment
to brainwash quite a large section of the population, but for how
long they can maintain this illusion is unknown.

In Denmark, with people being generaly more knowlegeable in world affairs,
I guess it could make it tough for the government to survive the next
election.

[truthspeaker]

15. exactly! it should be up to Iraq's "government"

Iraqis should be making these decisions. After all, they're "liberated" now, right? Right?

[dusty64]

11. Kick!

x

[mikeytherat]

12. This is all so easy!

Jeebus H. Christ on a Crutch, Georgie, this is all so easy:

FIRST you get the countries to agree, publicly, to forgive Iraq's debt,
THEN you shaft them out of the contract bidding!

Cripes, BushCo, it's not too hard to be a greedy bunch of dicks, but you can't even get that right!

These guys could f*ck up a one-car funeral.

mikey_the_rat

[jayfish]

24. They're So Good At Doing...

that too. I wonder what their problem is. :shrug:

Jay

[TheLastMohican]

14. The whole hypocrisy strikes me.

People in the said countries are not even questioning the right of USA to award contracts in the country which is not a 51st state under American jurisdiction. Iraq is not american property to sell it in the first place. If it is, then Bush has to admit publicly that that was the war of conquest like Spanish or British colonies in the 18th century. Spare us that WMD and Saddam-evil guy bull!

[salin]

17. Shouldn't US Taxpayers also be outraged?

We learn that even after 'outed' - Halliburton continues to gouge taxpayers on its 'transporting oil' program. The Iraqi agency that does the same does it for half the price (shouldn't "competition" and trying to get the best deal for taxpayers suggest that the US govt fires Halliburton and enters into a contract with the Iraqi entity that is providing the same services at a MUCH lower cost?) - but Halliburton is so audacious that even after the story breaks - they continue (and perhaps even INCREASE?) their gouging.

This admin that touts free market as always good and "monopolistic government" as always bad (hence their push to privatize everything insight)... is somehow continuing to give contracts NOT based on competition? Set up parameters that protect price gougers (and bilkers of tax payers) - and prevents the very market forces they tell us are needed in this country to solve all problems (of course until the redo medicare and they PREVENT the use of market forces to be used to exert pressure to lower drug prices.)

Shouldn't tax payers be screaming that we are tired of being gouged by Halliburton - and that the freemarket should determine WHO gets rebuilding contracts?

[mmm]

20. US taxpayers should be in a state of permanent outrage

that they are not is what has me worried.

[salin]

25. isn't that the sad truth

*sigh*

[TacticalPeek]

26. Silly idealists.

When looting is internationally outlawed, only looters get the loot.