Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think I've figured out the man behind the Administration's policy for rebuilding Iraq.

Otto “What was the middle thing?” West.

Bilmore, Club and I have been talking. We've decided that commenting on rebuilding Iraq should be limited to those who supported going in, in the first place. Tyrone, if you can put partisanship aside, we'd like you to block any posts from the anti-war crowd on this. No offense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
SAM, is there any disagreement with the concept that our not-so-much-friends are only complaining that they will miss out on some large profits, and not some participation in the concepts of rebuilding?

When you read foreign media on this subject, they start with the assumption that companies located in a country and that country's government are distinct. So they are bent out of shape that a French company is being discriminated against because it is French. Whereas (in this debate) we tend to see the French (e.g.) as monolithic. When you think about this, I don't think the way it's being discussed in the U.S. makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure why we should assume that every company based in Canada was opposed to the war, and so on.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bilmore, Club and I have been talking. We've decided that commenting on rebuilding Iraq should be limited to those who supported going in, in the first place. Tyrone, if you can put partisanship aside, we'd like you to block any posts from the anti-war crowd on this. No offense.

Oh, and, while you guys DID buy us all lunch last week, we'd like you to just forget about it, 'kay?

(Okay, funny, but I still maintain it ain't bad policy to not let the French soak us some more by making 25% on contracts to repair the damage when they already made the profits on the missiles that did the damage.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm not sure why we should assume that every company based in Canada was opposed to the war, and so on.

I have a large number of Canadian corporate clients. They are not at all unlike U.S. business owners in favoring limited government interference, taxes etc. They are typically not on board with the Canadian government's socilaism aspects. Some of the one's i'm closest to, I know supported then war, so it may well be that most Canadian companies supported it.

I'm not sure how that is relevant though to the question. When a government applies tariff, penalties etc. against "another country", isn't it always actually doing it to a company in the other country?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Okay, funny, but I still maintain it ain't bad policy to not let the French soak us some more by making 25% on contracts to repair the damage when they already made the profits on the missiles that did the damage.)

If it's a competitive bid process and low bid wins, how are the French soaking us if they only get Ks if they underbid the American, Brit, Spanish, Italian etc. companies?

Don't say it's because the K money should all go to U.S. companies to get cycled back through American pockets, because that's manifestly not the alternative --- money will go to U.K., Spanish, Italian etc. companies under the "Bush friends only" policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I still maintain it ain't bad policy to not let the French soak us some more by making 25% on contracts to repair the damage when they already made the profits on the missiles that did the damage.

If someone is making 25% on these contracts, would it be too much to ask for the Administration to get some competitive bidding? 'Cause I can think of better ways to squander that money.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If it's a competitive bid process and low bid wins, how are the French soaking us if they only get Ks if they underbid the American, Brit, Spanish, Italian etc. companies?

Don't say it's because the K money should all go to U.S. companies to get cycled back through American pockets, because that's manifestly not the alternative --- money will go to U.K., Spanish, Italian etc. companies under the "Bush friends only" policy.

It's a good point, but I'm sort of thinking along the lines of some of the affirmative action contract awarding rules, which acknowledge a loss of some efficiency (because of the higher prices that will likely result) as a price of a greater social good. I'm not saying the french and germans would end up costing us more, or even that it wouldn't be less. It's just a hit I'm willing to take on principle.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Because WE ARE NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT TRYING TO CONVINCE MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES TO HELP US IN IRAQ -- i.e. , by forgiving debt, and/or sending troops, and/or ponying up money for reconstrction, and/or cooperating with us in the U.N. on resolutions giving sanction to a U.S-led international military force in Iraq. Therefore, it is absolutely fucking stupid to shove a thumb in their collective eyes.

S_A_M

I don't think comments like these will help, either.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...cts/index.html

Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From Tapped (where you can find the internal links I've just underlined here):

WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY? The president's bold democracy promotion agenda doesn't seem to extend to East Asia, where we appear to be taking China's side in its dispute over whether or not Taiwan's democratically elected president should hold a democratic referendum on whether the country should declare independence from its fictional union with the mainland. As a strongly worded Washington Post editorial states:

• Taiwan's democratically elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has been hinting that maybe his people should make a democratic choice about whether to unite with China or become independent. Beijing's Communist dictators have replied with bellicose threats to settle the matter by force, no matter the price. Yesterday President Bush essentially placed the United States on the side of the dictators who promise war, rather than the democrats whose threat is a ballot box. His gift to visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was to condemn "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan" while ignoring the sanguinary rhetoric of the man standing next to him. Mr. Bush had his reasons for doing so -- above all to avoid one more foreign policy crisis during an election year. But in avoiding a headache for himself, he demonstrated again how malleable is his commitment to the defense of freedom as a guiding principle of U.S. policy.

That seems about right. I was hoping to find some amusing conservative hypocrisy on this issue, but The Weekly Standard's come out with a pretty strong statement on the subject. When President Bush came out with his big National Endowment for Democracy speech several weeks ago, a lot of folks on the right complained that he wasn't getting enough credit for his stance. The reason he didn't get any credit, however, is that nothing in his policies -- before or after the speech, before or after the invasion of Iraq -- indicates that there's any real commitment to democracy promotion, except as an expedient ex post facto rationale for an Iraq policy that was originally sold to the public on other grounds.

-- Matthew Yglesias

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

Entirely consistent with his long-standing theme that he governs America for the good of America, and not some paradigm of world government. I'd rank it as a good line.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Entirely consistent with his long-standing theme that he governs America for the good of America, and not some paradigm of world government. I'd rank it as a good line.

I'd agree that International Law is a hazy concept and one that can mean many different things to many different people. And the quip would be funny if it came from Dennis Miller. But I don't think this sort of one-liner will play well internationally. It's undignified and unstatemanlike.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
IAsked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer."

I think he's already indicted by an international court in Belgium for invading Iraq, or at least threatened with it. I'd say the lack of international enforcement is something he's already spoke about with his lawyers

[Dave]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Therefore, it is absolutely fucking stupid to shove a thumb in their collective eyes.

Perhaps, but I bet it felt good at the time.

[bilmore]

One point maybe I missed: The Determination provision speaks of limiting the bidding process to Coalition Members, and "force contributing" nations.

Does this open the way to allowing France to bid if they start sending forces? Seems like this inclusion would mean that it's not a closed list, and that people can work their way on. (Didn't Canada send troops?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Didn't Canada send troops?)

to Afghanistan. we accidently bombed some, killing I think 4.
Canada was pretty squarely against Iraq, although a few Canadian troops assigned to some joint mission did end up there. this was a cause of much outcry in Canada.