Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Asymmeterical Information
B-Town Blog Boys
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
Blogs for Bush
Boots and Sabers
The Bully Pulpit
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
Eye of the Storm
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
Functional, if not decorative
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon blog
Judicious Asininity
The Kudzu Files
Liberty Father
Life and Law
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
Neophyte Pundit
New England Republican
neWs Round-Up
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Peppermint Patty
John Pierce
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Power Politics
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pundit Heads
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
A Republican's Blog
The Review
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
Rooftop Report
The Sake of Argument
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
Stuff about
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tobacco Road Fogey
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Use The Forks!!
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Non-Blogs Linking to PoliBlog: - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs Campaign Finance
Welcome to World O' Blogs
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant
Thursday, December 11, 2003
We Should Compromise on Contracts

By Steven Taylor @ 11:27 am

Said the President today:

“What I’m saying is, in the expenditure of the taxpayers’ money … the U.S. people, the taxpayers, understand why it makes sense for countries that risked lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq. It’s very simple. Our people risked their lives, friendly coalition folks risked their lives and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

On one level, I can accept that logic. However, it strikes me that reconstruction contracts would be a great place for which the administration to compromise.

I understand, and largely support, being stubborn on military, security and governance issues, especially vis-a-vis the demands of the Germans, Russian and French. However, at some point we are going to have to give on some substantial point of contention.

This contract issue would seem to be the kind of thing that would help internationalize involvement in Iraq, and would have spillover effects into other areas of policy. For example, if their are Russian contractors on the ground, the Russian government might be more prone to help up with security.

This is a bad decision.

Source: Bush Defends Iraq Recontruction Policy

Filed under: Iraq

Click here to go to the main page.


  1. Totally agree. In fact, my initial gut reaction was “well of course contracts go to those who fight.” But after reflection, it was obvious that if we really want international help we’ve got to dangle a carrot. This is a good, easy way to do this.

    Comment by Eric — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 11:48 am

  2. I strongly disagree. I understand your arguments about internationalizing this effort, BUT, if we let these nations have contracts after they refused to support us, it will send a strong message that any nation can thumb their noses at us, let us take all the military and political risks, then run in to collect the spoils. I say give the contracts to the countries that have their blood spilled there.

    I would make an exception for Canada since Canada did offer 180 Million which they are now threatening to withhold. Last I heard the French, Germans, and Russians were not offering a cent, nor agreeing to forgive any Iraqi debt. Bush pushed through a relief package for Iraq that was not a loan, again using his political capital.

    Comment by David — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 12:07 pm

  3. To be fair, the EU has ponied up some cash, the French and Germans are powerful members of said group.

    Still, sometimes you have to compromise.

    Comment by Steven — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 12:11 pm

  4. David, In the interests of freeing our troops up to fight other fights, it is imperative that we get free of Iraq. Getting international troops on the ground is a good way of doing that. Also, it helps heal rifts with countries whose help we need to break up international terrorist rings.

    Also, at this point no one has determined how much of the contracts have to be shared. Perhaps its only 10-15%. That’s still a fair amount of money to dangle while retaining most of the spoils for the victors.

    Comment by Eric — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 12:18 pm

  5. I think you missed a very important point. The reality is that we did put the contracts on the table as points to be negotiated. The other options available are 1) we just award contracts to whom we wish without telling the weasels they might as well not apply and 2)have truly open bidding with no restrictions on who may apply. In both cases their is no incentive for the weasels to not act like, well, weasels.

    Comment by Thomas Lowe — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 12:41 pm

  6. I agree with Thomas on the weasles. Bush’s PR problem again may be that he is too honest. France and Germany have engaged in nothing but anti-American obstructionism every step of the way, while trying to bully their weaker neighbors. A good compromise is letting them bottom feed for the sub-contracts, far as I’m concerned. The self-interested weasles aren’t the least bit concerned that Israel is also shut out of the contracts.

    Comment by d-rod — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 1:14 pm

  7. WOW! This is Bush PR problem????? Obviously some people don’t get it.

    Bush gets to go before the American taxpayer and tell them that we is not giving their tax money to people who did not help us during the war. That money is reserved for counties who spilled blood to help the people of Iraq. This is pure gold for Bush.

    It makes him look strong and his critics look like pacifist goofballs. (which they are) I can’t wait to see the poll numbers on this.

    This is brilliant policy and brilliant politics.

    The French and Germany had 2 years to join us. Paying them for snubbing their noses at us would be sheer stupidity.

    Sorry, Steven I agree with you most of the time, you are miles off base on this one.

    Comment by Paul — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 5:42 pm

  8. There are a whole lot of levels to anti-Americanism in the world, and hate-Bush sentiment represents a part of it. Your “pure gold for Bush” may backfire and translate as proof to their “blood for oil” mantra. We need to reduce the anti-Americanism that spawns terrorism and one front is the PR battle overseas. We are not winning that war yet, but I don’t think throwing money at them is going to do it, either.

    Comment by d-rod — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 7:45 pm

  9. Why compromise? And why do we have to be the ones who compromise? Why don’t the French/Germans/Russians have to compromise?

    I realize that I sound like a little kid saying that - but what the previous poster said is true - if we compromise, then we send the message loud and clear - you can thumb your nose at use, refuse to pay any of the costs associated with Iraq - and then we’ll come to you because we feel the need to “compromise".

    What exactly does compromise bring us?

    Comment by Mr. TidyBowl — Thursday, December 11, 2003 @ 11:12 pm

RSS feed for these comments.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>



Take a Look At This!
  • Tabloid News
  • Word of The Day
  • Chronograph Watches
  • Office Shredders
  • Cash Registers
  • Ricoh Fax Machines
  • IBM Typewriters
  • Copy Machines
  • UNIX Consulting
  • Web Design

Visitors Since 2/15/03

Powered by WordPress