|
 |
December 10, 2003 OH YES, THE GROWNUPS ARE TRULY IN CHARGE....Right hand, meet left hand:
Which theory does this support?
I think I'll go with (d). Posted by Kevin Drum at December 10, 2003 09:15 PM | TrackBackComments
I'd say (d) too, but I think you mean "sow" instead of "sew", the latter being a fairly awkward process involving needle and thread. Posted by: ricky prado at December 10, 2003 09:21 PM | PERMALINKAnd now we know how Chalabi pulled it off. Posted by: Notyou at December 10, 2003 09:23 PM | PERMALINKOn the subject of the utter and complete incompetence of the Bush Administration, get this... you will not believe it... http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cf10961c-3157-4b29-83f0-1f4753a9fba4 Canada rebuffs Pentagon recruiters David Pugliese Wednesday, December 10, 2003 Senior Pentagon officials have warned their recruiters to stay out of Canada after the federal government voiced concern about U.S. officers going onto native reserves shortly before the Iraq war in search of volunteers for the American armed forces. Canadian military recruiters reported that their U.S. counterparts appeared last January on reserves in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, in the Sault Ste. Marie area in Ontario and at a number of native communities in the West. According to a report prepared for Defence Minister John McCallum, the Americans were operating on the belief that under a treaty signed in 1794 between the U.S. and Britain, they were allowed to recruit Canadian natives for their military. American recruiters were also under the impression that many of the aboriginals held dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship. The recruiting attempts sparked a high-level meeting in February between Justice, Foreign Affairs, Defence Department and Privy Council officials, at which time it was decided to let the U.S. know that Canada did not support such efforts. Posted by: grytpype at December 10, 2003 09:23 PM | PERMALINKD is clearly correct. BTW, you rip what you sew. You reap what you sow. Posted by: dwight meredith at December 10, 2003 09:28 PM | PERMALINKA common mistake on "calpundit" is to use the word "Sew" or "sewn" when the writer should have used "sown" or "sowed". Meaning to scatter seeds upon the earth or set something in motion. A sow is a female pig. Thank you. Posted by: Laura Bush at December 10, 2003 09:33 PM | PERMALINKTo paraphrase Marge Simpson, "One country really can make a difference, but mostly they shouldn't." Rats, the SS Clueless is ready for disembarking. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 09:34 PM | PERMALINKRats, the SS Clueless is ready for disembarking. Den Beste is closing down his blog? Posted by: jimBOB at December 10, 2003 09:39 PM | PERMALINKHis is only one cabin on the cruise ship SS Clueless; Cap't Stupid and Groper will miss those leaving -- Doc, get away from that big fat idiot! Posted by: QrazyQat at December 10, 2003 09:51 PM | PERMALINKIIRC, some months back there was some talk about putting Baker in charge. Word was he turned it down because they weren't giving him enough authority. Something must have changed his mind. So now, there is at least one grownup in charge over there. Whether he is up to the task remains to be seen. Posted by: rachelrachel at December 10, 2003 09:53 PM | PERMALINKFrom the same NTY article: Nah, W is probably genuinely pissed. Who wouldn't be? But you know, if your official policy is to act like an asshole, you gotta figure that sometimes it's going to come back to bite you at inopportune times.... Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 10, 2003 10:01 PM | PERMALINKActually, I don't think we need those countries to agree. After all, if Iraq doesn't pay what are they going to do? Invade? Posted by: Mike at December 10, 2003 10:04 PM | PERMALINKWhat? you think France, Germany or Russia are just gonna disappear. Iraq won't need trading partners in the future? They'll pay sooner or later. Posted by: Lamborghini at December 10, 2003 10:22 PM | PERMALINKMike: After all, if Iraq doesn't pay what are they going to do? Invade? You are, of course, right. This time. But you have to wonder, if we were to make a practice of publicly taking a shit on our 'allies,' how long would it be before they were no longer our allies? In which case, a bunch of them might band together and 'invade' or otherwise oppose us militarly. I don't like the prospects of that. I'll also go with (d). Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 10, 2003 10:25 PM | PERMALINKGiven the stiff arm we're giving Germany and France, the training of rival Iraqi factions to operate as militia, the hiring of Israelis to train U.S. soldiers to be assassins, the refusal to hold an Iraqi census, and the decision not to count civilian casualties, I think (a) is the only choice ... but way too generous. Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 10, 2003 10:48 PM | PERMALINKWho's the unelectable candidate here? That the Republicans are going to nominate this guy again is evidence of partisan dicipline taken to a pathetic extreme. Posted by: Boronx at December 10, 2003 10:50 PM | PERMALINKRemember, Cheney/Libby/Wolfowitz have tried to act out their idees fixes before as Team B in the first Bush administration and Baker took them to the woodshed and stepped on their report hard before he released it. Looks as if Baker does have some juice, though - Rumsfeld just announced through a spokesman that they'll give contracts to anyone who says that they're part of the coalition, even if they don't offer money or troops, just moral support. Posted by: julia at December 10, 2003 10:51 PM | PERMALINKWhat happened to the conservative posters? They haven't been out lately defending G.W. Posted by: snore at December 10, 2003 10:58 PM | PERMALINKThis apparent screw-up may, in fact, be another strategerie. The Bushies are superb at faking-out the opposition, and they have repeatedly conned their opponents into underestimating them. Ask Teddy Kennedy about the Medicare bill. Hell, read the comments on this site. Instead of left-hand/right-hand, this apparent bumbling could as easily be a variation of the old good-cop/bad-cop scam, with a PR smokescreen. Posted by: Tonto at December 10, 2003 11:01 PM | PERMALINKI think the theory this actually supports is this: (e) When France screws the United States, France shouldn't be surprized it doesn't get any contracts. Posted by: Kevin Gregory at December 10, 2003 11:09 PM | PERMALINK(f) Wal, ya dance with them what brung ya, but I guess ya kin alwuz ask anotha t'take ya home. Posted by: Roger Lamb at December 10, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINKJust wake me up when I can vote. Tired of the circus. Posted by: Tim B. at December 11, 2003 12:02 AM | PERMALINK"What happened to the conservative posters? They haven't been out lately defending G.W." I'll step in for them and defend W. "Freedom from terrorists yada yada yada, cruel, brutal regime yada yada yada, democracy in Iraq, yada yada yada, (fill in the blank here) yada yada yada. Posted by: lk at December 11, 2003 12:19 AM | PERMALINK"But you have to wonder, if we were to make a practice of publicly taking a shit on our 'allies,' how long would it be before they were no longer our allies? In which case, a bunch of them might band together and 'invade' or otherwise oppose us militarly. I don't like the prospects of that." Well, the French especially have made a practice of publicly taking a shit on us for decades so I won't be crying for them any time soon. And France and Russia will be willing to trade with Iraq in the long run. We trade with Mexico don't we? Look up March 2, 1937. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 11, 2003 12:25 AM | PERMALINKUnder Bush's leadership, America has freed the Iraqi people from a horrendous tyrant and is now helping put those people back on their feet. We are overcoming numerous problems caused by Saddam, one of which is the the billions he borrowed to create weapons and palaces. Liberals ought to be cheering these actions. They fulfill principles that liberals long espoused. I doubt that France and Russia's position on debt negotiation will be affected by the ban on reconstruction contracts. It's a separate issue. To the degree that there is some impact, the reconstruction ban may help. It reminds France and Russia that their lack of cooperation could result in adverse consequences to them. Posted by: David at December 11, 2003 12:43 AM | PERMALINKWhy doesn't the article say anything about the size of these debts? Seems like a relevant piece of information. Oh yeah, the media don't do numbers. Posted by: Matt at December 11, 2003 01:02 AM | PERMALINKDavid, you could have saved yourself the trouble and just read your exact same post written by lk (12:19). How many dead Iraqi bodies from a time when Reagan and Bush supported Hussein is an American soldier’s life worth? And let’s be clear, those mass graves the conservabots whine about aren’t something new. Most of them were there when George H. W. Bush decided that it was too costly in blood and treasure to take Baghdad. And let’s remember that this bullshit notion that what Bush did with his unprovoked invasion of Iraq was somehow liberal is beyond laughable. While I’m glad you’ve given up on the fantasy that this had anything to do with any kind of self-defense (Find any WMDs recently? Any ties to actual terrorism?), this wasn’t sold as a humanitarian mission (and it was sold), and claiming so after the fact begs the question of why Hussein? You have already implicitly agreed he was no threat; there is little evidence that his behavior in the last decade was more egregious than that of other dictators; and as a party you opposed every single humanitarian mission carried out by Clinton. Again the question remains, why Hussein? And a further question then arises: why did we need to spend $200+ billion on it (do we even have an estimate of the long term cost of this sideshow, and why not)? Again, since we know there was no threat from Iraq (a decade of sanctions appeared to be working from the fact that not a single weapon was found by the inspectors), it wasn’t like there was any hurry to go after this petty tyrant. Since there was no actual need to hurry, there was no excuse for not building a coalition willing to provide the manpower and resources needed to make the world a better place. What we are left with is the worst President in our history taking us on unnecessary, expensive, and lethal military adventurism. Killing our children and spending our treasure for a goal that, however laudable in the abstract, isn’t worth the cost. A dead goldfish could make better foreign policy decisions. I can't decide if that man is dumb as a rock, or has balls of steel. Posted by: Colin Gregory Palmer at December 11, 2003 01:18 AM | PERMALINKSo much for free trade. Funny that nobody mentioned that this might be an illegal act under international trade rules. I'm sure the WTO will not like it, neither will the Iraqi business community. Posted by: novakant at December 11, 2003 01:23 AM | PERMALINKTry this: Iraq has oil to sell, its their major export. Iraq can sell oil on the open market and still tell France, Russia, and Germany to take their debt and shove it. France, Germany and Russia have no debt enforcement procedure because there is always a market for oil. Germany, France and Russia have already decided not to sell anything of value to the new Iraq, so they have nothing to withhold. Even if Iraq wanted to repay these debts according to contract they cannot because they have neither the unity nor the money. So the whole episode is nothing but a moot point for numbskulls like George Bush, Jim Robinson, and Kevin Drum to use as a rant n rave issue. And finally, France, Germany, and Russia will be dead populations in three generations according to their demographics, so who cares?
Under Bush's leadership, America has freed the Iraqi people from a horrendous tyrant and is now helping put those people back on their feet. We are overcoming numerous problems caused by Saddam, one of which is the the billions he borrowed to create weapons and palaces. Liberals ought to be cheering these actions. They fulfill principles that liberals long espoused. Using Kosovo as an example of doing it right, liberals would have done this (and I mean the removal of an Iraqi threat, were there one to begin with) multilaterally, with fewer casualties, without unilateral occupation, with the capture of the tyrant, and with a concrete exit strategy. All of this accomplished successfully by Clinton in Kosovo and all of it roundly criticized by Republicans. Bush did not sell this as a humanitarian mission and was, in fact, ostensibly OPPOSED to humanitarian missions, particularly "nation-building" ones, so arguing that this accomplished a mission that was never the mission in the first place is an outrageous lie. In point of fact, Bush's idiotic war and occupation and continued alienation of our allies violates BOTH conservative and liberal principles of foreign policy. It's a failure on almost every single level. Posted by: Gordo at December 11, 2003 01:39 AM | PERMALINKWarm, cuddly conservative posters need a warm hug and a firm hand to tuck them into bed. Posted by: bad Jim at December 11, 2003 01:57 AM | PERMALINKPresident Bush announced to the democrats today, you will sew what I rip. Posted by: bryan at December 11, 2003 02:08 AM | PERMALINKIMHO, it's just news cycle management. Dean gets a lift from Gore's endorsement, Bush has to make news somehow. He gets tough on foreign corporations, which plays to his hungry base, and is not overlooked by his underwriters, who get to pocket the odd penny or two. Posted by: bad Jim at December 11, 2003 02:29 AM | PERMALINKIt's been said that payback is a bitch. That's not true. Lassie is a bitch. Payback is a motherfucker. If we're going to have a point-for-point do-over of Viet Nam, let's get it right. Who has the responsibility? The commander has the responsibility. What's payback? Payback is a motherfucker. When you tie-wrap a sheik's hands behind his back until his thumbs go black and numb, and his nephews snipe your supply train into the Magical World of Americans with Disabilities Act-Land, that's payback. Payback is the gift that keeps on giving. Jesus and Santa Claus could co-materialize in the Middle East right now, today, and square the whole situation away, and America would still have many, many years of payback coming. It's important to remember this. Posted by: Mike D. at December 11, 2003 02:36 AM | PERMALINKYeah, cuz Kosovo isn't still under UN control, and there isn't 70% unemployment there still... oh, and there's no unrest there either. Nope, all facets of my imagination... Is that what you call "doing it right"? If I remember correctly, we bombed the hell out of that place too... Yes, liberals would have magically gotten the support of France, Russia, and Germany (even though their own national interests prevent them from wanting to remove Saddam), would magically catch Saddam Hussein, even though Clinton + Bush so far haven't been able to accomplish that. Yes, it is all so simple, and the liberals would have accomplished all of this with a magical hop-skip step! Gimmie a break. Why does the US have to pay Frenchies to do work for them, when there's $20billion other cash lying around to be used for this purpose? The world donated $15-20billion for Iraq reconstruction. The US donated $20billion. Why does France, Germany, Russia, et al have to have share of both pies? ESPECIALLY when they have donated less than $236million combined into that pot, and when they were against this whole thing in Iraq in the first place? "Well, we oppose this occupation, but we will gladly profit from it!" What a load of BS. Posted by: G at December 11, 2003 02:45 AM | PERMALINKIn which case, a bunch of them might band together and 'invade' or otherwise oppose us militarly Nah, invading countries is so uncool. I'm sure old and cunning Europe have some more sophisticated tricks up their sleeve to put Bush in his place. Posted by: MartinE at December 11, 2003 02:53 AM | PERMALINKWhen France screws the United States, France shouldn't be surprized it doesn't get any contracts. Screws the United States? That's a funny way of saying that France
was right all along in its refusal to follow us into the quicksand. Having worked in D.C. under three different administrations, this seems to be business as usual. The left hand frequently doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Posted by: Proper response at December 11, 2003 04:00 AM | PERMALINK"Having worked in D.C. under three different administrations, this seems to be business as usual. The left hand frequently doesn't know what the right hand is doing." So the right hand wages unilateral wars, doesn't plan for the aftermath and is led by a shadowy cabal of former 1960s-socialists-turned-radicals in PNAC, the same shadow cabal who are accountable to no one? And the left hand sells off whichever state industry to the highest bidder, so people can fill up their SUVs on the way to Wal-Mart? And then the left hand sends special forces into Syria? And then the right hand is talking about sending special forces into Iran? And the the left and right hand high-five each other when they start talking about developing and using tactical nuclear weapons? And both hands are militarizing space? And there are six media companies that regulate nearly everything that you read, see and hear, and they happen to sorta like war because their ratings shoot up and they get a lot of money from advertisers? Good to know this is business as usual. If you're really a Washington insider, why don't you leak some sensitive documents so your daughter doesn't have to live through a nuclear winter? I'm serious, Posted by: Old Hat at December 11, 2003 04:49 AM | PERMALINKOld Hat, Calm down. You're taking my statement too far. I am not saying the right hand wages wars and the left doesn't know it. But does the right hand sometimes embarrass the left? Yes. Working with the Federal government you see this all the time. I saw it under Bush the First, I saw under Clinton, and I see it now. And I fully expect to see it under the next President, whether it is Democrat or Republican. Posted by: Proper Response at December 11, 2003 05:18 AM | PERMALINKProper Response, What you're saying is pretty cynical. Do you really believe this is not another glaring example of Bush II incompetence? That we're just witnessing a run-of-the-mill mixup? I think everybody-does-it-cynicism is one of the reasons we're having to suffer through this administration today and it's become excuse number one as all potential arguments in favor of GOP policy have deconstructed into mush. You're the insider. I really am interested. PS. Today's headline news is such a surprising admission of blunder that I actually want to believe there's some diabolical cleverness behind it and I have no sympathy for Bush's administration. Posted by: dennisS at December 11, 2003 05:47 AM | PERMALINK"Yeah, cuz Kosovo isn't still under UN control, and there isn't 70% unemployment there still... oh, and there's no unrest there either. Nope, all facets of my imagination... Is that what you call "doing it right"? If I remember correctly, we bombed the hell out of that place too... "Yes, liberals would have magically gotten the support of France, Russia, and Germany (even though their own national interests prevent them from wanting to remove Saddam), would magically catch Saddam Hussein, even though Clinton + Bush so far haven't been able to accomplish that. Yes, it is all so simple, and the liberals would have accomplished all of this with a magical hop-skip step!" Point A. The war in Kosovo is stopped. That was our only goal, and it's accomplished. How many GI's had to die to get it done? Point B. Liberals wouldn't have tried to depose Saddam. It's not in the national interest of the USA. What IS in our national interest, and what Bushco has succeeded in fucking up, is to put and end to terrorism. Attacking a nation that wasn't involved in terrorism, and making it into a place that IS involved in terrorism, and also conveniently supplying them wioth 160,000 or so targets, is not hte way to accomplish that. Get real, fool. GWB fucked this country up every way possible. We will be years trying to fix the messes he's made. Reminds me of the filthy republicans who defended Bush for screwing liberal programs after getting a photo-op with them. He did--and does. Get a photo-op with children and then gut the program in his budget. Bastard. "Oh, they all do that," the lying republicans sniffed when it was proven to them here than Bush is a mean lying bastard. Bullshit. This is not Washingington or politics as usual. Bush is in a league of his own for incompetence, lying, being mean, killing, and generally being an obnoxious dumbass. Worst.......President.......Ever. Posted by: paradox at December 11, 2003 05:55 AM | PERMALINKIn the UK we're all waiting for Bush to cost Blair his job. "Monica" was given plenty of grief for supporting GWB in the first place, but when 99.999999% of the contracts go to George's pals and a couple of dog bones (if that) get thrown to UK companies there'll be blood on the tracks. Our support for that little man's electioneering jaunt has already cost plenty of lives and (if his schoolboy performance on steel is anything to go by) we'll see precisely no benefit whatsoever. Oh, other than the fact that I get nervous about my son coming to visit me in London ever since our support turned it into the number 3 terrorist target in the world. Posted by: Al at December 11, 2003 05:57 AM | PERMALINKLook up March 2, 1937 Mexico nationalized its oil fields, right? Sebas, what that has to do with the current topic seems to be a riddle. Can you give us a hint? Posted by: Karlsfini at December 11, 2003 06:08 AM | PERMALINK...and then you notice that it's not Friday yet, and you wonder what they've got saved up... Posted by: Mellifluous at December 11, 2003 06:17 AM | PERMALINKThis administration has a bad case of "open-mouth-insert-foot." It's like Bush going to the UN and asking for help when less than a year earlier he pretty much declared the UN irrelevant. I'm guessing his request will get just the response it deserves. Nothing. Posted by: Terrance at December 11, 2003 06:19 AM | PERMALINKProper Response has a clue. Sort of. It's a bit more complex. The real story is the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz cabal at the Pentagon launched a preemptive and unilateral strike on the State Dept. which was seeking greater international support for the Iraqi reconstruction. It's no secret Shrubby was seeking to get some Iraqi debt forgiven and as well as greater international support. Rummy and Wolfie merely decided to take State's capability to offer incentives off the table. The lessons learned from this latest foolishness: 1. The Pentagon wants to run foreign policy. Not just in Iraq but in all areas. 2. Still more evidence Colin Powell is overrated. 3. There can be no question Condi Rice has absolutely no known function in this administration. Posted by: JadeGold at December 11, 2003 06:28 AM | PERMALINKBad Jim has it exactly right: news cycle management. Gore's endorsement and the attendant media obsession was squeezing Bush out of the news. And like a spoiled child, any attention is good attention so BushCo. jumped back into the fray. The Repugnicans may pretend they want Dean to get the nomination and bring it on. But I believe that at least Rove sees the approaching juggernaut and doesn't like what that will mean in 2004. Count on the Dark Side to raid the treasury and ram through as much corporate- and contributor-friendly legislation as possible before they're booted out. Posted by: chris at December 11, 2003 06:32 AM | PERMALINKWhite House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq. I love that part. If only we'd said it a month ago, or a week ago, and if only we'd said it nicer, it wouldn't be a problem at all! More incompetence than meets the eye. Posted by: Haggai at December 11, 2003 06:41 AM | PERMALINKHow about: a variation of the old good-cop/bad-cop scam ... Tonto at 11:01PM This thought crossed my mind too. When Bush reverses the policy, the splash is (to the Sears ad) "Come see the softer side of George". Posted by: The Lone Ranger at December 11, 2003 06:46 AM | PERMALINKWell, the French especially have made a practice of publicly taking a shit on us for decades so I won't be crying for them any time soon. Almost every time in fairly direct response to us publicly taking a
shit on them, starting with us deciding that Britain could have the
bomb, and they couldn't. Dear trolls, A company is not a country. Love, People seem to be forgetting that Canada is one of our allies and we are including them in the ban and that both france and russia (and germany?) are in AFghanistan helping us out. Second of all, the refusal to let other countries bid on the reconstruction work is nothing but "bid rigging" by any other name. It doesn't actually help the "american taxpayer" who is footing the bill--especially since the american corporations that are doing the so called work aren't repatriating the money in this country or employing actual american citizens to do the work but rather working through sub-contractors. At any rate, speak softly and carry a big stick used to be pretty good advice. Even if, like sebastian holsclaw, you never met a foreign government that you thought had the right to have its own foreign policy y ou might at least acknowledge that *our* foreign policy requires recognizing, dealing with, and even (gasp) working with a number of foreign governments. Attacking former allies, humiliating them, or otherwise refusing to recognize their legitimate interests just makes us incompetent, not masterful. aimai Posted by: aimai at December 11, 2003 07:22 AM | PERMALINKReg, sp67, Will Allen, y'all too busy with your day jobs or something? We anxiously await the responses from the Lee Atwater Volunteer Spin team. Posted by: The Dark Avenger at December 11, 2003 07:35 AM | PERMALINKKevin Gregory, Would like to hear your explanation for how "France screwed the United States." Is it your position that any nation that fails to be enthusiastic about Shrub's military adventures is therefore our enemy? Posted by: peter jung at December 11, 2003 07:43 AM | PERMALINKTim B. above said: Just wake me up when I can vote. Tired of the circus. That sums up my feelings exactly. I've been pretty pissed off since November 2000 but when I heard about this ridiculous directive and read some responses actually supporting this small-minded, short-sighted action, my brain shut off. I'm done thinking about this jackass we have in the oval office and the retreads he has working for him. I'm going to enjoy my holiday season and then I will put all the energy that I previously spent getting angry over this situation and put it toward getting these bozos out of Washington. Posted by: janestopthiscrazything at December 11, 2003 07:48 AM | PERMALINK"Mexico nationalized its oil fields, right? Sebas, what that has to do with the current topic seems to be a riddle. Can you give us a hint?" Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure. There are many complaints that this will hurt our 'negotiation' on the odious Iraqi debts. There is the suggestion that if we don't deal with these debts, Iraq will be unable to trade with anyone. Canceling the debts would be an act much like Mexico nationalizing the oil industry. You can't do anything about it so you learn to live with it. France, Germany and perhaps Russia will all still trade with Iraq even if they don't get contracts right now, and even if their debt to Saddam gets ignored. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 11, 2003 07:50 AM | PERMALINKAnswer C is bit off. c) James Baker is going to have a tough time straightening out this crew What in the WORLD would lead us to believe that Baker can straighten out the Bush crew if even Bush, Karl and Cheney can't do it themselves? Perhaps there are too many chiefs and not enough braves or in the white collar criminal world – every crook for himself. With the bring on board of Baker, someone got nervous that they were going to lose their share of the Iraqi/taxpayer plunder. Posted by: Cheryl at December 11, 2003 08:02 AM | PERMALINKThis shows the Bush administration can't connect the dots even when they are drawing the dots. Posted by: BayMike at December 11, 2003 08:05 AM | PERMALINKSince when did the Germans think they would be getting a chance at prime-contractor on Iraq reconstruction business? Despite a fair amount of digging, I can find nowhere evidence of the sort of false prospectus from the Administration that would justify the extraordinary expressions of German disappointment. It's just a little political street-theatre: sit back and enjoy the show, I would... Posted by: John Smith at December 11, 2003 08:16 AM | PERMALINKLot of scintillating posts. A gold star to Mike D @ 02:36 AM: Payback is the gift that keeps on giving. Jesus and Santa Claus could co-materialize in the Middle East right now, today, and square the whole situation away, and America would still have many, many years of payback coming. It's important to remember this. I've made this point...but not as vibrantly. I suspect their are hundreds of Iraqi snipers just salivating to get Halliburton foreheads crosshaired in their scopes. These contracts are anything but incentive awards. Re: aimai right above my post...cool and rational as always. I love the way you reach down and give sebastian a gentle pat on the head. If only you could do the same to the little boy playing President. You really are kind so I know you would send him to bed with a big bowl of ice cream. (note: I posted some speculation as to why Canada is being punished in the thread to Calpundit's INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY.) Lastly.... Old Hat's middle paragraph @ 04:49 AM is a fine screed. Worth a read to anybody jumping in at thread's end. Posted by: -pea- at December 11, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINKSebatian's point is a good one. As I said on earlier threads, Iraq ought to simply refuse to pay these debts. Period. The example of Mexico (and countless other countries) shows that Iraq may still be able to attract investment. The reason Baker has been sent is to retain the debts in some form or fashion. I expect a newly minted Iraqi government to renege on any illegal commitments Baker makes on their behalf immediately upon assuming office. Posted by: praktike at December 11, 2003 08:35 AM | PERMALINK"There are many complaints that this will hurt our 'negotiation' on the odious Iraqi debts. There is the suggestion that if we don't deal with these debts, Iraq will be unable to trade with anyone. Canceling the debts would be an act much like Mexico nationalizing the oil industry. You can't do anything about it so you learn to live with it." There are many people who venture this argument, most of whom have just learnt the word 'odious' (and 'metrics') and thus think that the dollar gives a shit about the morality of the hand holding it. Defaulting on a debt is defaulting on a debt, "odious" or not. There is zero difference as far as a lender is concerned between Iraq welching out on a debt and any other country welching out on its debts. The "odiousness" of Iraq's debt is interesting insofar as it can be used for moral or political grandstanding. And given Iraq's current fragile state, I suggest it is not in any position to engage in the kind of macho posturing some overeager armchair generals here would like to see. Posted by: BP at December 11, 2003 08:38 AM | PERMALINKI think JadeGold has it right. There is an incredible amount of infighting in this Admin, even if only the tip of it comes out in the press. Wolfie and friends are fighting for their neocon fantasy while State tries to keep the rest of the world from deserting us and dumping their T-Bonds or whatever. Cheney is madly trying to assert control while keeping the world safe for Halliburton. Baker is trying to persuade the Arab countries who hold 2/3 of the Iraqi debt to forgive it in return for something, while General Boykin brings in the Israelis to teach US Special Forces how to do assassinations, house demolitions, incarceration and torture of families and other techniques that have been so successful in ending the intifada and are sure to inflame the Islamic world bring the Armageddon he so wants, Bush reiterates the desire for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestine problem while Elliott Abrams assures the Israeli hardliners that they can stall forever and not have to give up any land that is worth anything, Condi Rice is so in over her head she can't even find it. Posted by: Mimikatz at December 11, 2003 08:40 AM | PERMALINKPresident Bush found himself in the awkward position Wow, isn't any one going to question the use of ESP on the part of the press and admin officials? Now that is scary. They depend on scrying bowls and crystal balls to affect policy and make comments?? Posted by: Jean at December 11, 2003 08:45 AM | PERMALINKpraktike-- Let's see, France, Germany, and Russia were unlikely to get much in the way of contracts anyway, so this gesture is largely symbolic. So the Pentagon finds it important symbolically to extend the middle finger to those three countries. Well, many neocons are simply petulant assholes, and they get a stiffy from doing this like this. Plus, it plays well in wingnut land. Yes, it's idiotic, short-sighted, and makes us less safe in the long run as those nations increasingly decide that collective security is no longer in their best interest, but when the entire MO of the Admin. is just to loot as much money as possible before voters wake up, none of those things really matter to them. Posted by: AngryElephant at December 11, 2003 08:46 AM | PERMALINKAnd there's this gem: Can't do anything, my ass. You can freeze all Iraqi interests abroad until payment is made. You can freeze any new Iraqi interests until a settlement is agreed to. You can raise punitive tariffs against Iraqi goods. You can refuse payment on Iraqi goods and services rendered. You can drag Iraq before international arbitration panels. You can deny Iraqi airlines landing rights. Deny Iraqi businessmen visas. You can fuck them up at any and every opportunity possible. Can Iraq survive this kind of shit? Sure, easily. Is it in Iraq's best interests to be put through this sort of shit? Well, that's a trade-off between the costs of paying back the loan and the costs of any external punitive measures. So what's Iraq's best strategy? Answer: to minimize the amount they have to pay back, AND avoid any political blowback. Question: Are they going to achieve both aims with an in-your-face my-way-or-the-high-way approach? Posted by: BP at December 11, 2003 08:48 AM | PERMALINKI don't know how much of an issue foreign investment will be in Iraq. The country is not being reconstructed to deal with whatever countries it pleases, but rather to be a U.S. corporate holding under a puppet government. So I'm not sure what effect Iraq's ignoring its debts would have. Perhaps, given the obvious intent of the U.S. to control Iraq, world markets would hold the U.S. accountable for Iraqi defaults. Or, Bush's presumptive pleas for debt forgiveness may have been just a symbolic gesture that he could take back to moderates, "Hey! I'm getting more allies on board with our righteous actions!" After all, EVERYTHING in this admin. is for short-term political gain. Posted by: AngryElephant at December 11, 2003 08:53 AM | PERMALINKLet's say Iraq cancels its debt unilaterally... what happens? Well, the Weasels can refuse to buy from them, but that has no major effects because Iraq's major export is oil and there's always a market for that. The Weasels can refuse to sell to them, but that's unlikely - after all, they're complaining now that we aren't giving them a chance to sell in Iraq - and even if they do, what do they have that we can't sell? Even French wine can be replaced with California wine. The Weasels can refuse to invest in Iraq. Who cares? The major investment opportunities are in the oil industry. If US firms get preferential opportunities because the Weasels are sitting out who is going to cry? Finally, you may think that US and allied firms will also be scared to do business with Iraq if we don't trust them. Not an issue. The Export Import Bank (which is a US institution) can guarantee loans and investments by US and allied firms... no problems. So seems to me that the Weasels are holding a busted flush. And Timothy, if you really think that our so called allies who were not willing to help us get rid of Saddam would turn around and attack us militarily then isn't that the best possible argument for no longer considering them friends and screwing them in every way possible? Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2003 09:00 AM | PERMALINKThere's a classic Far Side cartoon ... two adolescent buckaroos, one having run his horse (crumpled accordian-like) into the only tree in sight. Caption: "Gee, Billy, what are you gonna tell your Dad?" Posted by: RonK, Seattle at December 11, 2003 09:01 AM | PERMALINKThe Weasels, Mike, the biggest creditors, are Iraq's fuckin' neighbours Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Everywhere in your fuckin' post I see "the US this" and "the US that". Exactly how long are we going to hold these motherfuckin' Iraqi's hands in their own damn neighbourhood? It's about time the almighty State did some pulling *out*, not adding another worthless mouth to its damn teat. I swear this site is infested with liberals, and some of them probably think they're conservatives, too. Posted by: BP at December 11, 2003 09:08 AM | PERMALINKI agree with BP and I'd hope that we'd allow the Iraqis to decide how to(mis)handle their own debts. Of course it would be really "nice" if the Russians, French etc. forgave, but they are unlikely to because of Iraq's oil wealth. What they are likely to do in the short-term is restructure that debt. The Wolfowitz directive has direct implications on our ability to negotiate that. Let's remember that the issue here is not whether Iraq's debts can be forgiven, but whether or not this administration is competent. Even if Russia and France are going to veto any debt fogivance "sight unseen", it is no excuse for the clumsiness that's been demonstrated by the President. We also need to look at the wording and delivery of the Wolfowitz directive, because as many have accurately pointed out, it represents very limited real change. Why the harshness then? Seems to me that this is just one more effort of the neo-con faction w/in the Whitehouse to factionalize world politics and European politics. Perhaps this is a Wolfowitz preemptive strike against any attempts by Baker to bridge that divide? Posted by: Rosco at December 11, 2003 09:27 AM | PERMALINKDarn Josh Marshall just posted another goodun Read it and weep I would say Bush was upset about the timing, We are in the middle of a
many months long negotiation about saving the Shrub's butt in Iraq. A) because he never has enough info to really make on-the-fly decisions B) because he thinks a concession in a conversation makes himself look like a wuss (decided to repost this up here in case the previous thread was dead) Posted by: bob mcmanus at December 11, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINKLet's look at this multiple choice question in the way you are taught in those SAT classes. First the question is what theory might be supported by a collection of facts. The answer has to be (d), even though answer (a) and answer (c) cannot both be right as independent propositions. (If the White House is completely clueless, than they would not have had enough "clue" to appoint Baker.) There is a certain defensibility to sticking it to France and Germany, simply because their diplomats were taking a certain joy at the Iraq donor's conference on how little they were prepared to give to Iraqi reconstruction. I do not get the point of dorking Canada, though. The new prime minister really wants a better realationship with the US, and they have given to the reconstruction. Guess we are getting a demonstration on why most administrations do not lettheir Defense Departments conduct foreign policy. Posted by: appalled moderate at December 11, 2003 09:36 AM | PERMALINKHey, I read a comment by BP and it was pretty funny. "(If the White House is completely clueless, than they would not have had enough "clue" to appoint Baker.)" Possible explanation: they have enough clue to realize that they're in trouble. They don't have enough of a clue to stop getting in deeper. They have hopes that the Bush Family Fixer can bail them out. However, they hope that it will be sort of magically done, without them having to make uncomfortable changes. Posted by: Barry at December 11, 2003 09:51 AM | PERMALINKCanceling the debts would be an act much like Mexico nationalizing the oil industry. Not really. One of the reasons Mexico nationalizing the oil industry was met with a lot less uproar by foreign governments (although the oil companies still threw a hissy fit), was rather than merely expropriating the existing facilities, they bought them. It is -- or at least was for a long time -- actually a matter of national pride in Mexico. Iraq's cancelling its debts wouldn't be much like that at all. I suppose if Iraq paid off the existing balances in a short period but unilaterally suspended any further payments on interest, it might be something remotely similar. Posted by: cmdicely at December 11, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKCondi's function is to give the idiot king bad news, in such a gentling manner that he does not reach for the red button Second Condi function is to give the rest of the administration Bush's mad decisions, such as "no casualties after March", and figure out a way to umm, manage his misperceptions These are by no means trivial functions Haldeman had much the same job, restraining a madman Posted by: bob mcmanus at December 11, 2003 10:00 AM | PERMALINKLori Thantos, I agree with you about just one point: the war is what's important. Opponents point out that it caused loss of life and considerable risk. Supporters believe that the war prevented greater loss of life and greater risk. It's true that our positions on reconstruction and debt restructuring are somewhat incongruous. However, the amount of embarassment caused by the incongruity of is a triviality. This is a one-day story. How can mere embarassment compare in importance with the death of millions of people? So, why are some Bush critics making such a big a fuss about such a small matter? Posted by: David at December 11, 2003 10:02 AM | PERMALINKI choose (d) and would add "irredeemably evil and in unAmerican" to the list. Posted by: John Thullen at December 11, 2003 10:04 AM | PERMALINK As a guest poster at Josh Marshall's blog points out today,
Baker has been sent to Iraq to tactfully abandon the country in time to
get Bush reelected -- and in effect kill the neocons' supposed vision of
a thriving democracy serving as a beacon of hope in the Mideast. As far as I'm concerned France, Germany and Russia are very unlikely to see much of the Saddam-era debts if they don't choose to be helpful in the transition to the post-Saddam Iraq. They always knew that a Iraqi government with the consent of the governed wasn't going to look kindly on debts incurred to oppress most of the Iraqi people. That is one of the major reasons why they tried to make sure that Ba'athists stayed in power. Mexico didn't pay off future oil profits, just the plants and on their take it or leave it terms. That was didn't come close to really compensanting the oil companies. I'm sure that if France, Germany and Russia really wanted to take serious and concrete steps to ensure a good transition in Iraq, that would work in their favor when trying to talk about Saddam's debts. So far their lack of interest has meant their concerns don't get a high priority. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 11, 2003 11:16 AM | PERMALINKSebastian, I do think it's both likely and desirable that the Iraqi debt be forgiven. I don't see any incentive for France and Russia to agree to do so before there is a sovereign nation there. Since both nations have veto power on the Security Council, they have a lot of say in whether any Iraqi government is accepted as legit by the world community. This is a powerful stick. And they may well decide that they'd rather have the gratitude of the new Iraqi government (by forgiving the debt without the involvement of the US) than giving a president that they despise any help whatsoever. Marc David at 10:02 "how can a mere embarrassment compare with the death's of millions of people?" It doesn't, but we aren't talking about the deaths of millions of people, we are talking about public policy and the "mere embarrassment" is our president, his staff, and their inability to plan their way out of a paper bag. Remember, every complaint Bush's critics advance from the incredibly
serious to the merely detailed is criticized as "trivial" by his
suporters. Forgive us if we think that issues like "will Iraq's oil be
nationalized" "what will happen to Iraq's debts" "how many civilians
have died," "when will the census be completed" are all questions that
are, in fact, really really big and many of them should have been
thought about in advance. The fact that the Bush team represents itself
as permanently surprised by these and other equally obvious issues
relating to the prosecution of the war and the colonial occupation just
shows how incompetent they are. And since Bush et al have been pushing
'competence' as their main story line since the election we have not
only a right, but a downright pleasure, in pointing out that the emperor
has no clothes. aimai Posted by: aimai at December 11, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKSebastian you gotta understand that (1) Iraq has zero leverage. At the moment the only one twisting arms on behalf of Iraq is the US. This will end on 01-01-2005. (2) Iraq's oil revenues are pitiful, and will remain pitiful until they can get enough capital to get their facilities in order (3) You and a bunch of other whiners here have France on the brain. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, also known as their motherfucking next-door neighbours, hold a hundred billion dollars of Iraqi debt. (4) I guarantee you that as of 1 January 2005, Iraq will be left holding the ball. Alone. It would help if the ball they're holding isn't too badly smeared with shit. Posted by: BA at December 11, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINKStill waiting . . . if i were a european politician, the only "deal" i would entertain would go something like this.
i still think american security would be better if we had allies. i mean real allies like france and germany, not fake ones like pakistan and azerbaizhan. Posted by: Olaf, glad and big at December 11, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINKWell, if Baker works his magic on this like he did the '92 election, I expect Clinton (Chirac) and Perot (Schroeder) to kick Bush's ass harder than a one legged man at a can-can convention. Posted by: Mr Happy at December 11, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKDoesn't paying off debts require the assumption that Saddams dictatorship was a legitimate government? Just a question. Posted by: PCM at December 11, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINKI'm glad to see that the right-wing posters, in their infinite
economic wisdom, have decided that Iraq in the future will "not need"
any good economic ties with "whiners", such as France or their own
neighbors. No, of course not, all they need is the USA! Because ensuring
that you have less options in the future is always sound economic
policy. Right. What, so economics has now been exposed as one of the biggest reasons for France, Germany and Russia to oppose regime change in Iraq? You don't say. So they opposed losing those fat oil and reonstructin contracts that Saddam was dangling in front of them? You don't say. And the same three countries are doing the same with Iran. They're willing to let Iran continue developing nuclear weapons for fear of losing contracts for oil and nuclear plants. You don't say. Could any flaming Lefty willing to let the economic national interests of France, Germany and Russia explain why the US ought to give a merde that these countries are insulted? Other than because they loathe Bush and that trumps everything? Pitiful. Posted by: paul at December 11, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKPCM-- Of course, who knows, that might not be the case in a couple of years. Would an independant Kurdistan be responsible for Saddam's debt? An interesting question.... Posted by: kokblok at December 11, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKpaul, Maybe it opposed the war because its own population was overwhelmignly opposed to it (a little thing called democracy)... kokblok- Great, and a majority of Americans supported regime change and still do. Guess that settles that then, right? Maybe France's 20% Muslim population is a factor. And France's desire to counterbalance the influence of the US around the world, no matter what the policy. Iranian nukes are ok because they oppose the US's influence in the Middle East, benefit French companies and secure the much-needed oil supply to France, Germany and the rest of Europe. You may think these are all justifiable reasons for French motives. They are actually pretty, um, UNILATERAL. Still aren't convinced? Try this, then. Try to convince yourself, no doubt a Democrat, that Halliburton or Bechtel had nothing to do with Iraq. Bet you can't. "Oh, but that's totally different than French companies." Yeah, sure it its. Posted by: paul at December 11, 2003 01:41 PM | PERMALINKCanceling the debts would be an act much like Mexico nationalizing the oil industry. Not really. One of the reasons Mexico nationalizing the oil industry was met with a lot less uproar by foreign governments (although the oil companies still threw a hissy fit), was rather than merely expropriating the existing facilities, they bought them. Not quite. The hammer would have been put down on Mexico (the Colossus of the North don't let no little brown people fuck with it), except that World War Two intervened and the U.S. needed all that oil, which it got at a cheap price by bribing President Camacho, the crook who replaced Cardenas in 1940. When the war was over the U.S. let bygones be bygones (a short attention span, as usual) and no Mexican President ever tried such a trick again. Posted by: Basharov at December 11, 2003 01:48 PM | PERMALINK"I'm glad to see that the right-wing posters, in their infinite economic wisdom, have decided that Iraq in the future will "not need" any good economic ties with "whiners", such as France or their own neighbors." No we are saying that A) good economic ties with France isn't worth bankrupting your country for Saddam's opression loans and B) that writing off many of those loans won't suddenly make it impossible to do business in Iraq. In the future, if Iraqi goods exist, France will purchase them. This is true whether or not the odious loans are repudicated. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 11, 2003 01:52 PM | PERMALINKno Mexican President ever tried such a trick again. Given that there is nothing else remotely like the oil industry in terms of economic significance in Mexico to nationalize, its not all that surprising that they never repeated it, there being no way to do so. Posted by: cmdicely at December 11, 2003 02:00 PM | PERMALINKWould an independant Kurdistan be responsible for Saddam's debt? An interesting question.... Well, at least one of the successor states would probably be held responsible -- consider the USSR breakup, and how Russia is (and still upset about) still held liable for Soviet-era debt. Posted by: cmdicely at December 11, 2003 02:01 PM | PERMALINKDoesn't paying off debts require the assumption that Saddams dictatorship was a legitimate government? It depends on the sense in which you mean "legitimate". At any rate, since it was internationally recognized, including by the US, there is little question about the kind of legitimacy that matters. Posted by: cmdicely at December 11, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKMexico didn't pay off future oil profits, just the plants and on their take it or leave it terms. That was didn't come close to really compensanting the oil companies. That's why I said: I suppose if Iraq paid off the existing balances in a short period
but unilaterally suspended any further payments on interest, it might
be something remotely similar. Matt: About 40 Bil os owed to the so-called "Paris Club, which includes the US, France,. Germany, Ruissia and some other Europeans. Iraq owes about 80 BIL to Saudio Arabia and Kuwait, maybe some other Arab countries. This is mostly from the Iran-Iraq war, but some esp to Kuwait is reparations for Gulf War I. Most of the debt is owed to Giovernments, not banks or corporations. Posted by: Mimikatz at December 11, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINKAhhhh. That feels lovely. Good ol' information. Thanks Mimikatz Posted by: Matt at December 11, 2003 02:58 PM | PERMALINK"I suppose if Iraq paid off the existing balances in a short period but unilaterally suspended any further payments on interest, it might be something remotely similar." Maybe I don't understand what you mean by balances in this context. It sounds like balances mean the whole debt. Are you using it to mean something like this year's payment?
David, the supporters claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in them thar hills. They were wrong. The supporters of this unprovoked invasion are now telling us it was about decade old Iraqi corpses. They have ceased to talk about WMD because they know that there were never any there. In other words, the contention that this saved lives is nothing more than a lie. But I understand that this is part of your BDS (Bush Defender Syndrome). Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 11, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKLori: Please remember that many prominent OPPONENTS of the Iraqi Campaign ... as in WJC and his national defense team ... also thought there were WMD's in them thar hills. Hell, it appears that Saddam himself did. And I'm not yet convinced they weren't there. Posted by: Tonto at December 11, 2003 04:17 PM | PERMALINKGuys, Kuwait isn't a major issue - the debt to them is mostly war reparations. Maybe that isn't repudiated, maybe it's renegotiated. Or maybe Kuwait forgives it in return for Iraq handing over (or trying themselves) war criminals from the invasion of Kuwait. After all, how much is it worth to the Kuwaitis not to have Saddam Hussein next door? The Saudis are also manageable. You think they want Iraq opening up the spigots on its oil sales and driving down the world price in order for them to make enough money to pay back the Saudi debt? NOT. And if that isn't convincing enough we just remind them how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals and that a big part of the reason why there are no longer US bases in Saudi Arabia is that we've moved them into Iraq. What do you think the Saudis will do? Stop buying Iraqi dates? What you guys are missing is that the only two contries with any leverate in this matter are the US and Iraq. No one else has any real ability to exert pressure - no mechanism. Finally, worries about the Security Council not recognizing Iraq as legitimate show sad ignorance of the UN by the people who are advocating relying on it. Decisions about admitting countries and whether or not a government is sovereign are made by the General Assembly. Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2003 04:55 PM | PERMALINKYes, many prominent opponents of the unprovoked invasion did, in fact, believe that the Bush team couldn’t possibly be so mendacious as to be lying about everything. But that doesn’t change the fact that there weren’t any and the administration had good reason to believe there weren’t (and so did everyone else, the inspectors weren’t finding nothing by accident). As to this bizarre and unaccountable notion that Hussein (do you call the guy in the White House “George,” or are you just personally familiar with Hussein?) believed he had them, I’m going to need a lot more than your word for this. As to your self-delusion, there’s really little I can do for you if you are going to let yourself be taken in by “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” logic. But I must admit a small amount of confusion here. First, the problem is an immanent threat from WMDs. Then it is support for terror. Then it’s nation building. Are we back to WMDs? If so, please explain why a) we haven’t found even the slightest traces of any (not even enough to convince a self-deluded dictator that he had them), and b) why we didn’t secure places where we knew potentially dangerous materials were stored – right away. Tonto, the WMD argument was abandoned months ago, and with good reason. The new story is the decade old corpses, mostly because the warmongers still haven’t figured out that this wasn’t a good excuse either. Oh, one final point on this question of WMDs. What does it say about the Bush regime that they had plenty of evidence that no such things existed but went to war claiming these devices were both real and a potential threat to us? Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 11, 2003 05:08 PM | PERMALINKLori Thantos, there was an article in all the news sources just 3 days ago about an Iraqi military officer who insists that Iraq had WMDs that could have been deployed in 45 minutes. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/08/iraq/main587251.shtml Excerpt from CBS News article: "Al-Dabbagh said cases containing chemical or biological warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, in late 2002, the paper reported. He said they were designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades, and did not know what exactly the warheads contained." I don't necessarily believe al-Dabbagh, but who knows? Anyhow, it's
too early to be sure whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq. Sorry, Lori. For now, you'll simply have to connect the dots yourself. Nice dodge re: the Clinton team's views, by the way, but maybe you're more pacifist than partisan. Truth will out in due time, my friend. Meanwhile, our invasion is saving far more Iraqi lives than your policies ever would. Posted by: Tonto at December 11, 2003 05:24 PM | PERMALINK It is remarkable that Mr. Sabbagh (what was his rank?) has come
forward now citing the exact time period for which Blair was publicly
crucified this summer. His words would carry more weight for me had we
found any trace of what he alleges, but it is OTOH unremarkable that a
US media source reports his remark context-free. I'm afraid somebody is going to get their credit rating dinged over this and it may be us rather than Iraq. Couple more datapoints on the numbers: Nightly Business Report (PBS) reported about $350 B owed by Iraq w/ about $55 B owed to Europe incl Russia (can't doublecheck numbers as tonight's transcript isn't online yet.) Could be wrong but I distinctly remember someone credible mentioning that part of Iraq's debt to Kuwait stems from Iraq's war w/ Iran encouraged by and partly paid for with loans from Saudi Arabia & Kuwait so I don't think reparations is the whole deal there. In fact the story included a suggestion that the Kuwait invasion was partly because of this debt. I don't think Iraq's debt alone is at stake. We've taken a pretty shady path to this point. Investors around the world in and out of Iraq are going to have second thoughts about getting mixed up with a heavy-handed partner known to put on the squeeze when their favorite projects go south. Blame France all you want but everyone, coalition partners included, are watching this deal go down I assure you. Posted by: dennisS at December 11, 2003 06:03 PM | PERMALINKThe Pentagon is not the President. Did I miss the point here? Posted by: closedanger at December 11, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINKTruth will out in due time, my friend. Meanwhile, our invasion is saving far more Iraqi lives than your policies ever would. Could you please provide some evidence of this assertion? Posted by: Anarch at December 11, 2003 08:16 PM | PERMALINKdennisS, I don't follow... Are you suggesting that our borrowing costs will go up if Iraq defaults? Again, how? By what mechanism? What I seem to be seeing here is a lot of wishful thinking. People want the Bush administration to be screwed so they are looking for ways for the coming default to cause problems. But all I see is hand waving. Where is the mechanism? For example, what exactly does "Investors around the world in and out of Iraq are going to have second thoughts about getting mixed up with a heavy-handed partner known to put on the squeeze when their favorite projects go south." mean? Are we the heavy handed partner? And we're putting on the squeeze how? By having Iraq default? That's not a squeeze. It's unilateral action. And is it our favorite projects that are going south? Which ones? And what is the relationship between that and the squeeze you are talking about? Finally, what investors are going to have second thoughts about what kinds of projects with who if whoever it is puts on this "squeeze"? Is this supposed to mean that people will stop building factories in the US? Again, mechanism please... Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2003 08:49 PM | PERMALINKSeems to me that if the US made the decision that Iraq would default on its loans, then the creditors might hold the US responsible and retaliate against us. Poetic justice would be for them to stop buying US debt. That might hurt. Posted by: McDruid at December 11, 2003 10:02 PM | PERMALINKMcDruid, It might be poetic justice, but that doesn't mean it would happen. Remember - banks buy our debt because it's a good investment. Think they will walk away because Iraq defaults? And if they do, so what? The treasury debt market is huge and very liquid. The impact on interest rates would be tiny. Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2003 10:22 PM | PERMALINKbanks buy our debt because they have USD to dispose of. If I were Chinese I'd be buying California and Hawaiian real estate. Oh wait, I am. Posted by: Troy at December 11, 2003 11:20 PM | PERMALINKSo I’m supposed to believe that cases of warheads were delivered, none were ever used, no one has found even the slightest evidence that they ever existed, and that all we need is more time to find them? Sorry guys, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes” isn’t an argument – it is a joke; really, you can find it in a Marx Brothers’ movie. But back to the idiot parade here: whether Clinton and company were under the impression that there were WMDs doesn’t change the fact that Bush was the one responsible for going around saying that these were a sufficient cause for an unprovoked invasion. Since he was so sure they were there (in spite of the reams of evidence indicating there really wasn’t much chance they were anything but non-existent or fairly insubstantial) and since this led to the deaths of hundreds of our soldiers, it only makes sense that we ask why and to hold him, not Clinton, not Hussein, and not me responsible for his actions. It also makes sense to point out that Clinton, whatever his beliefs, did not embark on this recklessness. Like Anarch I am forced to ask for something resembling documentation for this outlandish claim that this military adventurism has “saved” lives. How many of our soldiers would have died had we not invaded? How many Iraqis would have been killed? How many of each are dying now? Given that there is considerably less social order than under Hussein, what are the chances of being a victim of a criminal act under each scenario? You can’t just make blanket claims of things being better without backing them up. To recap: no WMDs, no connections to terrorism, no threat to us, and candidate Bush’s warnings against nation building all result in no excuse for this pathetic exercise. Oh, and attempting to figure out whether I’m a partisan or a pacifist
isn’t going to help you justify this bit of military adventurism. Mike, This is why I shouldn't get involved in these debates, I point out something obvious and then have to rack up internet bills explaining basic finance and economics. (Which, incidently, is all I know - I live in fear that someone will have read chapter two of Mansfield.) banks buy our debt because it's a good investment Wrong, banks buy our debt because it is perceived to be safe. (No doubt on some other thread you are arguing for privatisation of Social Security because US bonds are not a "good" investment.) The treasury debt market is huge and very liquid. You forgot to mention that 37.6% of it is in foreign hands, along with 12.9% of agency debt. We are VERY dependent on foreign banks. Considering the parlous state of the US government finances, it may not take much to change the perception of how safe our Treasuries are. Posted by: McDruid at December 12, 2003 12:58 AM | PERMALINKPerhaps... but you haven't explained why an Iraqi default would change anyone's perception of the riskiness of US Treasury debt. Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINKMike, did you not read my original post, or just didn't understand it? I don't know how much simpler I can make it. Iraqi creditors may take revenge on the US if the US makes Iraq default. These creditors could announce that they won't buy more US debt - which might spook investors. Or they might actually stop buying debt - which would hurt us. Or they may even sell the debt they have. Posted by: McDruid at December 12, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKAh.... Well, let's think... Two possibilities. 1. They don't have enought debt to matter, in which case their actions are harmless. 2. They do have enough debt to matter (hundreds of billions) in which case they lose many billions of dollars. Meanwhile, we can avoid any negative impact on the US just by eliminating our deficit so we don't have to sell new debt. (ie. repeal the recent tax cuts and the medicare drug benefit etc.) So you're assuming that these guys will do something that will definitely hurt them very badly but could easily not hurt us at all. Kind of silly, no? Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINKI already substantially addressed your objections, but perhaps it was too subtle for you. Granted, we are dealing with a lot of speculation here, since nobody really knows what might cause investors to shy from the dollar. It is possible though, that the mere announcement (by say, Germany) would be enough to freeze purchases - even if Germany didn't intend to follow through and was a minor buyer. (That was the fourth sentence of my 4:04 post if you had bothered to read it.) Remember, I taught you that investors buy bonds because of the perception that they are safe. If investors perceive that a country is run poorly - rife with cronyism, burgening military spending, spiralling government spending, lack of consideration for international allies - they may want to stop investing there. Since investors tend to follow than lead, a major country's decision to not invest would be a very large straw on this camel. Furthermore, I believe that Germany, France & Canada do hold substantial US debt, so their actions would have a great deal of weight. As for your #2, I do not know why you assume that the countries would lose money by not buying Treasuries. Finally, your proposed response is ludicrous, to say the least. Not only is it politically infeasible, but, if you can do the math, we run a deficit regardless of the tax cut and the as-yet-to-take-effect Medicare drug benefit. Posted by: McDruid at December 13, 2003 01:48 AM | PERMALINKIt is dangerous to confuse children with angels. Posted by: Shagan Jillian at January 20, 2004 06:06 AM | PERMALINKlatina sex - matureisbetter - naked women - pretty girls cumshot - prison lesbians - big tits round asses - black dicks white chicks - bondage pictures - fresh amateur faces - fresh teens - fuckingmachines - hardcore amateur Posted by: big naturals at June 30, 2004 07:16 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.passwordspussynudity.com/just-=-bigtits-dripping-off-contest-cock.html just = bigtits dripping off contest cock html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/beastiality-movie-samples/index.html beastiality movie samples index html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/chat-bondage-gynecologist-anderson-camp-man-demi-moore-oral-indian-vivo-teen-african-photography-erotica-horse-supermodels-teens-shave-cam-rooms.html chat bondage gynecologist anderson camp man demi moore oral indian vivo teen african photography erotica horse supermodels teens shave cam rooms html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/poitrine-nue-sexy-female-photo-busty-amateur.html poitrine nue sexy female photo busty amateur html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/gallery-black-nude-teens-samples-free-video-hardcore-teen-sex-chat-japanese.html gallery black nude teens samples free video hardcore teen sex chat japanese html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/stories-search-pictures-fucking-blowjobs-celebrities-analsex-xxx-web-girls-bondage-naked-men-pussy-dick-hardcore-sex-couples.html stories search pictures fucking blowjobs celebrities analsex xxx web girls bondage naked men pussy dick hardcore sex couples html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/couches-culottes-nues-nichons.html couches culottes nues nichons html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/fantasias-pornografia-culos-voluptuosos-sexuales.html fantasias pornografia culos voluptuosos sexuales html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/pics.html pics html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/pictures-celebraty-housewife-wear-free-disorders-no-panties-amateur-sex-teen-ass-celeb-sucking-sluts-hot.html pictures celebraty housewife wear free disorders no panties amateur sex teen ass celeb sucking sluts hot html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/nackt-celibrities-fotogalerie-peitschen-huren.html nackt celibrities fotogalerie peitschen huren html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/women-links-older-piss-free-nude-mature-pics-naked-celebrity-girls-wavs-transvestite-naughty-cartoon-jpg-celebrities-tit-milky-nipples-dripping-wet-pussy.html women links older piss free nude mature pics naked celebrity girls wavs transvestite naughty cartoon jpg celebrities tit milky nipples dripping wet pussy html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/jeune-photo-poitrine.html jeune photo poitrine html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/farm.html farm html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/mouillie-et-homme-photo-oral-asian-anus.html mouillie et homme photo oral asian anus html http://www.passwordspussynudity.com/mouillie-de-nue-pics-nues-sexe-sexo-et-oral-anal-pas-filles-pregnant.html mouillie de nue pics nues sexe sexo et oral anal pas filles pregnant html Posted by: Zoo sex Girl fuck dog beast fucking Beast porn pet sex animalsex dogsex at August 2, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Wow, I was just saying the same thing to my friend last night. Thanks for posting this! Posted by: Elite Micro at August 11, 2004 11:50 PM | PERMALINKThanks for the post. It was very inspirational. Posted by: storage area networks (SAN) at August 18, 2004 08:41 PM | PERMALINK7244 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:56 AM | PERMALINK7209 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 10:32 AM | PERMALINK3840 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:55 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
