Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What we should be talking about, Wolfie's "pronouncement"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:12 PM
Original message
What we should be talking about, Wolfie's "pronouncement"
This administration just gets more and more arrogant by the minute.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/10/sprj.irq.contracts/index.html

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- A decision by the U.S. to bar some of its major trading partners from bidding for Iraqi reconstruction contracts has been greeted around the world with amazement.

Countries that did not back the U.S.-led coalition that toppled Saddam Hussein will not be eligible to compete for $18.6 billion worth of contracts, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.

According to a memo posted on a Pentagon Web site, those countries that either participated in the Coalition effort in the war or supported it -- including Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, Turkey and Japan -- were on the list.

While officials from some of the excluded countries speculated that the memo was not official U.S. policy, the White House put such notions to rest Wednesday, when spokesman Scott McClellan said decision to limit the list was "totally appropriate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now that's how you get other nations involved!
Flip 'em the bird!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Scott McClellan said decision to limit the list was
Totally Criminal, and the worst Foreign Policy decision since burning Ottawa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Isn't that
the WH spokesman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Or is it another Scott McClellan?
I have no idea...?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Er...not to be nit-picky and all
but when did you burn Ottawa?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ottawa was burned in 1812
Thats why the Brits came south and torched Washington....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It was not
Ottawa didn't even exist then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Huh?
What's with the revisionist history?

You must be reading from a different history book than the rest of us. There was nothing there to burn in 1812. Ottawa wasn't even called Ottawa until the 1850's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Actually, it was Toronto
Edited on Wed Dec-10-03 03:31 PM by TankLV
there were many raiding parties of Americans to Canada at the time, from the shores of Lake Ontario.

Kinda backfired big time for the Niagara Frontier at the time.

Admiral Perry, Fort Niagara and all.

Fort Niagara was a British garrison for a long time. Big sore spot for the US.

That's how Grand Island lost all it's trees - the US was busy cutting them all down to build warships for the Upper and Lower Great Lakes.

and I believe the reaction was for the Brits to burn what was the village of Buffalo at the time, not DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. The bush administration also
wants France and Germany to give up what Iraq owes them. And, be assured, this administration will not pass on problems to future administrations. I didn't know there was any "competition" for contracts. I guess now that Chenyburton has gotten all it can handle bids can now be open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. But..but..this war isn't about oil and money!!
or, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. Why wolfie
Why is the Deputy Defense Secretary making a policy announcement regarding reconstruction contracts? Shouldn't that be handled by the State Dept? Is this another slap in the face of Colin Powell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Papa Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. again, this administration does the opposite of what it should do
When the Bush administration cancelled the ABM treaty we said something like "look there's just a difference of opinion, we still have a strong relationship."

When we pulled out of the Kyoto protocols we said (Powell) "we have a difference of opinion with respect to the analysis of the current situation but that does not prevent us from being allies and friends and having very close links that go beyond a specific situation."

Bush said "Friends are able to speak candidly and constructively, Our relationship between … the United States and the European Union is strong and it is healthy."

When we don't agree with our allies initiatives, ideas or policies, we call it a difference of opinion, don't worry, our relationship is still strong. When our allies don't go along with us we tell them in effect "you are with us or against us", and we'll stab you motherfuckers in the back if you don't get on board and tow the line. Forget about difference of opinion. We have all the answers.

It makes me want to scream. What kind of statesman or leader would act this way? Might = right ? If Bush is elected in 2004, the USA is finished, we will have no allies except for Great Britain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. watching the re-reun of Scott McCellan right now
he's having a difficult time answering the ?'s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC