rebuilding. For instance Canada has earmarked over 300 million for Iraq. So
if Canada is willing to pay to help shouldn't it get some of its largess
back in contracts? Why should all of that money go to enrich the pockets of
Shrub's friends.
larry
At 10:32 AM 12/11/2003, you wrote:
>The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they just cant
>bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They can be hired
>as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this is such a
>huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to rebuild Iraq
>when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first place?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
>Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for reopening
>a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts for
>Iraq's reconstruction.
>
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
>
>"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
>alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search) said.
>
>So let me get this straight.
>
>1. Economy is bad.
>2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
>3. Get called on it by other countries.
>4. Attack anyway
>5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in an
>illegal war.
>
>And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect plan to
>boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
>
>-Kevin
> _____
>
>----------
>[
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
