Trading
Soldiers for Contracts, Such a Deal!
Patricia
Ernest (Pissed
Off Patricia's Blog )
OpEdNews.com
"It's very
simple," Bush told reporters. "Our people risked their lives.
Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the
contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the US taxpayers
expect."
The "folks" who really and truly "risked their
lives" did not do it for contracts! The real risk takers are
the soldiers, not the contracting companies. Any companies in Iraq
are there by choice. The soldiers do not have that luxury.
No, it's not what this US taxpayer expects. I expect to
get the best deal for our dollar. I expect fair bidding, and for
the job to go to the lowest priced, most honest, best qualified
company. I don't care what country that company calls home.
The whole thing is already a disaster with the no bid Halliburton
contracts. Maybe this time it could be done the right way.
Why can't Iraqis rebuild
Iraq? Why do other countries even have to get involved? Why
are American companies involved? If we did this war to free
Iraqi people, why aren't they free to be employed rebuilding their own
country? That money that was sent to Iraq for rebuilding was our
money, not bush's money. Why can't the Iraqi people be free to
determine who will help them rebuild their country? Somebody
better tell bush that Iraq is not his very own country. He has one
country he is supposed to be running, and he's not doing such a hot job
with that one either.
Bush said that the other
countries did not shed their blood for this war so they shouldn't get
rebuilding contracts. I think I have a flash alert for bush.
Our soldiers did not shed their blood for freakin big business contracts.
Our soldiers shed their blood because bush ordered them to. So
what bush is saying is that if a country sent some soldiers to Iraq, the
big businesses in that country should be rewarded with contracts?
Yes indeed, that's what it sounds like to me. In other words if
your soldiers died in Iraq, then your large companies get to take our
money home in the form of contracts. Sounds like that money is
going to pay for a bribe to me. Maybe it went like this: If
you'll send some soldiers to fight in Iraq, I'll let your companies get
big contracts and those contracts will be paid for by the saps in
America. They'll pay for it because they will be told to.
I'll get the glory of freeing Iraq and you'll be paid for your help by
American citizens. That money won't stay in Iraq, it'll be yours.
Deal?
Has it come to this in our
world? Big companies can get big contracts if the
head of their country makes their soldiers spill their blood and
lose their lives. Do the number of contracts that a company can
get, go up exponentially to the number of their dead soldiers?
This is insane.
When they speak of Iraq and
the contracts it is reminiscent of the wild animal film we have all
seen. The one where the lion kills a water buffalo, and then all
the other animals congregate around for their own meals. Bush
seems to see himself as the lion and he has fed and appeased Halliburton,
his favorite group of vultures. But, now the hyenas are gathering
around and bush doesn't want them to get any of the bloody carcass.
No matter which animals are involved, the carcass is starting to smell
bad.
Was this war about wmd,
getting rid of Saddam, freeing Iraqi people, oil fields, or was it about
politics? Did the soldiers die to protect us from wmd?
Did the soldiers die to free Iraqi people? Did the
soldiers die for oil? Did the soldiers die for money?
Well, according to bush himself, they died so that countries and
companies could get big contracts and big money from us and from the
Iraqi oil fields.
If you sent soldiers to
die, step over their dead bodies and get in line for your reward, a
big contract. If you didn't send soldiers to die, sorry you
can't qualify without a bloody or dead solider.
Then bush has the gall
to tell the countries who did not want to see their soldiers killed,
that he wants them to just erase the debts owed to them by Iraq.
You can't bid on the contracts and you shouldn't get paid for the
debts owed to you. Or
as it was so eloquently stated on the Boston.Com News website:
"The latest round of
trans-Atlantic sniping comes at a difficult time for the Bush
administration, which wants to negotiate a reduction in Iraqi debt
valued at $120 billion, much of which was extended by the very countries
to be excluded from reconstruction contracts. As Wolfowitz's memo was
released, Bush was preparing to telephone the leaders of France,
Germany, and Russia to ask them to receive James A. Baker III, the
former secretary of state, as an envoy to renegotiate Iraq's debt.
Diplomats said they sympathized with Baker, whose
mission will now be far more difficult.
Russia, to which Iraq owes an estimated $8 billion,
reversed its previous position of working with the United States on debt
reduction after the release of the Pentagon memo.
"The president is sending Baker to meet
with" France, Germany, and Russia "and at the same time he
slaps them in the face," said Edward S. Walker Jr., president of
the Washington-based Middle East Institute and a former US ambassador to
Egypt. "If this was supposed to be blackmail to get these countries
to write off Iraqi debt, it's a funny way to conduct international
relations."
I could not agree more Mr. Walker! It is indeed a funny
way to conduct international relations, but not the kind of funny that
makes one laugh.
patricia
I am a mom to Murphy (my precious
pup) and Fred (my occasionally precious cat).
I share my life, my
laughter, my world and all of my love with my husband and
have for 16 years.
I would describe myself as a very
sentimental and sensitive person who is forever willing to share my
point of view whether or not it has been requested of
me. This article is copyright by Patricia
Ernest, originally published by opednews.com
Permission is granted to forward this or to place it on a website as
long as the article is included intact, including this
statement. Patricia is also
the author of Pissed
Off Patricia's Blog
