Hey! I just blogged about this, too! I'm betting they're forced to back off of the policy though. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted on my blog too. Now this is consistency. I hope the issue permeates the mass media and hits every American dinner table. Can Americans really claim this is unfair or wrong? I doubt it. In fact, it should help to clarify what is at stake.

The "enemies" ? Like it was German, Russians and French flying planes into the twin towers.
Not really a surprise that they never got contracts - and I wouldn't say unfair either.
How do you view the fact that no British companies got to tender for certain contracts ?

"How do you view the fact that no British companies got to tender for certain contracts ?"

Bobby, you're completely wrong if I understand your phrasing (maybe I don't). Companies from the UK are certainly eligible under this decision. If you're referring to the ones that were just handed, sans bidding, to Bechtel et al., I agree that is crony capitalism bullshit.

What I don't see explained is if this isn't about politics, then why are Jordan, Kazakhstan and Egypt included? Unlike, say, Israel (who was excluded), they were not in the "coalition of the willing". I don't see how this is anything other than politics (not that I disagree with this decision).

EU is studying the legality? Uh, I didn't realize the U.S. Government followed EU guidelines for contract bidding. Jerks.

“The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts”.

These are the governments and companies made billions keeping Saddam in power and enabling him to enslave millions. Not only should they get no further business, Iraq should not pay Saddam’s debts to these companies and governments.

I agree with Jake, and I hope those three do get in a huff about it ... it'll strengthen the argument that they opposed the war in Iraq for primarily financial reasons.

I mean if "it's all about the oil" insofar as US involvement, it's certainly about $ when it comes to those three.

How come Saudi Arabia is allowed to Bid if this is strictly about Security? You would think they would be outed way before France and Germany if it was about Security.

Paul:

I think that belies the fact that it really isn't about security. It's about politics.

I'm also hesitant to buy the idea that Egyptian and Saudi construction workers are more likely to assuage US security fears than their German peers.

Paul, where did you hear it had anything to do with security? The White House said very bluntly '"Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," McClellan said.

Other nations that want to be eligible for a slice of the $18.6 billion, money that Congress approved last month after a special budget request by President Bush, can do so by participating militarily, McClellan said. They can also vie for contracts being financed by a separate international fund that the White House estimates will be worth $13 billion, he said.

"The United States and coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces here, and the Iraqi people themselves, are the ones that have been helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the Iraqi people, and I think it's totally appropriate for those U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to the entities I just mentioned," he said.'

canada got blackballed too. good, fuck em all. it would have been one thing for these countries to simply say 'no,' or even abstain, but instead they made utter fools of themselves by blurring the line between friend and enemy. let the u.k., aus, japan, spain, italy, and poland reap the rewards of friendship (as well as aligning on the right side of history).

Joe, way back, I was referring to the contracts that were just handed out as you said.
Scot, are you in the U.S. military now ?

it is about security in the sense that allies must see benefits in joining these coalitions. if the u.s. were to hand out contracts to the weasels, future allies may be less inclined to sacrifice their resources knowing that they have just as good a chance at the spoils. i'm not saying it was more about security than politics, but u.s. security (in the sense of future alliances) was one of the concerns of this decision. besides, do we really need a reason to stick it to france?

bobby - not yet. i'm in the right city, but i've got a few, ahem, legal snags that will delay me for another couple of months - my past is intent on haunting me. no matter - the jihadis know i'm coming.

It is about security according to the Directive from Wolfowitz posted on the pentagons website.
"restricting contract bids is neccessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States"
I have also read from a couple other sources the White House lines main reason for the restrictions is security.

3795 this is a great plae to play texas holdem online. feel free to try out the http://texas-holdem.big.gb.com for big bonuses! texas holdem poker