hmmm--Are Other Countries Going to Bail Bush Out in 2004??

[Starpass]

Caught a bit of financial news Monday. The next round of contracts for Iraq will be given by the administration in February and at the moment the details are being worked out so that foreign bidders can be included.

I assume you are keeping an eye on the international political sport being played? Major nations are not sending troops to Iraq, nor money, or simply loans rather than aid because the Bush boy wouldn't divide up the spoils of war. Same countries know that Bush boy desperately needs them to bail him out of the Iraq mess.

It looks as though that 20 billion (of the 87b) may just be headed in that direction. Now, consider what an impact that has on the Democrats.

Bush has said he will bring back a lot of troops in May (I believe 80,000). Even pundits agree he will hype this as our "progress and strategy for leaving" and ask the people to stay the course with him by re-electing him. If foreign troops and money enter the picture at the same time, people will think he worked diplomatic magic and got them to cooperate without having to stoop to the damands of those "dirty devils who didn't support us in this war"--the people will be clueless about the contracts that they are paying for with their tax money. Thus, the Dem arguments, going into summer '04, are cut off at the kneecaps--i.e., Bush is bringing the boys home and Bush has engaged the international community. I fear our $20 billion is a re-elect Bush campaign contribution.

I feel sad as I watch out candidates hissy-fit all over each other right now--it's so trivial. The Dems simply are not in the league to deal with this national/international power and money game that is going to smash them in the face very soon. The American voter is an easily swept aside nusance in this game. And I'm afraid once that international community gets those spoils (paid for by us), it will be eager to support Bush after his re-election in taking the war to more and more Arab states.

[Spazito]

1. I don't think so.....

other countries have seen Bush do the about face once too often and know that he says one thing and does another. Bush needs troops desperately, the contracts are a side issue. There will be negotiations but the other countries have Bush over a barrel and they know it, imo.

[Starpass]

3. I'm trying to figure out

if they use the "having him over the barrel" to keep thumbing their nose at him and hope that he will finally be removed OR if they are playing a game and will come to his aid for some healthy chunks of the $20 billion?? I'm sure they have business interests in their countries who would be putting full court political pressure on government leaders to snag these contracts even if the trade off is giving Bush what he wants. We are too much these days in a world of international money and power.

[Spazito]

11. Those other corporations are competition for US companies and....

getting contracts in Iraq is small potatoes to the fragile US economy as a whole. The more the US finds itself in trouble domestically and globally, the less likely corporations are to push their governments to cooperate with the US, they will just wait it out, imo.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Other countries will do as they are told or be bombed

They can accept that, or they can form their own coalition and disarm the US.

[Zero Gravitas]

4. No

UNder the Monkey-King the US is a dangerous "rogue" nation. Other countries only leverage is letting his stew in his own mess. They understand the domestic political consequences in saving his sorry ass and want to see him gone as much we do. The help will come (if at all) after the November 2004 Elections.

[adriennel]

5. explanation please!

This just might be the most inane sentence I've ever read on DU.

"The Dems simply are not in the league to deal with this national/international power and money game that is going to smash them in the face very soon."

..and Bush is? Like he's handled these situations so well for the past three years?

If we accept that Bush will be re-elected, then he surely will be.

While I have issues with the Democratic party, it's not like they were formed yesterday. It will not be the first time a Democrat has to clean up a Republican mess. It will not even be the first time a Democrat has to clean up a Bush mess.

[Starpass]

7. I meant that they are not equipped to deal with it

since Bush and republicans are in the drivers seat with this money and power. Have you noticed that the Dems don't do much to stand up to Bush and Company---why do you think??---could it have to do with giant corporations and MONEY??? Do you think either Dean or Kerry or Joe Blow Dem right now has the power in this game? They voted for the 20 billion for Christ's sake and now that 20 billion could buy a lot of "foreign support" that Bush needs to bail him out. We can't cut the deals with them unless we are in power. Have you noticed that we AREN'T. They will play with the boy who is passing out the candy---or do you still believe in fairytales???

[adriennel]

12. I do believe in fairy-tales!

I concede that it is next to impossible to accomplish anything in this country without money. However, I don't think this means we should roll over and abandon hope. They have more money but we have more people.

Certainly the current economic and foreign policy situation would not be the ideal start for any candidate. Currently my biggest problem with the Dems is that so many of them voted to support the war, then got the balls to speak critically, then voted for all the additional financing! Actually, I've been posting and ranting to co-workers on this very issue today. Both of our MI senators voted in support and we've written them letters. I personally have no idea how our country is going to get out of this mess. But since Bush was so adament that we had to act unilaterally in the first place, why should we expect other countries to bail us out? Our government effectively said, we don't need you, the UN is irrelevant, screw international law, oh wait a minute we need help can you send someone?

I do not want to see a self-fulfilling prophesy. This past weekend my mother said "well, there just isn't a Democratic candidate who is up to the job". I am 98% sure she heard this straight from my Republican father's mouth.

I guess unlike you I believe we can make friends without money. Didn't we massively increase funding to Turkey and they still won't send troops to Iraq?

No doubt we will be paying for this for a very long time.

[Starpass]

8. I meant that they are not equipped to deal with it

since Bush and republicans are in the drivers seat with this money and power. Have you noticed that the Dems don't do much to stand up to Bush and Company---why do you think??---could it have to do with giant corporations and MONEY??? Do you think either Dean or Kerry or Joe Blow Dem right now has the power in this game? They voted for the 20 billion for Christ's sake and now that 20 billion could buy a lot of "foreign support" that Bush needs to bail him out. We can't cut the deals with them unless we are in power. Have you noticed that we AREN'T. They will play with the boy who is passing out the candy---or do you still believe in fairytales???

[dkamin]

6. i was wondering

why foreign countries don't start advertising on US media against Bush. Having him as American president is terrible for everyone's interests. i guess they're all deathly afraid of what would happen if bush was reelected and they'd publicly come out against him.

on the other hand, if i'm france or germany, at this point, i don't see what i have to lose from a public show of support to bush's opponent. maybe they could promise financial support if/when there's a non-Bush American president...

sure it would be a pretty significant breach of diplomacy, but on the other hand, diplomacy between the US and other countries already seems dead, killed by a party that depends upon foreign/UN conspiracy theory voters.

[Starpass]

9. that's why I bring up this financial news about these contracts

and the "working out" the various points to include foreign bidders. Political games are worldwide. I think 20 billion can do a lot of "changing minds". Keep your eyes on the contracts and then see if the "foreign companies" who get the bids are followed by their governments giving a helping hand to Bush. That is when we will know if they are participating in a "game" or not.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Can you say

H-E-G-E-M-O-N-Y. "You're either with us or you're against us." He'll just bomb them to get his way. No money needed. AMERICA****The Worlds New Super Power.