Friday, July 30, 2004
So What's Wrong With Self-Interest?
Another super genius -- and this one, sadly, from the Commonwealth -- writes in to the New York Times:
Look, this isn't rocket science. Take the facts as presented by Mr. Godburn and ask yourself why, if France and Germany had "financial ties to Saddam Hussein" -- and what they had was contracts worth billions -- that George Bush couldn't have made a deal with them.
Yes, they acted in self-interest. They had deals. Worth billions. And they didn't want to lose them. And we wanted something. We wanted help in toppling Saddam so our soldiers wouldn't have to go it alone.
In other words, we each wanted something. With us so far?
They wanted some sort of guarantee that if they helped topple Hussein at least some of their contracts would be honored. Right? We know this because it came up repeatedly before the invasion, and no less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, among others, told them to go jump in a lake.
George Bush wouldn't do it. He wouldn't make a deal. Let's repeat that so that even Mr. Godburn understands:
GEORGE BUSH DECIDED THAT OUR TROOPS SHOULD GO IT ALONE IN IRAQ RATHER THAN MAKE A DEAL WITH OUR ALLIES TO SHARE THE OIL CONTRACTS AFTER THE WAR.
Remember, we're talking about Allies who already had contracts worth billions.
Why shouldn't they want to protect those contracts? What's WRONG with them acting in self interest? If anything, the existence of those contracts should have made it easier for Bush to make a deal with them, because they had something to lose.
Why was it anathema to George Bush to come to some sort of deal? Make no mistake that he could have; France and Germany knew we were going to Iraq, and they knew we had the might to do it alone. They had every reason to make a deal to preserve what value they could from those contracts.
But no deal happened. And that's because what George Bush offered them was ZERO. It was "get on board and we'll see what happens with the contracts when it's over". That's what he offered. And of course they said no. Can you blame them?
What in the world was Bush thinking? He was planning to launch the first preemptive war in U.S. history. What was more important to him than doing it with a truly international coalition and the blessings of the U.N.? What was so important that he preferred to have our troops go it essentially alone in Iraq?
Why didn't he make a deal? What would be the problem with sharing the oil contracts, if that's what it took? Isn't that his job? Clearly he could have offered SOMETHING.
Was ANY OIL AT ALL too high a price for him to pay?
Look, we know who is suffering from this decision: our troops in Iraq.
But who benefited from it?
To the Editor:Is there no amount of silly these people can't regurgitate?
In "Meant Well, Messed Up" (Op-Ed, July 29), Theodore C. Sorensen echoes the Democrats' theme that we have isolated ourselves from old allies through the arrogance of the Bush administration. This belief presumes that France and Germany would have gone along with the liberation of Iraq if only we had approached them in the right way.
Why the presumption that the French and German position is correct? France had financial ties to Saddam Hussein and was in a power struggle with Britain over European political issues. In short, France failed to go along for selfish reasons, not because we were arrogant.
We took out a proven mass murderer because the whole world thought he still had weapons of mass destruction. If that is a cause for hatred of the United States, then those who hate this administration are not only wrong, but on the wrong side of history.
Mark R. Godburn
Great Barrington, Mass., July 29, 2004
Look, this isn't rocket science. Take the facts as presented by Mr. Godburn and ask yourself why, if France and Germany had "financial ties to Saddam Hussein" -- and what they had was contracts worth billions -- that George Bush couldn't have made a deal with them.
Yes, they acted in self-interest. They had deals. Worth billions. And they didn't want to lose them. And we wanted something. We wanted help in toppling Saddam so our soldiers wouldn't have to go it alone.
In other words, we each wanted something. With us so far?
They wanted some sort of guarantee that if they helped topple Hussein at least some of their contracts would be honored. Right? We know this because it came up repeatedly before the invasion, and no less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, among others, told them to go jump in a lake.
George Bush wouldn't do it. He wouldn't make a deal. Let's repeat that so that even Mr. Godburn understands:
GEORGE BUSH DECIDED THAT OUR TROOPS SHOULD GO IT ALONE IN IRAQ RATHER THAN MAKE A DEAL WITH OUR ALLIES TO SHARE THE OIL CONTRACTS AFTER THE WAR.
Remember, we're talking about Allies who already had contracts worth billions.
Why shouldn't they want to protect those contracts? What's WRONG with them acting in self interest? If anything, the existence of those contracts should have made it easier for Bush to make a deal with them, because they had something to lose.
Why was it anathema to George Bush to come to some sort of deal? Make no mistake that he could have; France and Germany knew we were going to Iraq, and they knew we had the might to do it alone. They had every reason to make a deal to preserve what value they could from those contracts.
But no deal happened. And that's because what George Bush offered them was ZERO. It was "get on board and we'll see what happens with the contracts when it's over". That's what he offered. And of course they said no. Can you blame them?
What in the world was Bush thinking? He was planning to launch the first preemptive war in U.S. history. What was more important to him than doing it with a truly international coalition and the blessings of the U.N.? What was so important that he preferred to have our troops go it essentially alone in Iraq?
Why didn't he make a deal? What would be the problem with sharing the oil contracts, if that's what it took? Isn't that his job? Clearly he could have offered SOMETHING.
Was ANY OIL AT ALL too high a price for him to pay?
Look, we know who is suffering from this decision: our troops in Iraq.
But who benefited from it?
