PDA

View Full Version : executive order #13303


zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 12:02 AM
link (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/2003.html#13303)


Executive Order 13303—Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest


I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and
(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.


translation: any action taken by any company or employee of a company participating in the iraq reconstruction shall be immune from prosecution. any associated funds may not be confiscated.

ESPECIALLY IF IT CONCERNS OIL.

why? because disruption of the oil is now a national emergency.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 01:39 AM
[i]translation: any action taken by any company or employee of a company participating in the iraq reconstruction shall be immune from prosecution. any associated funds may not be confiscated.

ESPECIALLY IF IT CONCERNS OIL.

why? because disruption of the oil is now a national emergency. [/B]

or the proceeds from oil sales are promised to someone else.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:14 AM
Translation:
Iraq's oil revenues will go to the reconstruction of Iraq, not to pay for the crimes of the previous Iraqi government. Don't think that you can file a lawsuit against Iraq and get paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Translation:
Iraq's oil revenues will go to the reconstruction of Iraq, not to pay for the crimes of the previous Iraqi government. Don't think that you can file a lawsuit against Iraq and get paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

i don't think that's what it means. i believe it's saying that if, say, chevron accidentally killed some iraqis in an equipment accident, they're immune from prosecution.

or a more nefarious example -- iraqi oil workers are protesting something texaco is doing. texaco managers hire some guys to go in w/ M-16s and gun them down. the gunmen and managers are immune from prosecution.

or some halliburton employees get drunk and rape a 13 year old iraqi girl. again, no repercussions.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 11:30 AM
Now would that be revenues after Halliburton gets its cut? Would those rebuilding costs include all the damage done by the US troops? The cynical could see a perpetual rebuilding project with the military knocking 'em down and certain corporations being paid by oil sales to throw 'em back up. How long will it last?

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Now would that be revenues after Halliburton gets its cut?


any [...] garnishment [...] is prohibited [wrt]
any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.


sure sounds like it.

Would those rebuilding costs include all the damage done by the US troops? The cynical could see a perpetual rebuilding project with the military knocking 'em down and certain corporations being paid by oil sales to throw 'em back up. How long will it last?

omg, friggin' genius! i'm already of the belief that bush & co. are gunning for permanent war, but now they've set up a system of permanent reconstruction, immune from prosecution. yes, build it up and knock it down, ad infinitum.

so it's not so much about taking the oil, it's about taking the profits of the oil.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 11:53 AM
zimv20,
Do you really think that Texaco will be immune from prosecution if they murder a bunch of people? That Halliburton's rapists would not be brought up on criminal charges? That's absurd. IJ Reilly woud call it a straw man or "act of desperation."

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
Do you really think that Texaco will be immune from prosecution if they murder a bunch of people? That Halliburton's rapists would not be brought up on criminal charges? That's absurd. IJ Reilly woud call it a straw man or "act of desperation."

Since my name's been invoked here... I don't necessarily buy the Texaco murder scenario, but not because it's a straw man argument. A straw man argument is the fabrication of an easily-defeated debating point that your opponent has not actually made. For future reference.

Incidentally, I hope your interpretation of what this executive order means is also not correct. Iraq has huge debts to other nations, which the US would like very much to erase, and it certainly would not promote international cooperation in Iraq for the US to make a power-play to control how all of Iraq's oil revenues are dispensed, if it's to the decided disadvantage of the debtor [edit: meant creditor] nations. I'm not certain this is happening, but I see indications that it is, which is troubling.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
Do you really think that Texaco will be immune from prosecution if they murder a bunch of people? That Halliburton's rapists would not be brought up on criminal charges? That's absurd.

the order classifies any threat to the rebuilding as a national emergency. further, any action taken to quell that threat is immune.

i think it could easily be interpreted that murdering protesters furthered the rebuilding effort. perhaps i was too glib in the rape example, but i'm sure a company lawyer could come up w/ a reason to classify such an act immune under this order.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 12:33 PM
Maybe red herring is the more accurate term, although in this case the executive order is not making the argument that murder and rape are going to be excused (thus zimv20 is making an easily refutable point that the documnet he is criticizning did not make). It remains absurd to say that this executive order is going to excuse rape and murder, whether one characterizes it as a straw man, a red herring, of just garden variety hysteria.

Here's a question for everyone. What would you do, if anything, to protect the oil revenues from garnishment etc.? There are may potential claims against them. Tortured POWs from the 1990-1991 action. Tortured and killed Iraqi citizens. Suits resulting from attacks on infrastructure etc. Let's see what kind of executive order you would write!

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Here's a question for everyone. What would you do, if anything, to protect the oil revenues from garnishment etc.? There are may potential claims against them. Tortured POWs from the 1990-1991 action. Tortured and killed Iraqi citizens. Suits resulting from attacks on infrastructure etc. Let's see what kind of executive order you would write!

I'd write one that said the oil revenues were totally under the control of the Iraqis. The new governing council should be making these decisions.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Here's a question for everyone. What would you do, if anything, to protect the oil revenues from garnishment etc.? There are may potential claims against them. Tortured POWs from the 1990-1991 action. Tortured and killed Iraqi citizens. Suits resulting from attacks on infrastructure etc. Let's see what kind of executive order you would write!

you are presupposing that all suits should be dismissed. should they?

Ugg
Jul 30, 2003, 01:11 PM
This is definitely leading to the permanent colonization of Iraq. There is no way that gw & co. will allow the Iraqis to rule themselves if this is not continued. It is pretty scary that international law and human rights violations will take a back seat to US security . It is pretty funny that only oil was mentioned as though the rest of Iraq's economic output is worthless.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
you are presupposing that all suits should be dismissed. should they?

I'm not presupposing anything. I am asking what others would suggest doing to protect these assets, if anything.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Maybe red herring is the more accurate term, although in this case the executive order is not making the argument that murder and rape are going to be excused (thus zimv20 is making an easily refutable point that the documnet he is criticizning did not make). It remains absurd to say that this executive order is going to excuse rape and murder, whether one characterizes it as a straw man, a red herring, of just garden variety hysteria.

Here's a question for everyone. What would you do, if anything, to protect the oil revenues from garnishment etc.? There are may potential claims against them. Tortured POWs from the 1990-1991 action. Tortured and killed Iraqi citizens. Suits resulting from attacks on infrastructure etc. Let's see what kind of executive order you would write!

I would accept "red herring" as a characterization of the rape and murder argument. It's a distraction from what the executive order really means -- which, it seems to me, none of really can say with authority.

I'm not sure by what power the President of United States gets to determine who is owed money by Iraq. From what I remember reading about this earlier, the largest creditor nations are Russia and France. I suspect that's what this executive order is all about because it fits into this larger picture. But I won't claim to know for certain at this point; I'd like to hear from someone with some ability to interpret the order and place it within a larger context.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I'm not presupposing anything. I am asking what others would suggest doing to protect these assets, if anything.

set up a judiciary body to decide on a case by case basis.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
set up a judiciary body to decide on a case by case basis.

Like a military tribunal? ;)

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm not sure by what power the President of United States gets to determine who is owed money by Iraq. From what I remember reading about this earlier, the largest creditor nations are Russia and France. I suspect that's what this executive order is all about because it fits into this larger picture. But I won't claim to know for certain at this point; I'd like to hear from someone with some ability to interpret the order and place it within a larger context.

I don't pretend to be that "someone" with the ability to interpret executive orders, but perhaps this is all about those debts owed to Russia and France. The US doesn't recognize the International Court, it controls the decisions inside Iraq, and now with this order does it prevent France or Russia from filing claims in US courts?

I'm with you in not knowing where Bush gets off deciding something that should be decide by the Iraqis. The governing council is broader and more representative than I would have anticipated (kudos to Bush on this one) and if we really want to build a stable, independant Iraq then these decisions should not be made in the White House.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't pretend to be that "someone" with the ability to interpret executive orders, but perhaps this is all about those debts owed to Russia and France. The US doesn't recognize the International Court, it controls the decisions inside Iraq, and now with this order does it prevent France or Russia from filing claims in US courts?

I'm with you in not knowing where Bush gets off deciding something that should be decide by the Iraqis. The governing council is broader and more representative than I would have anticipated (kudos to Bush on this one) and if we really want to build a stable, independant Iraq then these decisions should not be made in the White House.

Right now, the coalition is the occupying power, and, as such, has responsibility for making these decisions. Yes, it probably does prevent France and Russia from filing claims in US courts. Good thing, too. France and Russia can deal with the new Iraqi government once it is in place. In the meantime, there's no need for the US to use Iraqi oil to pay Saddam's debts.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Right now, the coalition is the occupying power, and, as such, has responsibility for making these decisions. Yes, it probably does prevent France and Russia from filing claims in US courts. Good thing, too. France and Russia can deal with the new Iraqi government once it is in place. In the meantime, there's no need for the US to use Iraqi oil to pay Saddam's debts.

What do you mean by "no need?"

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
What do you mean by "no need?"

I mean the United States should not decide to pay Saddam's debts to France and Russia at the expense of the new Iraq. Let the new Iraqi government work out those arrangements with its creditors when it is fully installed.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I mean the United States should not decide to pay Saddam's debts to France and Russia at the expense of the new Iraq. Let the new Iraqi government work out those arrangements with its creditors when it is fully installed.

If we are serious about building this new Iraq and have confidence in the governing council we brought about, then why should such an issue wait until a latter date? This is not a security issue that can only be handled by the military forces of the occuping powers. Unless there is some other claim by the US or US corporations I don't see the need to wait.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If we are serious about building this new Iraq and have confidence in the governing council we brought about, then why should such an issue wait until a latter date? This is not a security issue that can only be handled by the military forces of the occuping powers. Unless there is some other claim by the US or US corporations I don't see the need to wait.

The "governing council" is barely able to organize itself at this point. I think you should re-think the idea that taking all the money out of Iraq isn't a security issue. Without this order, and with lawsuits and large judgements flying about like so much confetti, we would hear complaints about how the US was basicallly bleeding Iraq dry and should leave that money for the Iraqi people etc. etc.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The "governing council" is barely able to organize itself at this point. I think you should re-think the idea that taking all the money out of Iraq isn't a security issue. Without this order, and with lawsuits and large judgements flying about like so much confetti, we would hear complaints about how the US was basicallly bleeding Iraq dry and should leave that money for the Iraqi people etc. etc.

Perhaps I don't fully understand what the role the US has in mind for this "governing council." If it is going to be the installation of stop signs in Bagdhad then that is one thing, but if it is to govern Iraqi society then it would seem this should be right up its alley. I have no interest in taking money that is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq and putting it in the hands of the French or the Russians. Both of those governments have stated their willingness to negotiate the debt. I just think it is up to Iraqi authorities to do so.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Perhaps I don't fully understand what the role the US has in mind for this "governing council." If it is going to be the installation of stop signs in Bagdhad then that is one thing, but if it is to govern Iraqi society then it would seem this should be right up its alley. I have no interest in taking money that is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq and putting it in the hands of the French or the Russians. Both of those governments have stated their willingness to negotiate the debt. I just think it is up to Iraqi authorities to do so.

Perhaps you don't fully understand the role. I have read that it's role, in addition to spending money on reconstruction, will be to develop a new Iraqi constiution. In any event, there are no Iraqi authorities for France and Russia to negotiate with at this time. Maybe they will be able to do this with time.

IJ Reilly
Jul 30, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I mean the United States should not decide to pay Saddam's debts to France and Russia at the expense of the new Iraq. Let the new Iraqi government work out those arrangements with its creditors when it is fully installed.

We probably don't have a major disagreement here, but my concern is that the US will move forward with plans to borrow against future Iraqi oil revenues to fund reconstruction. That was the plan, last I heard, and I'm afraid this executive order may be an element of that plan.

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 03:57 PM
Well, the reconstruction needs to be done, and borrowing against future oil revenues isn't a bad way to do it. The sooner it gets done, the better. Right now, the occupying powers are the authority in Iraq and have the responsibility to take that kind of action.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Like a military tribunal? ;)

better than dismissing every suit out of hand. and, as discussed, there may be claims laid against property/monies. i believe it's better to have _some_ independent judiciary (other than a military tribunal, which would be inappropriate in such a case) than having bush simply say "no."

it's a power grab.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Perhaps you don't fully understand the role. I have read that it's role, in addition to spending money on reconstruction, will be to develop a new Iraqi constiution. In any event, there are no Iraqi authorities for France and Russia to negotiate with at this time. Maybe they will be able to do this with time.

Of course then it's possible it's you who don't understand it. Could it be that what we have here is "window dressing"? Is it possible that no matter how broad the representation on the council, the real agenda is for the Bush administration to make all the real decisions effecting the future of Iraq? Just perhaps, macfan, what we have here is an example of a neocolonial relationship that the Bush Administration wants to foster as the future of a Iraq in a new Middle East?

macfan
Jul 30, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Of course then it's possible it's you who don't understand it. Could it be that what we have here is "window dressing"? Is it possible that no matter how broad the representation on the council, the real agenda is for the Bush administration to make all the real decisions effecting the future of Iraq? Just perhaps, macfan, what we have here is an example of a neocolonial relationship that the Bush Administration wants to foster as the future of a Iraq in a new Middle East?

I would suggest that you wait and see rather than saying that Bush is setting up a neocolonial relationship. Will the next government in Iraq be friendly to the US? I hope so, but that hardly makes it a colony.

Sayhey
Jul 30, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I would suggest that you wait and see rather than saying that Bush is setting up a neocolonial relationship. Will the next government in Iraq be friendly to the US? I hope so, but that hardly makes it a colony.

You're right, of course, that we will see if Bush is setting up a neocolonial relationship. When I read the statements of Wolfowitz and Co. and see the current actions, including the executive order it sure points in that direction. If you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras. Perhaps you're right it will turn out to be zebras.

toontra
Jul 31, 2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I would suggest that you wait and see rather than saying that Bush is setting up a neocolonial relationship. Will the next government in Iraq be friendly to the US? I hope so, but that hardly makes it a colony.

Right, so we sit back and let him get on with it and, if eventually it turns out you, macfan, are wrong, what then?

You obviously don't believe in the most democratic of principles of questioning the actions of your leaders and holding them to account.

macfan
Jul 31, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by toontra
Right, so we sit back and let him get on with it and, if eventually it turns out you, macfan, are wrong, what then?

You obviously don't believe in the most democratic of principles of questioning the actions of your leaders and holding them to account.

You are incorrect. I do believe in questioning the actions of my leaders and holding them to account. I just happen to agree with the particular actions that these particular leaders are taking at this particular time!

If I'm wrong, and we have a "neo colonial relationship" with Iraq (whatever that means) similar to our neo colonial relationships with Japan and South Korea, and Iraq, like South Korea, turns into an economic powerhouse in the region with a democratic government? I can live with that.

IJ Reilly
Jul 31, 2003, 03:41 PM
Ha! Covered either way -- why am I not surprised?

Sayhey
Jul 31, 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by macfan
If I'm wrong, and we have a "neo colonial relationship" with Iraq (whatever that means) similar to our neo colonial relationships with Japan and South Korea, and Iraq, like South Korea, turns into an economic powerhouse in the region with a democratic government? I can live with that.

It means colonial in essence; new in form. In Iraq it means that at some point we won't have a "viceroy" to make the decisions, but because of our economic, military, and political domination we will still be in the position to call all the important shots. Sounds to me like what the agenda is for many in the Bush Administration. This is as opposed to the liberty and freedom that is trumpeted as our goal for Iraq.

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 01:49 AM
a major finally picked up on the order.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/08/ED163218.DTL


These are the kind of legal protections that most corporations could only dream of enjoying. If, for example, a U.S. oil company engages in criminal behavior in California, and its assets can be traced back to Iraqi oil, it could be immune from any kind of prosecution.


Tellingly, the president's order provides no such legal immunity for companies who are helping to reconstruct Iraqi communications, computer or electrical infrastructure.

Ugg
Aug 10, 2003, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
a major finally picked up on the order.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/08/ED163218.DTL

So, why is it that only the oil industry is getting special treatment? It certainly couldnt' be due to cheney and gw's reltationship with the industry!?!?!?

pseudobrit
Aug 10, 2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
So, why is it that only the oil industry is getting special treatment? It certainly couldnt' be due to cheney and gw's reltationship with the industry!?!?!?

Of course not; this being the administration that promised not even the appearance of impropriety!

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 10:15 AM
'Scuse me. Some of y'all are saying you don't really understand the meaning of this XO, but since you don't trust the Bushies you're making creative interpretations which support your negativism.

Then, when somebody says, "Wait and see." you go to hollering, "But I want to know NOW!" when damned few if any really know what's intended.

The way "neo-colonialism" is being tossed around, it would seem that any small country which is friendly toward us is a colony. Gimme a break!

Look. The poor damned Iraqis haven't had any "normal" citizen with political power or experience for a quarter of a century. The citizenry at large has had no experience beyond obeying a dictator. It's gonna take time to find folks with any natural competency at leadership, and it looks like that's what's being attempted. Then, it's gonna take time to get a functioning system together, neo-colony, starapy or whatever. Given the past history of US actions, full independence is the desired goal--but folks first gotta learn to walk before they challenge the Carl Lewises of national/international dealings.

Good questions are being asked, but the answers can't be known "right now". And this "murder/rape" crapola is about as childish as can be...

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
'Scuse me. Some of y'all are saying you don't really understand the meaning of this XO, but since you don't trust the Bushies you're making creative interpretations which support your negativism.

That's a much more serious allegation then I think you realize. Yes, some of us are suspicious of the Bush administration's means and motives, and for good reason. That does not mean that questioning this executive order is a matter of "creative" negativity. People do have the capacity to read and comprehend, you know.

This executive order has finally broken the surface in the press now, and it seems that even the experts in such matters can't figure out why the language is so broad, and what that implies. Consequently, the Bush administration is in the process of backpedaling, and is promising a future "clarification" of its meaning. So how would you rate the odds of that clarification coming forth, if the pressure on the administration to do so ceases?

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...The way "neo-colonialism" is being tossed around, it would seem that any small country which is friendly toward us is a colony. Gimme a break!

'Rat

When I used the term "neo-colonialism" I wasn't refering to any small country I was speaking of the US - Iraqi relationship. If you want to see how that is evolving look at the link IJ Reilly just posted in another thread:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-exiles10aug10,1,4392341.story?

I particularly would refer you to the section that says,

"It's just like in the old days under the British mandate," Istrabadi said. "Technically, you had an Iraqi minister. But it was the senior advisor, who was always a Briton, who was running things. If you wanted to get things done, you went and saw the fellow with the blue eyes, not the Iraqi. That is very much the situation as it's perceived today."

That's the essence of neo-colonialism in a nutshell. If we don't want that to be the way a future Iraq is constructed then I think we have a responsibility to speak up now, not wait and see how it turns out.

Desertrat
Aug 10, 2003, 05:49 PM
IJ, if you want an example of "broad", go hunt up FDR's Lend-Lease Agreement that let us get armaments to GB and Russia before we entered WW II. You couldn't tell if it authorized giving them the entire US factories' output of military equipment plus our existing stocks, or was limited to a box of BandAids. You couldn't figure out anything about any money end of the deal, either.

Questioning is fine. Being suspicious is fine. But to come from a predisposition of kneejerk "Great evil!" isn't.

Sayhey, it has also been reported in some newspaper or another (WashPost or Atlanta Constitution, I disremember) that the US High Commish has veto powers only over security issues. Day-to-day or internal Iraqi matters are (to be) run by Iraqis. To me, that indicates a US policy of working toward getting out of Iraq's political/governmental affairs.

I dunno. I've never been any sort of high muckety-muck, but I've had jobs that had me around quite a few. Exxon & Union Carbide Execs. Texas Lege power folks and a couple of governors. Some high-level federal folks. Big-stroke environmentalists. I've had lots of disagreements with many of them, but I just never saw the sorts of behaviors or views that so many attribute to them...

Part of my problem with a lot of the noises against Bush is that he just didn't exhibit those sorts of traits during his tenure in Texas. I just don't see where he's been doing particularly better or particularly worse than other governors or presidents, regardless of party.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 06:20 PM
hey rat -

should american oil companies that do any business in iraq, and their employees, be immune for any/all prosecution for any act or any law broken anywhere?

IJ Reilly
Aug 10, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, if you want an example of "broad", go hunt up FDR's Lend-Lease Agreement that let us get armaments to GB and Russia before we entered WW II. You couldn't tell if it authorized giving them the entire US factories' output of military equipment plus our existing stocks, or was limited to a box of BandAids. You couldn't figure out anything about any money end of the deal, either.

Questioning is fine. Being suspicious is fine. But to come from a predisposition of kneejerk "Great evil!" isn't.

I don't need to hunt up Lend-Lease, because I know about it. I also know that many attacked FDR politically for stretching the act to its breaking point. He had to defend against those questions and criticisms then, and Bush needs to answer for them now. I don't come from the "great evil" camp, but I do come from the camp that says that Mr. Bush must be watched very closely.

Sayhey
Aug 10, 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...Sayhey, it has also been reported in some newspaper or another (WashPost or Atlanta Constitution, I disremember) that the US High Commish has veto powers only over security issues. Day-to-day or internal Iraqi matters are (to be) run by Iraqis. To me, that indicates a US policy of working toward getting out of Iraq's political/governmental affairs...

'Rat

Earlier in this thread macfan and I argued over this point exactly. My position was Bush's executive order was an example of US interferance in things best left to the Iraqis. I don't see how the supposed limitation on Bremer can be accurate given the limited power of the Iraqi council. I hope you are right and would love to see the reference. Still it would seem that if Bremer can't veto decisions then Bush can.