Here's a very funny round-table discussion of the contracts in Iraq, and the stiffing of France and Germany for their obstruction of the U.N. vote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/sb_12-12.html

Moderator JIM LEHRER,

syndicated columnist MARK SHIELDS (the resident liberal perspective),

and DAVID BROOKS (the conservative perspective, formerly of The Weekly Standard, now a columnist for the New York Times.)
quote:

Iraq reconstruction contracts


JIM LEHRER: Now the other issue that Mark raised, David, ...that it was announced that unless you were in the coalition going in, you are not going to get any contracts to reconstruct. What do you think about that?

DAVID BROOKS: I enjoyed it for three or four minutes. I felt it was honest. They were just terrible to us. The Germans, they promised they wouldn't run on an anti-American platform. Schroeder ran on an anti-American platform. It was terrible. I enjoyed my three minutes of gloating and revenge --

JIM LEHRER: Take that! Take that!

DAVID BROOKS: But then on mature reflection, which you know me for, I decided the hypocritical strategy would have been the best. It would have been better to say listen, all is forgiven. We've got a lot to do. Let's move on. And let's accept your bids. Privately, you would stiff them. You wouldn't give them anything, but publicly you would be genial because we've got relationships we're working on. So I endorse the mature hypocritical course at the end of the day.

JIM LEHRER: Are you still in the immature, unhypocritical -- where are you?

MARK SHIELDS: I went through the hypocritical quicker than David did. I want to quote Paul Martin, the new premier of Canada. Canada got stiffed. Canada on a per capita basis, probably the most generous nation in the world when it comes to foreign aid. I mean, it has been a stalwart ally of ours throughout thick and thin and difficult and everything else. They're getting dropped from consideration. He pointed out, he said, you know, what ought to be involved here is not giving out contracts and rewarding companies. I don't think that Halliburton is, to the best of my knowledge made any great sacrifices in this war. If we're talking about who sacrificed, what we ought to do is really give it to Halliburton. They were there. I didn't see the purple hearts they picked up, Jim --

JIM LEHRER: So there is no connection.

MARK SHIELDS: There's absolutely no connection. The logic is assailable and indefensible. But I think what he pointed out is that what ought to be under consideration is what is best for the Iraqi people.

And I don't see Uzbekistan, I don't see the Marshall Islands bidding for contracts. This is basically... we are going to do all the stuff ourselves and going to keep it in-house. And for expanding the whole effort to include other countries, to share that sacrifice, to share the burden, to provide the troops, eventually this is the way of cutting off, I think, America's best hope.

DAVID BROOKS: Some Halliburton people I think did die, have died in the reconstruction. I basically agree with Mark that we lost some of the moral high ground when we said let's do whatever is best for the Iraqi people. And it's a sham. Let's face it. Publicly we're punishing them [France and Germany]. Privately, first of all Bush and other people are calling around to these countries that are being allegedly shut out, giving them all sorts of reassurances. And second, companies from those countries can't win the primary contracts. They can win the subcontracts which is where a lot of the money is. So you'll have French and German companies building the phone system in Iraq. So it is just a public insult with no meat to it.

JIM LEHRER: So why did they do it?

DAVID BROOKS: I think they're straightforward, they're really bad at dealing with people they don't like. Their attitude is, we don't play games. If we don't like you, we tell you we don't like you. We are above board. There is such a thing as being too honest. They're sometimes a little too straightforward for their own good.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think there is any chance you feel that they could back down from this? Or are they stuck with it?

DAVID BROOKS: ...Some friends of mine wrote a memo for the Project for the New American Century saying Bush is going to back down. He didn't back down, so I don't think they will right now.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think?

MARK SHIELDS: I think two things, I think David gives them too much credit. It's campaign 2004. It has a nice ring to it. If you can put it on a bumper sticker, you can put it on a poster. They didn't help us, you know, screw the French. They weren't there, you know, that kind of... no [France] in the rebuilding and whatever else. I think, Jim, they went a mile too far when they inserted the national security provision so they would be exempt from the World Trade Organization rules. Suggesting that, you know, that France and Germany and Russia -- our great poody-poody, our great friend -- that they're somehow a threat to the national security of the United States...

DAVID BROOKS: France is.

MARK SHIELDS: But seriously, I mean, that was just such a specious and obvious and transparent political move.