From this morning’s <$NoAd$>gaggle …
Q So you’re not backing away at all from blocking France, Germany, or Canada?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made our view very clear yesterday, John, and I also made very clear that if others want to join in the efforts of the coalition and the efforts of the Iraqi people, then circumstances can change.
However, when you look at the president’s comments after the Cabinet meeting, he seems to equivocate: No money unless you’ve contributed troops, but then maybe debt reduction will do the trick too …
“I asked President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder and President Putin to see Jim Baker, to talk about debt restructuring. If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring”
Q You seem to be saying that the boots on the ground are the only qualifications for — but what about the forgiveness of debt? Isn’t that a fairly substantial —
THE PRESIDENT: It is, it would be a significant contribution, for which we would be very grateful. What I’m saying is, in the expenditure of taxpayer’s money — and that’s what we’re talking about now — the U.S. people, the taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq. It’s very simple. Our people risk their lives. Coalition — friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that. And that’s what the U.S. taxpayers expect.
So now the contract ban is a squeeze play meant to get the Euros to forgive Iraq’s debts, eh?
Check back later for a discussion of why this leaves two possibilities … a) whoever is in charge of overseeing this policy is totally disorganized or b) whoever is in charge of overseeing this policy is a complete moron.
