I think I'm sick. I agree with the President!
Now, my loyal reader will note that I am generally very critical of the Bush administration and their dealings with everything from the war in Iraq to environmental policy. Don't get me started on election law, either. Part of my criticism stems from the fact that the administration is usually wrong, and the other part stems from the fact that President Bush is controlled more by his advisors than by the country's best interests.

But, at the moment, I'm going to cast all of that aside and say that on one point, the President is right: the awarding of post-war rebuilding contracts.

The administration announced recently that only countries which supported the war in Iraq (there were like two of them) would be eligible to have companies bid on contracts aimed at rebuiling a country ravaged by 20 years of Hussein's rule and another 7 months of U.S. Military occupation. Immediately after making the announcement, Germany, Russia, France, Canada, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed their displeasure. "Why," they asked, "can't we bid?" All four countries are said to be looking into whether these restrictions violate international laws and treaties.

The administration has reasoned that those countries whose soldiers bore the actual risk of combat were the countries who had actually helped out the United States, and those countries were the ones who deserved the opportunity to bid:

"Our people risked their lives. Coalition, friendly coalition folks risked their lives and therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

And, actually, he's right. The attempts by countries like Germany and France to first oppose the war, but then attempt to make money off of the war, amounts to profiteering. They're attempting to cash in on the results of a military conflict in which they had precisely zero stake, and frankly, that ain't right. The Canadians are a slightlly different story, since they have committed troops to the rebuilding effort, and perhaps they should be excluded from the exclusions; but then, we can't expect the Bush administration to do something perfectly the first time around, now can we?

Now, should the U.S. have gone to Iraq in the first place? Probably not. Should we have gone to Iraq without any sort of coherent plan for rebuilding the country, and without any real knowledge of the actual situation on the ground? Ummm...no. But that doesn't mean that countries that were in the right in the first place should be able to cash in on our bumbling around now. Profiteering is illegal and immoral, and for these countries to attempt to do so under the guise of "international law" is lower than low. Shame on them.