Semi-Daily Journal

This might be a clue - the 'lagging indicator' is still lagging. Bush will probably be looking for jobs under the couch cushions and in car ashtrays soon.

Whatever it takes to get re-elected, no matter the real world consequences.

This might be a clue - the 'lagging indicator' is still lagging. Bush will probably be looking for jobs under the couch cushions and in car ashtrays soon.

Whatever it takes to get re-elected, no matter the real world consequences.

Another random and unsubstatiated data point.

I remember seeing (can't find them now) reports that Blair was threatened - via non-diplomatic backchannel means - with severe economic consequences if he didn't support Bush on Iraq.

Why Bush would feel Blair to now be in default of such an agreement, I can offer no suggestions. One million protestors probably won't even register on Bush's radar, assuming his advisors tell him about them.

I have not yet seen a second source for this story -- nothing on the BBC site that I can find, for instance. Can anyone else point to a second report?

Exactly what evidence is there that they could not be this stupid?

However it does seem to plumb new dimensions of the unreal. At the same time the WH is forcing Buckingham palace to spend $8M for security for W's state visit.

My guess is some draft policy paper got out of hand again.

What about the european companies in the USA, will they return too?

One place I saw the story about Blair being given the word is in the Buzzflash interview with Greg Palast:

The answer is Irwin Stelzer. He is the guy who is a good friend of George Bush from the Hudson Institute, and the most powerful lobbyist in Britain representing British-American interests and, by the way, chief lobbyist for Rupert Murdoch. As soon as Bush seized the White House, Stelzer walked into Blair's office and said ‘we noticed that you were supporting Mr. Gore during the Presidential election' - even though clearly that didn't carry many states. Blair's effective endorsement of Al Gore did not go unnoticed. And there was a price to be paid. Blair was given a list of the things that would befall Britain from military subsidies and equipment, to a reduction of value in the dollar versus the pound, which would destroy England's exportability. And Blair was basically told get in line, stand up and salute or "here's your last cigarette, Tony."

The story about Bush wanting US businesses to withdraw from Britain is in the Business section of the Evening Standard, a paper that just about everyone in London sees as they leave work every day. It's from today's paper, so the other papers wouldn't have it yet. The TV news seems to have been focusing on the Bush visit story tonight though (that is, that Blair has been running around all day trying to justify the fact that he's putting up with Bush at all), and they seem to have missed this one - might notice it tomorrow if the morning papers pick it up.

Ooops, didin't realize the HTML doesn't work. The URL is http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=188&row=4 and the paragraph beginning, "The answer is Irwin Stelzer," is from Palast.

If this is true, it will conclude with the force the beating Bush and company have given to Tony Blair. Unreal.

Seemingly someone in England is sick of Bush. Releasing this information on the eve of Bush's appearance cannot be regarded as friendly. They must be sick of Blair too, because Blair is already in trouble for his servility. But the people who released the information are apparently from the business establishment!

Josh Micah Marshall has a story (Observer) that Bush has agreed to put the Iraqi occupation under multi-national control. What does this mean?

And then Bush is talking about an early transfer of power. Against his "won't cut and run" slogan.

I can only interpret this all to mean that Rove is in complete control, aiming at the 2004 election, and that Bush is swinging wildly.

Three different items, if reports are correct, in which Bush is changing direction suddenly and contradicting his own proclaimed principles. In a couple of days.

There's also the bizarre news about the incredible security demands Bush made for his London trip. It sounds like he thinks London is Baghdad, or an occupied city.

It really sounds as if the wheels are coming off the cart and Bush is coming unglued. Pending new information, I'll conjecture that Bush is on the way to establishing himself as the worst President ever -- more on the incompetent-but-rash side of the fence than the sinister one where I've placed him so far.

I certainly share Brad's sense of incredulity: that any of Bush's handlers (FWIW, I think W himself is probably clueless on this matter, as with so much else) would use (or allow) the occasion of his much-touted State Visit to Britain to let news of such a blatant trade-war-inducing "policy" hit the media is astonishingly inept, even for the Bushies.
That said, blatant job-repatriation (especially if "defense" industry jobs are involved, or claimed to be involved) does sound like one of those Grand-Idea policy brainstorms that the Bush White House comes up with every so often: blatant protectionism, wrapped in the flag, and targeted at foreigners. The principal difference here seems to be that the foreigners are probably the US's main allies in the world: picking a trade fight of this sort on a major diplomatic visit falls into the looney-tunes category even by the standards of the Shrubsters.
However, reading over the article in the Standard, its strikes me as being a bit on the anecdotal side: the main graf is a quote from one Digby Jones (what exactly is CBI?) about what he was told by "three chief executives of American companies" (not otherwise identified)the rest is just commentary.
If one were so inclined, it would be easy to pass off this sort of story as just another piece of anti-Americanism being served up to embarrass Bush on his UK visit: if it IS credible, though:it could be one of the worst pieces of news on the trade front in a long time.
Some more confirmation would be nice.

Independent, not Observer

Javier Solana of the EU is the source.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=464488"

Jay C.

The CBI is the Confederation of British Industry, the major industry lobby group -- or, as it calls itself in these brand-conscious times, "The Voice of Business". It is a pretty influential organization.

I think This Is London has it wrong. Here's FT's take:

Digby Jones, CBI director-general, said a number of UK companies, including two defence contractors and an engineering group, had told him they had been frozen out of US government procurement schemes under "buy America" policies taking hold in many states.

Jones and his group are revolting against protectionism, including, but not limited to, the steel tarrifs. But I seriously doubt the Bush administration is "telling" companies to pull out of Britain.

More at http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565947551

I think This Is London has it wrong. Here's FT's take:

Digby Jones, CBI director-general, said a number of UK companies, including two defence contractors and an engineering group, had told him they had been frozen out of US government procurement schemes under "buy America" policies taking hold in many states.

Jones and his group are revolting against protectionism, including, but not limited to, the steel tarrifs. But I seriously doubt the Bush administration is "telling" companies to pull out of Britain.

More at http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565947551

The Brits will find a way to get us back.

Oh, Tony won't; Bush knows his man, there; but Gordon Brown, or Charlie Kennedy, or Michael Howard will. None of them owes Bush anything.

btw the notion that someone like Irwin Stelzer could "walk into Blair's office" is almost cinematically inauthentic.

Interesting...

Of course, the federal government has obligations under the WTO to keep state governments from doing things like this...

This is what Tony Blair for being the dutiful lapdog for Bush for the war. Since Bush cannot articulate himself out of a paper bag, he relies on Blair to state a better case with Congress. What does he get in return? Since he's a liberal type Bush really doesn't care. Has anyone seen the movie Love
Actually, yet? There is a nice scene in which Prime Minister Hugh Grant tells off President Billy Bob Thornton.

Perhaps...someone is trying undercut W. Bush by releasing this at just this moment? Maybe this is egregious enough to trigger a Congressional investigation; I think even Karl Rove might have trouble keeping the lid on one.

Hmm, I wonder if this is a good column subject for Paul Krugman, hopefully as a major paper columnist he could call Mr Jones and get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Sakitume

For the Standard to have got the wrong impression about this story, they will have had to completely make up the quotes from Digby Jones about it, which seems unlikely (though admittedly not impossible...)

Regarding the timing, note that it's not been chosen by Bush - there's no indication of when the administration actually spoke to these companies. Rather, Jones has obviously decided it's best to come out with this story at the time when it'll cause maximum embarrassment to both Bush and Blair - he's quite a pugnacious guy by all accounts and has recently been warning Blair that he's losing the business vote, so it's not surprising he'd come out with something like this.

No web citation, but this was discussed on the BBC World Service in the last hour or so. It will probably pop up on the web site at some point today.

They had comment from some American (non-government) who basically said "the Bush admin. couldn't possibly be that stupid".

>>I think This Is London has it wrong. Here's FT's take:<<

The FT has two different stories, corresponding to two different parts of Digby Jones's speech.

One--http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565947551--concerns British companies that have been having trouble selling to America: 'Digby Jones, CBI director-general, said a number of UK companies, including two defence contractors and an engineering group, had told him they had been frozen out of US government procurement schemes under "buy America" policies taking hold in many states.'

The second--http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565951022--repeats the Evening Standard story: '"Three chief executives of American companies investing in Britain have told me to my face that they have been told to close down, bring their stuff home and make it in the US," said Mr Jones. "Whether flouting international law with their steel tariffs or telling their companies to come home, this bullying affects Britain and British jobs. We are America's biggest trading partner but if this escalates it hits us worst because we are such a big player in the world market."'

It looks as though the _Evening Standard_ has correctly reported what Digby Jones, head of the CBI, said.

We certainly have had “buy America” policies in the past. For example as a government employee (including many contractors) you must fly on an American carrier if at all possible. Unless a foreign manufacturer has a unique product, you must buy American. I don’t know the current policies and regulations, but more than ten years ago, I was told I had to “buy American,” even if it was more expensive. Nevertheless the story reported in the Evening Standard seems like much more serious and provocative, but it lacks credibility until the three chief executives are identified.

I, too, have a hard time believing this. Oddly, I don't have a hard believing the Bish administration could be this short-sighted and incompetent. I don't even have difficulty believing that someone in this administration floated this idea. But the specifics of it don't ring true to me.

... meanwhile Gordon Brown's speech to the CBI today will emphasise the importance to the UK economy of developing and deepening close trade links with the US.

So we're what, going to bring all the McDonalds in London home and that'll make up for the companies with paper headquarters overseas?

Yeah, that'll work.

I might think this was an ordinary journalistic flub, except that the senate just passed a bill that gives US companies a one year window to repatriate off-shore profits at a 5% tax rate and eliminate tax-exemption of income earned by Americans overseas.

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/taxes/2003/05/16/cx_da_0516topnews.html

Yes. They can be that stupid.

During a discussion of the steel tariffs on Fox News - they of course said Bush is a free trader. Clearly he is not. One would think the Democrats would be running a free trade candidate, but it sounds to me that most of the Presidential candidates are sounding protectionist as well. Is there anyone running for the White House who is willing to stand up for free trade?

There is very little I would not believe when it comes to administration stupidity and cupidity, but isn't the Evening Standard a gutter newspaper, like the Sun?

A later version of the story says that it's _Congressional_ pressure, and not from the Bush administration. That would make more sense.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid70679?source=
"Director general Digby Jones said he knew of three US multinationals (two in the defence industry) with operations here that are being pressurised by US Congressmen to close down and return home with the implicit promise of generous inducements."

No, the Standard's a serious newspaper (as, in its own way, is the Sun), and certainly doesn't make things up. But my experience of Digby Jones from the UK EMU debate has been that he's not a good listener, a bit of a loose cannon and very prone to getting the wrong end of the stick when talking to people. I don't doubt that this is what he thinks he heard, but I am suspicious of the fact that he's the only one who heard it in quite such a sensational way.

Sigh ... to think that the CBI used to have Directors of the calibre of Howard Davies (no relation)...

No, the Standard's a serious newspaper (as, in its own way, is the Sun), and certainly doesn't make things up. But my experience of Digby Jones from the UK EMU debate has been that he's not a good listener, a bit of a loose cannon and very prone to getting the wrong end of the stick when talking to people. I don't doubt that this is what he thinks he heard, but I am suspicious of the fact that he's the only one who heard it in quite such a sensational way.

Sigh ... to think that the CBI used to have Directors of the calibre of Howard Davies (no relation)...

"And virtually every High Street in Britain is graced by the burger behemoth and American icon McDonald's."

Why is McDonald's exporting jobs to Britain? I thought they were a patriotic company. I have seen their advertisements on television, they have used the American flag, especially after 9-11. I'm outraged that they would hollow out the American economy this way, and enrich the British people at the expense of us. I feel betrayed by their actions. I will never eat in a McDonald's again. It is clear to me now that McDonald's is practically as bad as France when it comes to being disloyal to America.

Those of you who feel as I do should join with me in starting a boycott. Let us start a website and encourage all good citizens to boycott McDonalds. Let's send a clear message to corporte America. Until the very last McDonalds has been closed in Britain and moved back to America, none of us should ever gain set foot in the place.

> isn't the Evening Standard a gutter newspaper, like the Sun?

Depends. Jeremy Hardy memorably called it 'what London has instead of a newspaper', meaning that it's sensationalistic and tabloidy as far as news reporting goes: it's a local paper with national pretensions. But as it's read by hundreds of thousands of Londoners, including many City workers on the commute from work, it's influential, and its business reporting is decidely unshabby.

It's not in the same league as the Sun, though.

(And on preview, dsquared makes the salient point: that Digby Jones is a bit unreliable.)

It' really is indeed quite unbelievable. But not so long ago there was a similar incident in Belgium. When Ford cancelled new investments in it's plant in Genk (with 3.000 jobs lost) there were rumors (coming from the secret service no less) that it was meant as punishment for the attitude of the Belgian government in the Iraq war. However, there was smoke, but no one could prove that there was fire. Besides, Ford really intends to stay in Genk and the plant hás some notable disadvantages (economically speaking this time). And one can imagine Bush is willing to punish Belgium (not only Iraq, but also the indictment of Powell, Bush sr., gen. Schwarzkopf...for warcrimes before a Belgian court), but why would he punish Blair? It doesn't make any sense.

It' really is indeed quite unbelievable. But not so long ago there was a similar incident in Belgium. When Ford cancelled new investments in it's plant in Genk (with 3.000 jobs lost) there were rumors (coming from the secret service no less) that it was meant as punishment for the attitude of the Belgian government in the Iraq war. However, there was smoke, but no one could prove that there was fire. Besides, Ford really intends to stay in Genk and the plant hás some notable disadvantages (economically speaking this time). And one can imagine Bush is willing to punish Belgium (not only Iraq, but also the indictment of Powell, Bush sr., gen. Schwarzkopf...for warcrimes before a Belgian court), but why would he punish Blair? It doesn't make any sense.

It' really is indeed quite unbelievable. But not so long ago there was a similar incident in Belgium. When Ford cancelled new investments in it's plant in Genk (with 3.000 jobs lost) there were rumors (coming from the secret service no less) that it was meant as punishment for the attitude of the Belgian government in the Iraq war. However, there was smoke, but no one could prove that there was fire. Besides, Ford really intends to stay in Genk and the plant hás some notable disadvantages (economically speaking this time). And one can imagine Bush is willing to punish Belgium (not only Iraq, but also the indictment of Powell, Bush sr., gen. Schwarzkopf...for warcrimes before a Belgian court), but why would he punish Blair? It doesn't make any sense.

It' really is indeed quite unbelievable. But not so long ago there was a similar incident in Belgium. When Ford cancelled new investments in it's plant in Genk (with 3.000 jobs lost) there were rumors (coming from the secret service no less) that it was meant as punishment for the attitude of the Belgian government in the Iraq war. However, there was smoke, but no one could prove that there was fire. Besides, Ford really intends to stay in Genk and the plant hás some notable disadvantages (economically speaking this time). And one can imagine Bush is willing to punish Belgium (not only Iraq, but also the indictment of Powell, Bush sr., gen. Schwarzkopf...for warcrimes before a Belgian court), but why would he punish Blair? It doesn't make any sense.

WASHINGTON: US President George W Bush has picked Texas oil lobbyist James Oberwetter to be US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the White House said on Monday.

The intention to nominate Oberwetter comes as a battle against terrorism is gaining importance in US relations with the Arab petroleum giant and Bush is urging Saudi Arabia to implement democratic reforms.

Oberwetter is vice president for governmental and public affairs at Hunt Consolidated Inc., and former head of the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby group.

He was a press secretary to Bush's father, former President George Bush, when the elder Bush served as a US representative. He also worked on the current president's transition.

Oberwetter gave $2,000 to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign in June, according to a campaign finance database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. He gave $1,000 in 1999 to Bush's presidential campaign.

I don't understand why this is a big deal. States fight for companies to bring jobs to them all the time. Isn't this the same thing on an international level? Why is it any more destructive?

"States fight for companies to bring jobs to them all the time"

And then there's Indiana:

"An Indiana state agency chartered to help unemployed residents find jobs began a controversial IT project this month with the U.S. subsidiary of an offshore software developer, which plans to bring in programmers from India to work on the project.

New York-based Tata America International Corp. will send up to 65 IT staffers from India to work alongside 18 state employees over the next two years at a government facility in Indianapolis. The team will replace a tax and unemployment claims processing system that runs on Unisys Corp. mainframes with a client/server application written in Java, said Patrick Murphy, a deputy commissioner at the Indiana Department of Workforce Development."

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/consulting/story/0,10801,87183,00.html?nas=CAR-87183

It' really is indeed quite unbelievable. But not so long ago there was a similar incident in Belgium. When Ford cancelled new investments in it's plant in Genk (with 3.000 jobs lost) there were rumors (coming from the secret service no less) that it was meant as punishment for the attitude of the Belgian government in the Iraq war. However, there was smoke, but no one could prove that there was fire. Besides, Ford really intends to stay in Genk and the plant hás some notable disadvantages (economically speaking this time). And one can imagine Bush is willing to punish Belgium (not only Iraq, but also the indictment of Powell, Bush sr., gen. Schwarzkopf and Franks...for warcrimes before a Belgian court), but why would he punish Blair? It doesn't make any sense.

It looks like mr Jones is not a very reliable source. Today the Guardian reports on another contribution directed at the EU-commission: "Then there was Digby Jones's rant about the European commission, culminating in his rally cry: "China is eating our lunch, and now wants to eat our dinner as well" - a bit rich coming from a man who has never knowingly had his dinner or lunch eaten by anyone else."

@Ivan: apparently this is your first comment at Brad's place ! We all go through this. Kind of an initiation. It takes a looooong time before your post turns out to be recieved after all.

Alex,

States fight for employers and the jobs they create, but there are no (official) barriers to labor mobility between states. The competition is also not based on a Kentucky firm being told to give contracts only to other Kentucky firms, with cost differences compensated with tax revenues. That is about as far as I feel I can go to argue that what Digby Jones discribed is different from what US states do.

Making one location more attractive than another (or making all equally attractive, thereby giving away the store without changing the outcome much) is the way the game is played between states, but that said, yeah, it comes down to public funds being offered to change private sector production and hiring choices.

Given how McDonald's are privately owned and operated it would be pretty randmo to include them in any serious story. Whoever works in British McDonald's has certainly not taken a job of someone in the US. I have yet to see a Fox News special on "How fast-food outlets operating oversees steal America's jobs"
The whole article smacks of selective quoting and super-intentional spin. Out of curiosity, what would be the appropriate statement by Bush on the subject?

Given how McDonald's are privately owned and operated it would be pretty randmo to include them in any serious story. Whoever works in British McDonald's has certainly not taken a job of someone in the US. I have yet to see a Fox News special on "How fast-food outlets operating oversees steal America's jobs"
The whole article smacks of selective quoting and super-intentional spin. Out of curiosity, what would be the appropriate statement by Bush on the subject?