Why did Obama sell Chrysler out to Fiat?

Chrysler executives still hoped to avoid bankruptcy. The UAW had ratified a second round of concessions that froze wages, cut retiree health care benefits and agreed not to strike the company for more than six years. All but a handful of lenders had signed off on the U.S. Treasury's offer of $2 billion to write off $6.9 billion in Chrysler loans.

Reluctantly, however, the leaders were recognizing the harsh decision Rattner made weeks earlier: Chrysler was filing for Chapter 11, no matter what.

Rattner had met with Ron Kolka, Chrysler's chief financial officer, and told him how it would go.

"We need a deal with Fiat today. We were told to pretty much take it," Kolka wrote in an e-mail to Nardelli, Vice Chairman Tom LaSorda and Robert Manzo, a financial consultant Chrysler hired in November. Rattner and his colleague Ron Bloom "will call the union in and tell them what will happen. Then they'll tell the banks, 'Here's the deal: take it or liquidate it.' "

Obama's man called shots on bankruptcy BY GREG GARDNER - Detroit Free Press

This whole thing stinks folks.

Why Fiat? I thought one reason Obama and liberal democRATs sold out Chrysler to Fiat was to force production of tiny cars here in the U.S. I thought the enviro-communists saw a great opportunity in taking over a car company. I still believe this was one of the reasons but why was Obama so eager to sell Chrysler out to Fiat? Were there other reasons?

Whose interest was President Obama serving when on March 30 he ordered Chrysler to either conclude a merger with Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days or lose federal bailout funds? That untimely announcement placed Chrysler in the untenable position of accepting whatever Fiat offered, literally cutting the legs out from under the struggling American carmaker’s negotiating platform. Some financial analysts had already determined that what Fiat was offering was a very bad deal for Chrysler. “The steal of the century,” Forbes columnist Jerry Flint wrote of the deal back in January, “Fiat gets Chrysler for next to no money, and American taxpayers must throw in $7 billion to make it happen.” By most accounts, Chrysler was in real trouble, but by announcing to the world that Chrysler had no other alternatives Obama effectively told Fiat that Chrysler would accept whatever they offered, eliminating Chrysler’s ability to cut a better deal.

Why would President Obama undercut a US company, involved in a heated negotiation, in favor of a foreign company’s interest? Clear answers are not available, but there is one very curious shareholder in Fiat that raises some interesting questions. The African nation of Libya owns at least a 2 to 3 percent stake in Fiat and thus makes Muammar Qaddafi, who controls the wealth of Libya, a direct beneficiary of the deal favoring Fiat.

Does Obama owe Qaddafi? That is a tough question to answer, but Obama’s record-shattering 700 million dollar presidential fundraising operation and a revealing speech made by Qaddafi nearly a year ago seems to undress Obama’s inexplicable sabotage of Chrysler’s negotiating position with Fiat.

Obama - Qaddafi Coincidence? by Scott Wheeler - Townhall.com

We know that Obama is paying back the unions who helped him get elected. Is he also paying back Gaddafi?

Let's go back to 1986:

Because of Libya's investment in Fiat, the Pentagon has decided not to award a proposed $7.9 million contract to the company under which it would have built 178 earthmovers for the U.S. Marine Corps. Reason: the Reagan Administration does not want any American money to flow--even indirectly--into the coffers of a government that sponsors international terrorism.

Fiat's Silent Partners - Time.com

This was back in 1986. In the year 2009, the United States has a Kenyan-Indonesian-muslim president who is paying back people who helped him fraud Americans electing him by raising $700 million during the presidential campaign. Is the terrorist Gaddafi one of his fund raisers?

Barack Hussein Obama seems to be taking Gaddafi's advice also:

Gaddafi said Obama should adopt a policy of supporting poor and weak peoples such as the Palestinians and be a friend of what he called free Arab peoples rather than U.S. "agents" in the Arab world who, he said, were hated by their own people.

"We still hope he will be proud of Africa and change America and free America of its past policy, namely with the Arabs," said Gaddafi.

Gaddafi warns Obama against "inferiority complex" - Reuters - Jun 11,2008

Islamic socialism and pan-arabism / pan-islamism... Look at Hussein's address to the muslims where he addressed the world's muslims as a monolithic group that supposedly suffered under western economic and cultural imperialism...

This whole thing stinks...

Be Sociable, Share!
1 Comment