Iraq: The Wacky Service Comedy

If you haven't read The New York Times' account of the new audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, you should take a look. Anyone with sense knew that all the money pouring into that country was bound to spawn a lot of waste and fraud, but now we know more about just what waste and fraud we've been buying.

Here's my favorite bit, which sounds like a rejected storyline for a sequel to Stripes:

In one case, an American soldier assigned as an assistant to the Iraqi Olympic boxing team was given huge amounts of cash for a trip to the Philippines, where the soldier gambled away somewhere between $20,000 and $60,000 of the money. Exactly how much has not been determined, the report says, because no one kept track of how much money he received in the first place.

It's just like the MSM, of course, to highlight only the unauthorized gambling sprees that lost money while ignoring all the times our fighting men came out ahead. And leave it to the Times to lose sight of the big picture: Were we supposed to ask Iraq to field a boxing team without American assistance? Are you some kind of isolationist nut?

Comments

[Jennifer]

My favorite among the most recent apologist arguments is that there's plenty of wonderful stuff going on in Iraq; it's just that, darn it, none of these good things ever seem to happen when the media is around.

Absence of evidence is evidence of virtue, or something like that.

[Jennifer]

I would also like to add that spending taxpayer money on an Iraqi Olympic boxing team is absolutely wonderful. Truly. Fuck the deficit.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"where the soldier gambled away somewhere between $20,000 and $60,000 of the money"

Too bad Albert Brooks wasn't around to talk the casino into giving the money back.

[xpanda]

[i]"Absence of evidence is evidence of virtue, or something like that."[/i]

Considering that the pro-Iraq war movement is backed by a fleet of armageddon hopefuls, this is absolutely consistent with their views on evidential support for Good v. Evil theses, and anything that arises thereof.

[apologist not]

Saddam is on trial for being one of the worst people in recorded history.
That's something. Isn't it?

[B.D.]

But, truly, why didn't we invest in the Iraqi bobsledding team. Now THAT would have been an accomplishment and a Disney/Pixar tie-in. Our government never seems to get these things right.

[Jennifer]

Considering that the pro-Iraq war movement is backed by a fleet of armageddon hopefuls, this is absolutely consistent with their views on evidential support for Good v. Evil theses, and anything that arises thereof.

Actually, the poster here whom I most recently saw using that argument doesn't seem like the Armageddon type. He's usually a sensible, rational sort, except for one or two subjects for which he goes completely insane.

[Randoph Carter]

Disclaimer - I don't "heart" Saddam or think he was peachy. BUT - he's definately not one of the worst people in recorded history. He doesn't even grace the top 100.

C'mon, you've got: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Vlad Tepes, Judas, Ramses (and a whole bunch of other pharaohs), Nero, Caligula, and assorted others who are still running around

[Johnny]

I think you are all losing sight of what an important advance this is. He didn't pay for a blow job, hence, all Bush's promises are kept.

[McCoveyT]

...it 'should' be obvious that casually dumping truckloads of government {..taxpayer} money on any project ...not merely 'risks' huge Fraud & Waste -- but assures it.

From massive cash-dumps to 9/11 families & businesses, Hurricane Katrina relief, tsunami aid, Iraq re-building, etc. -- the waste and corruption are inevitable.

The only remarkable observation is the great surprise of the MSM that money dispensed by government for 'noble' purposes... could possibly go astray. Of course, that will not stop them from cheerleading the next money-dump.

[Kip]

"Saddam is on trial for being one of the worst people in recorded history.
That's something. Isn't it?"

Off topic here, but isn't Saddam on trial for killing a handful of Kurds back in the 80's? Does that seem weird to anyone else. We went to war, turned Saddam into an OBL, finally captured him, and now all he's being charged with is some 20 year old murders? I don't mean that murder is a petty crime, but weren't there countless attrocities he's supposed to be guilty of? After this trial are we going to try him for more crimes? I don't get it.

[Johnny]

Kip,

I daresay that seems odd to everyone except the neo-cons, the dems, the repubs, the neo-libertarians and the "conservatarians".

I've been noticing lately that it's the conservatives (out of power in favor of the flavor of neo-cons), the liberals (out of power in favor of the flavor the DINOs and the Nanny staters), and the libertarians (out of power in favor of the flavor of Neo-libertarians/Conservatarians) who seem to be questioning Executive power.

[apologist not]

The "handful" of Kurds Kip flippantly mentions is but one of many crimes against humanity the "Butcher of Baghdad" is being tried for. And while he is on trial he is not
a) invading Iran
b) invading Kuwait
c) hurling missiles at Israel
d) murdering dissenters
e) etc.

[Russ 2000]

I dunno, "I lost it gambling" sounds an awful lot like "My dog ate my homework". Most likely the guy was polishing his pump, but that explanation was already taken.

[Jennifer]

Most likely the guy was polishing his pump, but that explanation was already taken.

From what I have been told by various upstanding members of the United States Navy, it would be extremely difficult to spend that kind of money on Filipino prostitutes; it's like going to McDonald's and spending five thousand dollars on a single meal. Good luck.

[Jennifer]

Oh, and seriously, Russ--according to that anti-human trafficking bill Bush signed a couple of weeks back, soliciting a prostitute is grounds for a dishonorable discharge.

[Johnny]

apologist not,

Ever heard of a country named Pakistan?

[Number 6]

They're trying Sadam for slaughtering Kurds because they're pretty sure they can pin it on him. Once you've convicted the guy for mass murder, and perhaps sentenced him to hang, does the rest really matter?

[Kip]

"The "handful" of Kurds Kip flippantly mentions is but one of many crimes against humanity the "Butcher of Baghdad" is being tried for."

So he is on trial for more than the shiite murders? I wasn't saying he shouldn't be, i was just wondering why they weren't charging him with anything else. Are they? Every time I hear coverage of the trial, they refer to only that charge. It seems like there should be a laundry list of crimes. Ok, so while he's on trial he isn't invading other countries and bombing Israel, my question is, why isn't he being CHARGED with invading other countries and bombing Israel, etc.

[Jennifer]

why isn't he being CHARGED with invading other countries and bombing Israel, etc.

Perhaps because a certain unnamed country whose army is currently occupying Iraq after invading under false pretenses thinks that bringing criminal charges for invading a country could set certain precedents which might someday bite said unnamed country in the ass?

[Russell]

Perhaps the Iraq desk should advise the Under Secretary of Cunning Plans to appoint Saddam _as_
the Iraq Olympic Boxing Team.

After a few dozen quarter- final rounds with Kurdish Heavyweight hopeful Hurricane MacKirkuk ,Israeli Welterweight Goliath ben Gath, and Kuwaiti palooka Sandman al-Monsoon, he should be ready to cop a plea on a few thousand counts of aggravated mayhem.

[a]

The "handful" of Kurds Kip flippantly mentions is but one of many crimes against humanity the "Butcher of Baghdad" is being tried for.

Saddam is on trial for killing some ~150 shiite in the village of Dujail after a failed assasination attempt.

At the moment, he isn't being tried for crime against humanity or for gasing the Kurds.
I find that to be very odd indeed. After all, we are told that he killed hundreds of thousands of people and that there is plenty of evidence for the crimes. Why start with such a weak case?

[apologist not]

Does the rest really matter?

Good question. Some would say trying him for all his other crimes would be overkill. And some would say justice is not served until all his victims have had their stories told.

Pakistan? Sorry Johnny, never heard of it.

[John]

I am sure that Jennifer and everyone other liberal who takes one anecdote to discredit an operation involving 100s of thousands of people are equally persuaded by anecdotes that discredit whatever their pet cause or project is. It is an anecdote, a funny one, but an anecdote nonetheless.

Beyond showing that some people are crooks, the story shows something else; the difficulty of rebuilding a country. On the one hand, there was tremendous pressure in 2003 and 2004 in Iraq to spend money and do something. There was good reason for this. People were out of work, the country was in terrible shape from a decade of sanctions and 40 years of Saddam and occupation had to do something. On the other hand, the quicker you spend money, the harder it is to control where that money goes. In addition, you had military people and State Department weenies essentially acting as general contractors. As anyone who has ever tried to re-model their home knows, there are few people on earth wilier and bigger crooks than a construction contractor. Iraqi contractors are no different. It is no surprise that a lot of Americans who were otherwise trying to do good work got taken to the cleaners.

No doubt the anti-war folks will use these examples as a way to slander everyone who ever worked on the reconstruction of Iraq, as Paul Krugman did last year. A more realistic assessment shows that the United States completely underestimated the horrible state of the Iraqi government and society. They thought going into Iraq that you could just knock off the top layer of Iraqi government and the lower layers would continue to function. The cop on the beat would still come to work and so on. The reality was that the whole system was built on fear and the populace despised everyone associated with government. As soon as the fear was gone, the government completely disintegrated and the entire civil society had to be rebuilt from scratch. They planned for an occupation, but they never planned for that. In addition, the State Department and the people who were initially sent to run the occupation (Garner and his crew) were an incredible collection of mediocrities who did not grasp quickly enough how dire the situation was. Add to this situation, the military, which was built for and trained for war, but was the only force on the ground capable of accomplishing anything, taking the ball and running their own little mini occupations and rebuilding efforts across the various sections of Iraq. It was chaos. A lot of good was done, but a lot of crazy things happened too and a lot was wasted.

Of course every jerk with a political agenda is going to claim that things would have been different had only they been king at the time. I am not really sure if there was any good way to do it. Iraq under the Saddam was like the car at the end of the Blues Brothers where they close the door and it completely falls apart. Sure, you could have slowed down and down everything slowly and methocally, but then all of the good things that were done in the chaos probably would not have gotten done in time to do any good.

The obvious and easy retort is to say that that means that the liberation should have never happened in the first place. I don't see how a few Iraqi contractors getting rich and some doofus gambling away government money outweighs goods like re-flooding the southern marshes, ending a regime that was killing and torturing 1000s every month, allowing the Kurds a significant say in their government for the first time in modern history, ect. ect..

The way in which the occupation was run and whether and how it could have been better is a serious debate worth having. Unfortunately, few people are interested in having that debate because to do so means giving credit for the good that was done and that is really hard for some people to do. It is much easier to pretend that the U.S. is worse than Saddam and laugh at PVT Pyle gambling government money in the Philippines.

[apologist not]

Jennifer, your righteous indignation is at times quite entertaining, when it isn't shrill and sarcastic.

[Jennifer]

I am sure that Jennifer and everyone other liberal who takes one anecdote to discredit an operation involving 100s of thousands of people

No, John, it's not any one anecdote; it's the entire story. No WMDs found, no flowers tossed at our soldiers, no "six months and we're out of here," no "don't worry, it won't cost us anything since Iraqi oil will pay for it". . . hell, except for the fact that Saddam is no longer there, not ONE of the administration's pre-war predictions has come true.

But I'm sure you won't let this one fact change your opinion

[Number 6]

I wonder which is more autonomic: the response one gets by rapping just under the kneecap with a rubber mallet, or John's rambling recitiation of talking points when someone mentions Iraq.

[keith]

"it's like going to McDonald's and spending five thousand dollars on a single meal"
...
"appoint Saddam _as_
the Iraq Olympic Boxing Team."

It's 80's movie day! Jesse gives us the Stripes scenario; Jennifer Brewster's Millions, and Russell Rocky IV!

[John]

Like I said, no one ever wants to have a debate because doing so would require giving the other side credit. It is so much more fun to be sanctimonious and remain ignorant of what really happened or is going on. Some day it will be safe to travel to Iraq and I really hope Jennifer goes there and tells everyone she meets what a crime it was to depose Saddam and how by all rights they ought to be living under the rule of his sons right now and how sorry she is she couldn't do more to see that that happened.

[Jennifer]

Some day it will be safe to travel to Iraq

I hope you're right, but so far there's no evidence to suggest this will happen before we all die of old age.

no one ever wants to have a debate because doing so would require giving the other side credit. It is so much more fun to be sanctimonious and remain ignorant of what really happened or is going on.

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you, honey.

[Crushinator]

Saddam on trial. Wow, that is going to solve most of the world's problems. No doubt this will be a strong deterrent to those who are contemplating terrorist attacks.

We drove a good bargain in the process. Out of pocket costs will be a modest $500 billion to $2 trillion. Mere chickenfeed for a great and prosperous superpower. Thousands of young Americans killed and tens of thousands injured - heck, they are not my kids so why sweat it? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed - they are all sand niggers who worship the wrong god so they deserve it. The rest of the world perceives America as an imperial, rampaging mobster - no problem. They don't vote and they do not contribute to Republican causes, so fuck'em all. Iraqi oil taken off the market, gas prices doubling, budget deficit skyrocketing, American civil liberties extinguished, Islamist terrorists spawned by American brutality, civil war and theocracy on the horizon for Iraq, strip searches at the airport gate, etc. etc. etc. These are minor inconveniences because we are at war.

But it will all be worth it when Saddam is convicted, yes sirree. No need to apologize.

[Rusell]

Perhaps the Iraq desk should prevail on the Under Secretary of Cunning Plans to appoint Saddam _as_ the Iraq Olympic Boxing Team.

After a few dozen quarter- final rounds with Kurdish Heavyweight hopeful Hurricane MacKirkuk ,Israeli Welterweight Goliath ben Gath, and Kuwaiti palooka Sandman al-Monsoon, he should gladly cop a plea on a few thousand counts of aggravated mayhem

[Kwix]

What I don't understand is why are American contractors doing the work? I should think that if we are going to spend millions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq perhaps it would foster better relations with the populace if they were the recipients of said monies. It would also be a better help if the 'bosses' were not obviously western companies like Halliburton. For those who think the money, if spent, should line the pockets of American companies to 'bring the money home', why? So we can spend millions more in 'aid' to out-of-work Iraqis?

Also, why are we training the Iraqi Olympics team and refurbishing the Olympic pool? Somehow, I don't think that the Olympics are first and foremost on the minds of citizens living in Baghdad and Fallujah. Keeping power on for 12 hours a day, running water and a roof over your head is more important to the average Iraqi than who boxes in Beijing in 2008.

[Jennifer]

Keeping power on for 12 hours a day, running water and a roof over your head is more important to the average Iraqi than who boxes in Beijing in 2008.

True, but of the four items you've mentioned, getting Iraqis into the Olympics is apparently the only one we're capable of doing.

[John]

no one ever wants to have a debate because doing so would require giving the other side credit. It is so much more fun to be sanctimonious and remain ignorant of what really happened or is going on.

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you, honey.

Oh really babydoll? Read my original post and how I go through in detail how they completely delluded themselves into believing you could just take out Saddam and keep the society together and how wrong that was. How about at least admitting that the world is a better place without Saddam or if not at least being honest and admitting to being a bathist.

[Russ 200]

soliciting a prostitute is grounds for a dishonorable discharge.

That's why he was gambling instead.

[Jennifer]

How about at least admitting that the world is a better place without Saddam or if not at least being honest and admitting to being a bathist.

Yes, those are the only two possibilities. If, for example, I have deep concerns about the fact that religious fanatics are taking control of the country, and women in particular have less freedom now than they did when the government was still secularized. . . I'm just a Baathist.

[ChicagoTom]

How about at least admitting that the world is a better place without Saddam or if not at least being honest and admitting to being a bathist.

How about at least admiting that everything about this Invasion/Occupation has been mishandled by this administration, and that the incompetence, cronyism, corruption and a refusal to be honest are really the only thing this administration is good at.

How about at least admitting that the Iraqi people are worse off now then they were with Saddam in power. That it wasn't a haven for terrorist activity until we invaded. The fact that the crimes he is being tried for are 20 years old (when he was still being supported by Rumsfeld and Cheney) seems to indicate quite clearly that Saddam really wasn't the most pressing issue that needed to be addressed by America.

How about at least admitting that other than token lip service, Bush and his crew couldn't give a rats ass about catching OBL or the chaos that Afghanistan sunk back to.

Stop acting like because you admit that they were a bit deluded that you're somehow having an "honest conversation" about Iraq. Just because you throw token piece of "criticism" out there before following it up with a bunch of Republican talking points, doesn't mean that you are objective or open.

[SPD]

John,

While I agree with most of what you've written about allied efforts in Iraq and acknowledging the situation did not match predictions or expectations, the liberation of Iraq was not the main reason the American people were given for why we were invading.

There are plenty of borderline Third World nations with murderous dictators that we could have invaded, with people who would love to be liberated. However, this administration was fixated on Iraq. Why? That's the question most people who remain skeptical about the war's necessity still ask. As long as no one seems willing to provide a credible answer, we're left to speculate on our own, and wonder based on daily reports whether or not the effort will be worth it in the long run. Brutal dictatorship or Islamic theocracy? The Iran-Iraq war showed us that the two are not always in league with the other.

This is not mounting a Ba'athist defense or a spurning of the Iraqi people... this is simply asking why my leaders have chosen to use our resources in this way. I think we're entitled to know the truth; don't you?

[R C Dean]

How about at least admiting that everything about this Invasion/Occupation has been mishandled by this administration,

The invasion went extremely well. The occupation has been bloodier than expected, but it is hard to find a trend line pointing in the Baathist/Islamist favor, and plenty of trend lines pointing in our favor. You know, Constitution, Sunnis joining our side, voting, booming economy, etc.

the incompetence, cronyism, corruption and a refusal to be honest are really the only thing this administration is good at.

Don't forget the overspending. And the conservative judges.

How about at least admitting that the Iraqi people are worse off now then they were with Saddam in power.

Funny, most Iraqis don't think so, especially when you get out of the Sunni areas favored by Saddam.

That it wasn't a haven for terrorist activity until we invaded.

Sure it was. Saddam was pumping money into various terrorist groups, giving asylum to terrorists, and sponsoring terrorist camps on Iraqi soil. None of this is a big secret, or even controversial. Just often ignored.

How about at least admitting that other than token lip service, Bush and his crew couldn't give a rats ass about catching OBL or the chaos that Afghanistan sunk back to.

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth. How many lives should we spend finishing him off, Tom?

As for Afghani chaos, well, the Afghans don't seem to think so. Haven't noticed a lot of public stonings or dynamiting of ancient art lately, so I think things have probably improved.

C'mon, Tom - reality-based, man, reality-based. There is plenty to criticize without going off into the alternate universe where Iraq was full of peaceful happy kite-flying children and Afghanistan, although a quaint backwater, was tranquil and . . . well, whatever.

[Jennifer]

There is plenty to criticize without going off into the alternate universe where Iraq was full of peaceful happy kite-flying children and Afghanistan, although a quaint backwater, was tranquil and . . . well, whatever.

Tom has said no such thing, RC.

By the way, are you still sticking with what you told me a few days ago, that things are actually going quite well in Iraq, except that, gosh darn it, the good things keep happening in places where the media isn't around to see?

[Max]

Kwix you say "What I don't understand is why are American contractors doing the work?". Is that supposed to be sarcastic?
Just in case you dont have a cynical bone in your body go look up the word "kickback" in the dictionary.
Oh, and look at KBR etal.s profit reports.

Or if you need a flow chart:
1. take monies from tax payers.
2. send monies to Comapny A in Iraq
3. Company A does sub par work
4. Profit
5. Return portion of profits to contract writers.
Happens every day

[Phil]

I didn't even have to read the first ten words to know that that master's-thesis-length diatribe up there was "Always Ready To Carry The Admin's Water" John. As for R. Conservatarian Dean:

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth. How many lives should we spend finishing him off, Tom?

Um, he's still wanted for the murder of ~3,000 people. I guess the concepts of justice and suchlike are just a distraction in your world, eh? He should just go unpunished for that, should he?

Besides, if his organization is "shattered," then why are we continuing to trouble ourselves about it?

[Jennifer]

By the way, am I the only one who appreciates the irony that the same guy who made a pious post about people's unwillingness to engage in honest debate then turned around and said "either admit things are better now, or admit that you're a Baathist?"

[Scott]

We can't allow Saddam to be put on trial for gassing Kurds or invading another country because we sold Saddam the gas and would have to explain why George Bush is not on trial for his own preemptive invasion of another country. We needed a crime that the US is not also guilty of and that we didn't supply materials or training for.

[downstater]

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth. How many lives should we spend finishing him off, Tom?

i agree, combatting the shattered terrorist organization in their iraqi sanctuary is more trouble than it's worth.

[SM]

"And while he is on trial he is not
a) invading Iran"

Haven't you been keeping up ? "Invading Iran" is the new "Invading Syria".

[ChicagoTom]

The occupation has been bloodier than expected,

There's that honest dialog. "Bloodier than expected" -- Now that's the most disingenuous statment I have ever seen. To characterize "We will be greeted as liberators and saviors" as a "bloodier than expected occupation" is really reality based RC. They didn't plan for a resistance. They never thought that we would be viewed as invaders. That isnt "bloodier than expected" that's incompetence plain and simple.

Funny, most Iraqis don't think so, especially when you get out of the Sunni areas favored by Saddam.

As for Afghani chaos, well, the Afghans don't seem to think so.

You've been touring Iraq and Afghanistan doing man on the street interviews RC?? Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Even if you REALLY REALLY believe. There wasn't suicide bombings in Iraq pre-occupation anywhere near the rate of whats going on now. Power still hasn't been restored to pre-Saddam levels despite all the taxpayer money that has been paid to Haliburton and KBR. Everything I have read and all the descriptions have pointed to living conditions being worse off than they were before we got there. But it's all good RC...Saddam gone, and everything is peachy keen. If only the media would report it that way -- damn media!.

Don't forget the overspending. And the conservative judges.

Why engage the charges when you can just sarcastically gloss over them? Abramaoff has NO ties to the White House. Micael Brown was completely qualified to run FEMA. And this Administration is nothing if not honest when talking to the American people. Like when it was "well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks in Prague. Wasn't it Wolfowitz who said that the WMDs were just the politically convenient excuse for invading? I didn't even matter to them if it was true or not. Now THAT'S integrity.

But thats neither here nor there....let's just make sarcastic comments about overspending and conservative judges and hope no one notices whats really been going on.

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth.

Sure, the Bush supporters say that now. More trouble than he is worth? Only because the "trouble" would be to actually make comeptent decisions that aren't politically motivated. Who wants to be bothered with actually going after the perpetrators of 9/11, when we can just focus on parties not related to it. But I would imagine that this line of thinking was rather dominant when the Bush Cabal was planning this. Someone probably said "What are we gonna do about OBL" which was most likely met with the reply "he may be more trouble than he is worth...let's invade Iraq instead, that would be an easier target and we can still pretend to be doing something about 9/11 -- as long as we constantly purposele conflate Saddam and 9/11"

How many lives should we spend finishing him off, Tom?

That's the wrong question RC. How many lives could have been spared if we would have focused on him instead of Iraq?? If Bush would have kept his eyes on the perpetrators of 9/11 instead of focusing on a country that posed no real threat to the United States, what do you think the body count would be? How many of our honorable soldiers would still be alive today if it wasn't for that kind of recklessness on the part of the Bush admin. That's the right question to ask, not "how many more should we spend". Your question assumes that this is some kind of legitimate and necessary endeavor. I don't think it is, and neither do most Americans. Last polls I saw, more Americans believe it was a mistake rather then a good decision.

[Stevo Darkly]

About the Saddam Kurd trial thing ...

For all that Al Capone did, tax evasion is the thing they were finally able to nail him on. For the other crimes, it was too hard to find witnesses that weren't either too scared to testify or in cahoots with him. Maybe something similar is going on here?

[Stevo Darkly]

Oh, I forgot -- the "1980s movie theme" continues!

(The Untouchables, 1987)

[thoreau]

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth.

Um, the guy murdered 3,000+ people, tore a chunk out of the Pentagon, knocked down 2 skyscrapers and 2 embassies, bombed the USS Cole, and hijacked 4 planes. If there was ever a criminal worth pursuing with vengeance to the ends of the world until the end of days, Osama's the guy.

Neither Vala, nor Demon, nor Elf, nor mortal Man yet unborn....

[thoreau]

See, here's what I don't get: The hawks want to turn the whole world upside down with pre-emptive war if necessary, and send everybody a big fucking message. But the dude who actually funded the attacks against us? Eh, not a big deal.

Whatever the merits of the war in Iraq, how could the guy who funded 9/11 not be a big deal?

[bigbigslacker]

"and that the incompetence, cronyism, corruption and a refusal to be honest are really the only thing this administration is good at"

Hey Tom, if national politics works anything like Chicago politics, Bush is a shoe-in for a third term in '08, term limits not withstanding! Think of Iraq war waste as the Bush version of the hired truck program, or millenium park, or the big flower pots, and smile:) If Bush could make the funny voices, we could cut him some slack for sure...

[eb]

Yes, and $700 hammers never existed before the Iraq war. The military has always been known for squandering money. Because this happened in connection with Iraq, it is big news for those that choose to use it.

What I don't understand is why are American contractors doing the work? I should think that if we are going to spend millions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq perhaps it would foster better relations with the populace if they were the recipients of said monies. It would also be a better help if the 'bosses' were not obviously western companies like Halliburton. For those who think the money, if spent, should line the pockets of American companies to 'bring the money home', why? So we can spend millions more in 'aid' to out-of-work Iraqis?

I'm not here to defend Halliburton but currently I live in another post-totalitarian country. Billions have been poured in here by the west to help rebuild. Billions have been stolen. The corruption that exists in a totalitarian society is so ingrained that it takes years to overcome. I'm sure that pouring billions into local Iraq companies would result in a few Iraqis becoming incredibly wealthy while nothing gets done.

Halliburton and its kind at least knows something about what they are doing and can accomplish something (please insert Chimpbushliburton comments here).

I suggest googling "post Totalitarian stress syndrome" to understand the realities of an emerging society like Iraq.

As far as things not going as expected there. how about dragging out all the predictions from the anti-war side? How many US soldiers were supposed to have died? How many Iraqi civilians were supposed to have died? What happened to the cheap oil we were supposedly fighting the war for? If I was basing my faith on who came closest in predictions, the pro-war side beats the other in spades.

[xpanda]

What I don't understand is why are American contractors doing the work? I should think that if we are going to spend millions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq perhaps it would foster better relations with the populace if they were the recipients of said monies. It would also be a better help if the 'bosses' were not obviously western companies like Halliburton. For those who think the money, if spent, should line the pockets of American companies to 'bring the money home', why? So we can spend millions more in 'aid' to out-of-work Iraqis?

This would only be a "problem" if it weren't an expected, or even intended consequence of the war. If this war had no profit margin assigned to it, the idea never would have gotten through a meeting at Camp David.

And future aid? What a great way to write off American weapons sales! All you need is a mailing address ...

You're right, it's all so ridiculous.

[Shem]

Dunno about OBL - with his organization shattered, he may be more trouble than he is worth.

Well, according to Fearless Leader, OBL is still a legitimate target for our 2 minutes hate

[not so Mr. Nice Guy]

(Conspiracy Theory Alert)

Maybe "they" are intentionally keeping OBL loose with a tag on the fucker. That way, they can head off the big plans, and allow enough little things to make the rats think they are still in control.

Or maybe they found OBL already and put him out quietly (hopefully after a long "debriefing"). To have this pig die in a blaze of glory would only make him a martyr, and ultimately fulfill his primary wish.

I'm just speculating here, but when dealing with evil, sub-human filth who don't play by any rules, I imagine the tactics would be quite unconventional. And necessary.

[Jennifer]

I'm sure that pouring billions into local Iraq companies would result in a few Iraqis becoming incredibly wealthy while nothing gets done.

As opposed to the current setup, which results in a few Americans becoming incredibly wealthy while nothing gets done.

Except, of course, for the creation of an Iraqi Olympic boxing team. If they win a medal in Beijing, then this whole war was worthwhile.

[thoreau]

Jennifer, if they win a medal in Beijing they can melt it down and redeem it for its market value.

See, it's economic growth!

[Jesse Walker]

As far as things not going as expected there. how about dragging out all the predictions from the anti-war side? How many US soldiers were supposed to have died? How many Iraqi civilians were supposed to have died? What happened to the cheap oil we were supposedly fighting the war for? If I was basing my faith on who came closest in predictions, the pro-war side beats the other in spades.

It's hard to say who's right about civilian casualties -- it's not like we have any kind of accurate count. More important: You can find a range of predictions on the anti-war side, with some people being right almost all the time and some being wildly inaccurate. But this isn't a contest between two (or several) predictive "sides." One group of people not only made predictions but made policy, and the forecasts that were the basis for that policy have been frequently, disastrously off. No quantity of dumb Michael Moore editorials can change that.

[SPD]

Question about trying Saddam: If he is partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as has been claimed by the current administration as one of the main reasons for an Iraq invasion, and Hussein is in U.S. custody, and attempting to hold a trial in Iraq has been, to put it mildly, a big fucking mess... why not extradite him to the U.S. (or the Hague) for trial? Unless, of course, the evidence linking him to al-Qaeda and 9/11 wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

[R C Dean]

I love it - the very people who don't think that it is worth a single American life to imprison a world-historical criminal like Saddam Hussein and bring his rogue state to an end,

are apparently willing to spend an unlimited amount of blood and treasure hunting down a man who can't even get a videotape out of whatever cave he is hiding in.

My question was whether OBL, as a person, is worth what it would apparently cost to hunt him down. Nobody here can give a rational answer to that, because nobody here knows what it would cost and what we would gain.

Not that a state of pristine ignoranceon this subject prevents many posters from cranking out their usual spittle-flecked rants.

[Jennifer]

I love it - the very people who don't think that it is worth a single American life to imprison a world-historical criminal like Saddam Hussein and bring his rogue state to an end, are apparently willing to spend an unlimited amount of blood and treasure hunting down a man who can't even get a videotape out of whatever cave he is hiding in.

Translation: the people who don't think it's worth a sigle American life to bring down a man who was no threat to America are willing to spend an unlimited amount of blood and treasure hunting down a man who has attacked the Pentagon and an American warship, and brought down the World Trade Center.

[SPD]

So we were better off grabbing Hussein instead of bin Laden because one was hiding and the other wasn't?

[thoreau]

R C-

The amount spent prosecuting and imprisoning a thief frequently exceeds the amount of money that he stole. Hell, it might even exceed the amount that he'll ever manage to steal. But we incarcerate him nonetheless to deter other people from stealing. Sure, there are still thieves despite that effort at deterrence, but we all suspect that there would be many, many more if there wasn't a credible threat of prison.

If we take that approach to thieves, shouldn't we take a similar approach to leaders of terrorist groups? Personally, I think that we all should have sworn something akin to the Oath of Feanor on 9/12.

[Lowdog]

Yeah, thoreau, we all know how well the Oath of Feanor turned out for the Noldor. :/

RC - you must be good at twister.

[thoreau]

Yeah, I see your point Lowdog. We'd get Bin Laden, but first we'd fight several wars amongst ourselves.

And after capturing Bin Laden his #2 guy would escape, seduce the few of us who remain, and then trick us into building him a nuclear reactor (the modern day equivalent of a Ring of Power).

[Shem]

To have this pig die in a blaze of glory would only make him a martyr, and ultimately fulfill his primary wish.

So you find as ignominious a way to die as possible that still remains plausible, then you do that to him. Keeping his death a secret would only be helpful if one wanted to have a boogeyman to point to when things start to get difficult.

[F?anor]

Rings are for pussies. Give me the freakin' Simarils.

Not to invoke Elvish superiority or anything, but I'd have used the Javert reference here. More apropros. Now where are those Simarils????

Hugs and kisses and ultimate revenge,

F?anor