There are sufficient quotes from 2002 on by the BushCo regarding WMDs and how we all were gonna die to fill a lot of pages with no more than cites. I'm not gonna do it. They made two cases, Saddam had WMDs and that he was tied to terrorism and somehow September 11. We know that neither happen to be remotely true.
Now today (roughly) the new story is being told, we were going to go to war with Iraq, period, and it was because he might want to do something. All the other stuff was window dressing, it was really about mind reading. He might have wanted to do something.
Saddam Hussein was a blood-thirsty petty tyrant of a third world country and an entire waste of skin. I don't think there's much disagreement on that. As such a person he had done some pretty damn despicable things including using chemical warfare against his own citizens. In the Gulf War we knocked the snot out of his military machinery and sanctions and assorted actions further degraded almost all his capabilities - including taking care of a country. He might have wanted to do something and he had a track record of being a shit-heels.
I may have a bit more public profile than most people and I've made it pretty clear that I'm well armed, competent with arms, and real damn dissatisfied with our government and plutocracy. Now given that evidence, somebody from the plutocratic government really ought to wage war on me - I might want to do something. I haven't produced my weapons for destruction and I've haven't renounced violence.
The problem with that scenario is that what I might want to do and what I will do are not congruent. There are some issues that dissuade me from engaging in violence against the plutocratic government. It is pretty easy to make sure I don't change my mind by doing away with me, but there is fall-out for that behavior as well.
Here's the difficulty for the revisionists, whatever Hussein might or might not have desired, one thing is pretty sure and that is that suicide was out of the question. Years back these would have been the 'nuke Russia and China because they might want to hurt us' school. Somehow the MAD strategy won out and nobody tossed nukes around. You see nothing in my analysis that says the USSR or China are nice guys or that they didn't wish us harm. Those places were run by rat-bastards with nasty histories and a desire to harm us. They did so with all the little pokes and jabs and surrogates possible that were short of suicidal. Saddam paid 'insurance' to suicide bombers, waged war on Iran (with our help) and Kuwait, and gassed his people and said mean things about us.
BushCo rats are running off the ship and trying to sell Iraq as the right thing done for the right reasons. They have their futures and George II's "legacy" to protect and their personal responsibility for the deaths of over 4000 American troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the looting of the treasury to try to duck. If anyone is surprised by their attempts they have paid no attention for a very very long time. You can include the entire Republican message in this critique, what they have said and done do not match the message or supposed results in the least, it is an entire fabric of lies.
There isn't the least doubt that it was in the national interest to keep a sharp eye on Saddam's Iraq and to improve the levels of human intelligence because he was a piece of garbage. You don't need to follow the BushCo reasoning very far to see some cataclysmic results internationally or domestically. The tools they've brought forward since 9/11/2001 have had bad results already, buying into them as a nation and continuing on that path cannot have good results. These people need to be called out as the liars and revisionists they are, repeatedly and loudly.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Can I Break Your Heart In Iraq?
Fifteen year old Rania is just a girl in Iraq...wearing an explosive vest apparently put on her by her arranged marriage husband. An alert policeman intercepted her and removed the vest. She looks to her mother to rescue her, a woman who apparently played a key role in turning her into a human bomb. Her "cousins" brought the vest. She was given peach juice to drink, oddly it made her dizzy. She tells the interrogators, "I didn't want to explode, I didn't want to die."
McClatchy can tell you the rest of the story. It is like staring into an abyss of darkness, knowing that light is only a wish and cruel joke. George W Bush wanted to play with the soldier toys, never dreaming who it was he toyed with. The tribal passions and sectarian hatreds never seemed to be within his scope - there were many who could have warned him, would have, even did; but he would out do Daddy HW - this one time he would. Saddam's Iraq could be a cruel and dangerous place, but now there is this.
McClatchy can tell you the rest of the story. It is like staring into an abyss of darkness, knowing that light is only a wish and cruel joke. George W Bush wanted to play with the soldier toys, never dreaming who it was he toyed with. The tribal passions and sectarian hatreds never seemed to be within his scope - there were many who could have warned him, would have, even did; but he would out do Daddy HW - this one time he would. Saddam's Iraq could be a cruel and dangerous place, but now there is this.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sunni Awakening At Risk
Along with the Surge, McCain is so proud of, the Sunni Awakening or Sons of Iraq taking the part of the US military in action against Al Qaida seriously reduced violence. There are two pieces to that reduction, one the Awakening councils were composed of people who, to a great extent, had been doing their level best to kill Americans and two when fighting on the American side had credence with the local population and intimate local knowledge leading to the destruction or removal of Al Qaida elements. The Shiite government of Iraq is putting real pressure on the councils.
McClatchy reports that the Iraqi government has failed to absorb tens of thousands of the Sunni fighters. The US has paid the former militants about $300 per month and promises of jobs with the government to be on our side. Those jobs have not materialized.
It gets worse as the NYT reports, west of Bhagdad former insurgent leaders claim the government is after 650 Awakening leaders, US and Iraqi officials in Diyala Province say there are arrest orders for hundreds. The Iraqi government is beginning this push at just about the time the councils are beginning to try to translate their actions into political power.
This hostile attitude is little more than a guess that the improving Iraqi Army can handle Al Qaida and possibly the now US allied Awakening. You can judge for yourself if it seems a good bet, or an invitation to more sectarian violence.
McClatchy reports that the Iraqi government has failed to absorb tens of thousands of the Sunni fighters. The US has paid the former militants about $300 per month and promises of jobs with the government to be on our side. Those jobs have not materialized.
"We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."This attitude is reflected by a possible proposal by the Iraqi Army to set a November 1 deadline for the un-absorbed militias to turn in their weapons or be arrested. The Iraqi and US officials both say the Maliki government never promised to hire more than 20% of the approximately 100,000 militia men. A real problem is in the offing.
"If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero," said Mullah Shahab al Aafi, a former emir, or leader, of insurgents in Diyala province who's the acting commander of 24,000 Sons of Iraq there, 11,000 of whom are on the U.S. payroll. "I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol."It pays to remember that the US disbanded the Iraqi Army after beating it and reaped the whirlwind. The US has so far this year paid $303 million to the militias, the Iraqi government has budgeted $150 million for the vocational training they propose to put the remaining militia into, to be bricklayers and plumbers - along with other unemployed people. It is no stretch of imagination to see that these people see themselves as soldiers and resent being treated differently.
It gets worse as the NYT reports, west of Bhagdad former insurgent leaders claim the government is after 650 Awakening leaders, US and Iraqi officials in Diyala Province say there are arrest orders for hundreds. The Iraqi government is beginning this push at just about the time the councils are beginning to try to translate their actions into political power.
“The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.”
This hostile attitude is little more than a guess that the improving Iraqi Army can handle Al Qaida and possibly the now US allied Awakening. You can judge for yourself if it seems a good bet, or an invitation to more sectarian violence.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McCain Learns From Inexperienced Obama
John McCain has scoffed at Barak Obama's inexperience and naivete in foreign policy; to hear him tell it the man is dangerous to our security. Now he's decided to learn something from Obama, Afghanistan is in trouble, needs troops, so he's up for Obama's position that at least 2 brigades need to be sent. It would seem that with the draw in Iraq for troops they must come from that center of action. This shocking development was shortly followed up by damage control in a more shocking fashion.
Now it is true that John McCain can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and which runs Iran - or Iraq, and it is true that McCain was one of the biggest booster of the Iraq war in Washington and it is true that McCain isn't real clear on what countries still exist, Czechoslovakia, but he was real sure Saddam Hussein was going to supply al Qaeda with WMDs that he didn't have and wouldn't give the that bunch ever... Joe Biden isn't impressed:
I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."Apparently we're back to the POW theme, somehow from Hanoi, under the very noses of the N Vietnamese, John "Maverick" McCain won the War. You're not convinced? You had some idea that we lost that war? Since that's the extent of McCain's combat military experience, he must be privy to something the rest of us aren't. There are 100 US Senators and I don't remember them running any wars...in fact I seem to remember his kissin' buddy, George W, making the point that he's the decider. Now I know McCain is older than dirt but I can't remember him making any claims to have generalled in WWII. In fact what we do know about McCain is that he knows how to crash Navy planes - several.
Now it is true that John McCain can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and which runs Iran - or Iraq, and it is true that McCain was one of the biggest booster of the Iraq war in Washington and it is true that McCain isn't real clear on what countries still exist, Czechoslovakia, but he was real sure Saddam Hussein was going to supply al Qaeda with WMDs that he didn't have and wouldn't give the that bunch ever... Joe Biden isn't impressed:
"President Bush and Sen. McCain lump all the threats together," said Biden. "Al Qaeda, the Shia militia, listen to them speak. Listen to my friend Joe Lieberman, and he really is a friend, listen to them speak. Find me a distinction that they make. As a consequence of this profound confusion they make profound mistakes. The idea that al Qaeda will cooperate with the philistine, a guy who in fact used to run the country in Iraq, the guy who did away with the caliphate... is completely contrary to anything that the now-dead leader of Iraq had in mind. It's dangerous. How can we run a sound foreign policy without understanding these decisions? How can we talk about a Shiite-dominated nation cooperating with a Sunni dominated Wahabi sect of Islam as if they had anything in common? Yet listen to my friends, listen to the president, listen to Joe Lieberman, listen to John McCain. Ladies and gentlemen, if they can't define the enemy we are fighting it is very difficult to define whether we have won or lost."So how it goes is the inexperienced Obama opposed going to war in Iraq and taking our eye off Afghanistan and has advocated withdrawal from Iraq and repositioning in Afghanistan while McCain has insisted along with George II that Iraq is the forefront of the battle against Islamic terrorism and just how to start losing Afghanistan. Considering the record, I'd say McCain has no clue and I'll take inexperience backed by thought and judgement. Republicans must find this all very odd or just deny its existence...
Friday, June 13, 2008
Maliki Dislikes Bush Plan
Oddly enough PM Nouri al Maliki doesn't think much of GeorgeII's plan to occupy 58 bases in his country, take control of their air space and immunize contractors and US troops from Iraqi prosecution. McClatchy reports that he dislikes it sufficiently to threaten to ask foreign troop to leave when their UN mandate expires at the end of the year. The US has moved on from that first draft to one that would allow Iraqis to prosecute private contractors who violate Iraqi law and to turn over to Iraq those Iraqis held by US forces. Plan 'B' may be replaced by plan 'C' and etc. as negotiations continue. All this messing about in Iraq while George refuses the US Congress any say what-so-ever.
It seems the Iraqis see a bit more to this than an agreement aimed at their security. I cannot imagine why they might have doubts about US intentions, considering how the US got into Iraq in the first place.
Muqtada al Sadr seems to be winding himself and his followers up to some increased violence. The 10 month cease fire has been marked by Iraqi troop movements against his followers and his response it talk about the creation of a force authorized to only attack the invaders - us. Maybe we can count on John McCain to hope his way out of this mess, though I'd rather not...
It seems the Iraqis see a bit more to this than an agreement aimed at their security. I cannot imagine why they might have doubts about US intentions, considering how the US got into Iraq in the first place.
Muqtada al Sadr seems to be winding himself and his followers up to some increased violence. The 10 month cease fire has been marked by Iraqi troop movements against his followers and his response it talk about the creation of a force authorized to only attack the invaders - us. Maybe we can count on John McCain to hope his way out of this mess, though I'd rather not...
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Warfare Is What It Is (Redux)
****I posted this over the weekend and it laid there essentially unread. A couple bloggers picked it up and graciously linked, they think it is important. I also happen to think so, so it is repeated here.****
Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.
When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.
Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...
We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.
There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.
Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.
Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.
Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.
If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.
I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.
Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.
When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.
Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...
We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.
There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.
Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.
Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.
Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.
If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.
I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Warfare Is What It Is
Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.
When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.
Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...
We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.
There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.
Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.
Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.
Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.
If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.
I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.
When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.
Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...
We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.
There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.
Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.
Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.
Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.
If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.
I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Mission Accomplished, Oh Cripes A New Spin
AP reports on the Fifth Anniversary Of Mission Accomplished and now we know that the White House had nothing to do with the banner. Nope, Dana Perino states unequivocally that it wasn't about Iraq.
Many years ago I looked at the scorched psyche of the military and the public following the close of the Vietnam War and I thought, at least, at the very least the one good thing to come out of this is that we won't do it again. No, not until just in time for me to be old enough to provide the neocons with a son for cannon fodder instead of myself and my friends. I don't know if the tears in my eyes are sadness or rage or both but I do know that there is no excuse for me having to have them again. No excuse, President George Walker Bush can go right straight to hell and I'll gladly whip up the apocalyptic horses that drag him naked and screaming on his way.
*****
I suffered the derision of you so called "patriots" when I called bullshit before the first bomb fell and I'm clean out of sense of humor about it, so if you don't like plain speaking on the issue, STFU.
Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the "Mission Accomplished" message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship's crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.Dana wants us to know that it was all a misunderstanding,
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,"This would be why he stood underneath the banner all dressed up with nowhere to go and said,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Bush said at the time. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.Once George II began to look really stupid for declaring victory well before any such thing occurred we began to find out that like WMDs there were moving goal posts.
After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.In comparison to how reality played out I really wish the Faux Fighter Pilot had gotten it right. It has been a long sad bloody slog since he was so spectacularly wrong. Some people forgive him his stupidity and still cheer him on, I do not. I don't forgive the WMDs and smoking mushroom cloud guns and the blood and horror of his mistakes. I have no belief in heaven and hell, but it would seem just if he could look forward to an eternity of a Dantesque Inferno involving sand and camel spiders and screams. I'm pretty sure we all have ideas about who should be keeping him company, it would involve more than a just a couple of people.
Many years ago I looked at the scorched psyche of the military and the public following the close of the Vietnam War and I thought, at least, at the very least the one good thing to come out of this is that we won't do it again. No, not until just in time for me to be old enough to provide the neocons with a son for cannon fodder instead of myself and my friends. I don't know if the tears in my eyes are sadness or rage or both but I do know that there is no excuse for me having to have them again. No excuse, President George Walker Bush can go right straight to hell and I'll gladly whip up the apocalyptic horses that drag him naked and screaming on his way.
*****
I suffered the derision of you so called "patriots" when I called bullshit before the first bomb fell and I'm clean out of sense of humor about it, so if you don't like plain speaking on the issue, STFU.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Win
I've heard the word "win" used a lot lately by Republicans regarding Iraq. They use the word as though the conflict was a football game. Win. The problem is that winning a football game has a well defined process. Chances are that they mean something a little different in respect to a war, maybe they have in mind something like WWII. We made win pretty clear in that conflict, Unconditional Surrender. Unconditional Surrender. The meaning was pretty clear, you stop all opposition and we'll stop killing you and blowing up your stuff. To be clear, we blew stuff up and killed them very thoroughly and made the alternative pretty attractive. We engaged in terror on a large and effective scale and made it pay off. Oh, stop the bullshit, take a look at the pictures of German or Japanese cities immediately post war and try to tell me that was not an application of terror. Apparently we're nicer, now-a-days.
Taking the WWII model means that all Al Qaeda are either dead or out of Iraq. It means that all the militias stop shooting at and blowing us up. It means that the criminals stop hiding their actions behind resistance. (I mean criminals, extortionists, thieves, kidnappers, etc - criminals) This seems pretty unlikely, unreasonable, oh heck, extremely far fetched.
Al Qaeda seems able to get into Iraq pretty much at will and nothing shows that Al Qaeda is shrinking, on the contrary they seem to be successfully recruiting. There seems to be little we could possibly do in Iraq that would dissuade Afghanistan/Pakistan Al Qaeda from continuing. Saudi Arabia and Syria seem to provide plenty of avenues and applicants for the job. Turning Iraq into a sea of glass would do nothing in that respect.
The militias in Iraq have their agendas, the Sunnis seem to have reached accommodation with the idea that the Saddam days are over, being a despised and oppressed minority doesn't seem to be in their plans, however. The Shiite militias have all sorts of agendas. The Sadrists seem to want us out, mainly, amongst other aims. Other militias seem to be driven most by power concerns. These people are either going to have to be disarmed or persuaded to stop. The Sadrists figure violent opposition to the US presence is entirely reasonable, so either you kill them or persuade them to knock it off until we leave (McSame's 100 years?). Killing them gets difficult without blowing Sadr City to pieces along with Basra. Sadr City is a bunch of poverty in one place (that's saying something in Iraq) and blowing it up would look bad. Basra is a very big piece of the oil infrastructure and that would work how for the oil drenched Republicans?
Criminals are criminals and they will do what they please to do. Covering themselves with something other than simple criminal motives works, they have no reason to do otherwise.
The place is awash with weapons and ammunition and particularly willingness to use them. Weaponry is not really a problem in itself, it is the willingness to use it for violent ends that is a problem. You can make people afraid to use weapons or willing to forgo their use. Scaring them means real force, by us and their own neighbors. That means making it very dangerous to be in any way involved with using force against us. The only other means is persuasion and what tools do we have in that regard?
The Iraqis might stop killing each other, but we are not going to force them to stop. We can't kill enough of them or blow up enough of their stuff to make up for the resentment recruitment factor. They will stop when they get tired of it. They will stop when the possible gains from violence are outweighed by the pain of its continuation. We make the continuation possible by damping down the levels of violence to just miserable rather than horrid. The Republican Party of Personal Responsibility cannot seem to get this - it only applies to poor Americans.
Taking the WWII model means that all Al Qaeda are either dead or out of Iraq. It means that all the militias stop shooting at and blowing us up. It means that the criminals stop hiding their actions behind resistance. (I mean criminals, extortionists, thieves, kidnappers, etc - criminals) This seems pretty unlikely, unreasonable, oh heck, extremely far fetched.
Al Qaeda seems able to get into Iraq pretty much at will and nothing shows that Al Qaeda is shrinking, on the contrary they seem to be successfully recruiting. There seems to be little we could possibly do in Iraq that would dissuade Afghanistan/Pakistan Al Qaeda from continuing. Saudi Arabia and Syria seem to provide plenty of avenues and applicants for the job. Turning Iraq into a sea of glass would do nothing in that respect.
The militias in Iraq have their agendas, the Sunnis seem to have reached accommodation with the idea that the Saddam days are over, being a despised and oppressed minority doesn't seem to be in their plans, however. The Shiite militias have all sorts of agendas. The Sadrists seem to want us out, mainly, amongst other aims. Other militias seem to be driven most by power concerns. These people are either going to have to be disarmed or persuaded to stop. The Sadrists figure violent opposition to the US presence is entirely reasonable, so either you kill them or persuade them to knock it off until we leave (McSame's 100 years?). Killing them gets difficult without blowing Sadr City to pieces along with Basra. Sadr City is a bunch of poverty in one place (that's saying something in Iraq) and blowing it up would look bad. Basra is a very big piece of the oil infrastructure and that would work how for the oil drenched Republicans?
Criminals are criminals and they will do what they please to do. Covering themselves with something other than simple criminal motives works, they have no reason to do otherwise.
The place is awash with weapons and ammunition and particularly willingness to use them. Weaponry is not really a problem in itself, it is the willingness to use it for violent ends that is a problem. You can make people afraid to use weapons or willing to forgo their use. Scaring them means real force, by us and their own neighbors. That means making it very dangerous to be in any way involved with using force against us. The only other means is persuasion and what tools do we have in that regard?
The Iraqis might stop killing each other, but we are not going to force them to stop. We can't kill enough of them or blow up enough of their stuff to make up for the resentment recruitment factor. They will stop when they get tired of it. They will stop when the possible gains from violence are outweighed by the pain of its continuation. We make the continuation possible by damping down the levels of violence to just miserable rather than horrid. The Republican Party of Personal Responsibility cannot seem to get this - it only applies to poor Americans.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Duh Moments
John McSame cannot get straight who Al Qaeda is regarding Shia, Sunnis, and Iran and is insistent that Iran is our enemy. We are going to win or lose the war in Iraq and the Democrats will assure our defeat with reckless lack of responsible leadership. Hey John, Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia, Iraq is majority Shia and by the way, we won this thing 4 years ago. Try to pull your senile old mind together, Iraqi army destroyed, no WMDs, Saddam toppled, all BushCo's military agendas accomplished, four years ago. Now the fact that you keep moving the goal posts has nothing to do with what you said was the goal at the time. YOU said, old man.
More duhs, mine this time. I was getting ready for some business meetings when the Petraeus hearings were going on, I had time for a bit of it and I did get to see Hillary ask intelligent questions make important points and, of course, see John McSame kiss butts. What got me stuck for awhile was Sen. Norm Coleman confusing me with a series of questions that left me wondering what was going on. My memory at the moment was stuck on this guy being one of the real hawks at the outset of George II's inclinations to invade Iraq. The questions seemed to be a pleading for some happy answers and not getting them. I was stuck, what is this? Later, thanks to Dan Abhams, the light, named Al Franken. Norm is running against Al, funny guy politico turned serious Senatorial candidate. Norm was looking for something to take home to Minnesota and wasn't getting it. Stay the course wasn't what he wanted, but it sure was what he got.
The real duh moment belongs to the media. What gave these people the idea that Senatorial hearings were moments to be Presidential? The answers were predictable and predictably evasive and those questioned were a 4 star General and a ranking Ambassador. Using these two as political targets is incredibly dangerous - that is why they're there and not George II who belongs there. He gets to hide behind someone's uniform and service. The only candidate able to use this to any advantage was John McSame who kissed butt adequately. If that is an advantage with anyone sane...
More duhs, mine this time. I was getting ready for some business meetings when the Petraeus hearings were going on, I had time for a bit of it and I did get to see Hillary ask intelligent questions make important points and, of course, see John McSame kiss butts. What got me stuck for awhile was Sen. Norm Coleman confusing me with a series of questions that left me wondering what was going on. My memory at the moment was stuck on this guy being one of the real hawks at the outset of George II's inclinations to invade Iraq. The questions seemed to be a pleading for some happy answers and not getting them. I was stuck, what is this? Later, thanks to Dan Abhams, the light, named Al Franken. Norm is running against Al, funny guy politico turned serious Senatorial candidate. Norm was looking for something to take home to Minnesota and wasn't getting it. Stay the course wasn't what he wanted, but it sure was what he got.
The real duh moment belongs to the media. What gave these people the idea that Senatorial hearings were moments to be Presidential? The answers were predictable and predictably evasive and those questioned were a 4 star General and a ranking Ambassador. Using these two as political targets is incredibly dangerous - that is why they're there and not George II who belongs there. He gets to hide behind someone's uniform and service. The only candidate able to use this to any advantage was John McSame who kissed butt adequately. If that is an advantage with anyone sane...
Stay The Course
Defining moments, missions accomplished, success, victory, bullshit. You expected what? Something, anything to be said that amounted to more than the BushCo mantra? Why would you think such a thing? The people sitting in front of Military and Foreign Relations Committees today were Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two Bush shills with a Bush line to sell, or rather parrot. The line no longer sells with much more than the 28% Bush dead-enders, 61% of Americans now prefer a timeline for exit from Iraq.
John McCain got to fawn over the BushCo doctrine and once again confuse Shia and Sunni and relations with Al Qaeda. Hillary got the chance to point out that the BushCo agreement about continuation of forces would be in front of the Iraqi Parliament and not the US Congress. Barack managed to try to get the pair to acknowledge that there is no exit strategy or achievable end. In the end it was the same story, we're doing this - suck it up. We're staying the course.
John McCain got to fawn over the BushCo doctrine and once again confuse Shia and Sunni and relations with Al Qaeda. Hillary got the chance to point out that the BushCo agreement about continuation of forces would be in front of the Iraqi Parliament and not the US Congress. Barack managed to try to get the pair to acknowledge that there is no exit strategy or achievable end. In the end it was the same story, we're doing this - suck it up. We're staying the course.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Stupidest Book Since Liberal Fascism?
I was all set to write something really scathing about Doug Feith's new 'book' and ran across Tim F's piece over at Balloon Juice. Rather than try to not plagiarize him while writing the same thing I've given you the link. Feith was a pathetic person given more responsibility than he'd have merited if he were twice the man he is and he's now been particularly pathetic excusing his patheticism. Oh well, go on over there.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Why Are Children Driving The Car?
I'm sorry, I thought the adults were supposed to be in charge. First it's no backing down on Iraq funding, then it's tie it to domestic spending. And so, here's the real surprise, per NYT :
And yes, the Democrats have something to say about it:
No, actually we kind of expected this President to act just exactly like he did to begin with and our mistake was thinking that somebody with two live brain cells that spoke to each other was in charge in Congress. You see, Nancy and Harry, we didn't look at how he has acted over the last 7 years and start thinking he'd do something different with either one of your ideas. In fact, any other 4 year old could have told you children that stamping his feet and throwing himself on the floor was exactly what he'd do, and that there also wouldn't be any adults around to spank him for it.
If you propose to play power politics you'd best make up your minds to do so. You'd best make up your minds to make BushCo pay for its ways by taking the risk of saying no and then building a frame that fits the actions of the Child in Chief. But the problem is that the 65% of America doesn't count, you're afraid to the dead-end kids that comprise his 28% or maybe offending the little 7% that can't make up it's mind whether he's just incompetent or stupid or both but just mislead by the criminally negligent.
What expert in political maneuvering told you that things would work out differently? Or, told you that this mess would be easier to frame to a public that is beginning to see you as toothless lying hypocrites? You've got people out knocking themselves out to build you a useful Party and this is what you've got to offer? How do you propose to do anything about anything after you offend the entire activist side of the Party and disappoint most of the rest of the people who gave you your narrow majority? Why exactly should we give you one minute of our time and effort, what is it that you expect us to offer to voters?
You didn't need to pick either one of these fights if you didn't mean to go ahead and fight. There's an old saying, "Don't take a knife to a gunfight," and you didn't even show up with a limp rag. When it comes to taking principles to the Floor, you guys are packing water in a sieve.
I've about reached the point where if one of your PACs backs a candidate it's an automatic disqualification, the only ones that seem to have any sense are the one's whose votes you discount in search of Republicans'. Your empty threats and empty promises have become simple noise, I'd rather listen to static on a mis-tuned radio.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs.
Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, accused Democrats of trying to tie money for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to what the president considers excessive spending for federal agencies and home-state projects.
“Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield success,” Mr. Nussle said.
And yes, the Democrats have something to say about it:
“America expects this president to lead — that means working in a bipartisan way with Congress to responsibly address our country’s priorities rather than issuing veto threats without even knowing what he is threatening to veto,” said a joint statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.
No, actually we kind of expected this President to act just exactly like he did to begin with and our mistake was thinking that somebody with two live brain cells that spoke to each other was in charge in Congress. You see, Nancy and Harry, we didn't look at how he has acted over the last 7 years and start thinking he'd do something different with either one of your ideas. In fact, any other 4 year old could have told you children that stamping his feet and throwing himself on the floor was exactly what he'd do, and that there also wouldn't be any adults around to spank him for it.
If you propose to play power politics you'd best make up your minds to do so. You'd best make up your minds to make BushCo pay for its ways by taking the risk of saying no and then building a frame that fits the actions of the Child in Chief. But the problem is that the 65% of America doesn't count, you're afraid to the dead-end kids that comprise his 28% or maybe offending the little 7% that can't make up it's mind whether he's just incompetent or stupid or both but just mislead by the criminally negligent.
What expert in political maneuvering told you that things would work out differently? Or, told you that this mess would be easier to frame to a public that is beginning to see you as toothless lying hypocrites? You've got people out knocking themselves out to build you a useful Party and this is what you've got to offer? How do you propose to do anything about anything after you offend the entire activist side of the Party and disappoint most of the rest of the people who gave you your narrow majority? Why exactly should we give you one minute of our time and effort, what is it that you expect us to offer to voters?
You didn't need to pick either one of these fights if you didn't mean to go ahead and fight. There's an old saying, "Don't take a knife to a gunfight," and you didn't even show up with a limp rag. When it comes to taking principles to the Floor, you guys are packing water in a sieve.
I've about reached the point where if one of your PACs backs a candidate it's an automatic disqualification, the only ones that seem to have any sense are the one's whose votes you discount in search of Republicans'. Your empty threats and empty promises have become simple noise, I'd rather listen to static on a mis-tuned radio.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
War Funds, Why Bother
George II's response to the House refusal to pass Iraq war funds without strings was predictable, to anyone bothering to pay any attention at all. He would dig his heels in, call it refusal to support the troops, and make somebody or more accurately, everyone else pay. So bases would close, civilian contractors would be laid off, and nothing would pass his desk without a veto. BushCo had no intention of doing anything other than what they wanted to do, and a willingness to hurt whomever was available. Not one bit of that should be a surprise.
The question then becomes, why would the Democrats bother to stamp their feet and talk about no free passes? If you know a temper tantrum is coming you need to decide how to deal with it before you take any action - or even talk publicly about it. Evidently nobody bothered to mention that or if they did they were ignored. How ignored?
The House is working on a deal to pass a massive spending bill that gives BushCo its war funds with no strings but adds $11 Billion additional domestic spending. That sure seems to have a lot of effect on the war in Iraq. That will certainly instigate progress from the Iraqi government.
I guess disappointment is over-rated as an emotion in politics, not improving with practice.
The question then becomes, why would the Democrats bother to stamp their feet and talk about no free passes? If you know a temper tantrum is coming you need to decide how to deal with it before you take any action - or even talk publicly about it. Evidently nobody bothered to mention that or if they did they were ignored. How ignored?
The House is working on a deal to pass a massive spending bill that gives BushCo its war funds with no strings but adds $11 Billion additional domestic spending. That sure seems to have a lot of effect on the war in Iraq. That will certainly instigate progress from the Iraqi government.
I guess disappointment is over-rated as an emotion in politics, not improving with practice.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
I've Got To Find A Way To Quit The Republican Party, Too
John Cole over at Ballon Juice is almost always good, and he's in form regarding the recent Iran NIE:
Now that's a good start and it gets better, but the comments section contains a real jem, and I couldn't make this up:
Now stick with me a bit there's quite a bit in between and then:
I've got to admit it, I was jealous, and I just couldn't help myself:
I know it's cheap snark, but really...
I gotta admit, when I heard the news that the new NIE stated that Iran had rolled back any designs on nuclear weapons as far back as 2003, I knew it would be spun by the Bush dead-enders, but even I didn’t see this coming. The Instapundit:
"This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq—meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat—and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it’s pretty obvious. . . . "
Up next, why we should invade Japan to solve our North Korea problem. You gotta give these guys some credit for chutzpah, if nothing else.
*** Update ***
Now that's a good start and it gets better, but the comments section contains a real jem, and I couldn't make this up:
Peter Johnson Says:
This probably was leaked by the CIA to hurt Bush. But that doesn’t matter if it is an accurate assessment. Two points though:
(1) The CIA screwed up Iraq and Pakistan badly, thinking one had WMD when they didn’t and that the other didn’t have nukes when they did.
(2) If the Iranians really did stop their nuclear program in 2003, isn’t that quite a coincidence? I mean, nothing happened in 2003 that might scare a country into giving up its WMD, did it?
Now stick with me a bit there's quite a bit in between and then:
Peter Johnson Says:
"-I’d find plenty of evidence that the Bush administration said we had to invade Iraq to end Iraq’s WMD program."
Call it collateral success. The bottom line is that if this is true, then Bush’s policies have worked. You just can’t bring yourself to admit that, can you? The Clinton “flowers and candy” approach didn’t work. The Bush “drop your weapon” or else did. The party of John Wayne trumps the party of Richard Simmons, yet again.
I've got to admit it, I was jealous, and I just couldn't help myself:
Nah, I like my commenters, but this one was too good to leave laying around loose. It is just a classic, think just a little while about what he's proposing, with a straight face. That and the GOP would probably have to do something to itself if they found out I'd joined up.Chuck Butcher Says:
John,
Can I have peterjohnson, please. Hey, no caps and no ticking nukes in a grade school. Please, he’s such a step up from my overwrought righties. Really, I just finished wiping CocaCola off the screen and keyboard.
goddam, “collateral success” is wonderful in a cretin sort of way. C’mon John, you’ve got all these other commenters, you can afford one little rightie, let me take it home with me.
Man it’s all there, the CIA is out to get us, it’s Clinton’s Fault, A RonnieR line, “Drop Your Weapon” for faux cowboy GeorgeII, oh man I’m jealous. I’ll even admit that heartstopping finishes are no way for the Browns to win football games, c’monnnnnnnn.
I promise not to try to poach any more than this one…
Really, I could wind this one up tighter than a cheap watch.
Now all I’ve got to do is figure out how to quit the Republican Party, too.
Oh darn, I’d have to join it first?
I know it's cheap snark, but really...
Monday, December 03, 2007
Corruption Destroying What's Left Of Iraq
You probably are thinking that a little corruption is to be expected in an Arab nation, you also may be a little jaded by Halliburton, KBR, Parsons, Blackwater, and other assorted US corruption, but Iraq has passed what levels may be sustainable. If you think maybe BushCo has really lowered the bar for Iraq's government by putting it at passing a budget, you don't understand the depths of their tolerance. If you'd like a taste for just how tolerant of corruption this Administration is you could re-visit this October post and see that they not only don't want to hear about it, they want to bury it. And from the looks of it, bury anybody who talks.
Nonstop Theft and Bribery Stagger Iraq is how a NYT report describes the situation. Now bearing in mind that Radhi al-Radhi the ex-head of governmental corruption investigation lost 31 staff members to killings, you can understand that folks aren't real hot on talking and being identified but what NYT reports is horrific. Some will talk:
Maybe the mess would be tolerable in a war torn chaotic nation, Iraq rates as the 3rd most corrupt in the world, if there seemed to be some form of pushback by anyone, there isn't. Consider the government's stance on corruption investigations:
The Surge that was supposed to give Iraqis a breathing space to get their act together seems to have done that,
Nonstop Theft and Bribery Stagger Iraq is how a NYT report describes the situation. Now bearing in mind that Radhi al-Radhi the ex-head of governmental corruption investigation lost 31 staff members to killings, you can understand that folks aren't real hot on talking and being identified but what NYT reports is horrific. Some will talk:
“Everyone is stealing from the state,” said Adel Adel al-Subihawi, a prominent Shiite tribal leader in Sadr City, throwing up his hands in disgust. “It’s a very large meal, and everyone wants to eat.”He's not kidding around, police applicants pay from $400 to $800 to have their applications taken and approved, one stated that not one of his class of 850 did not pay a bribe and that his commanders collect the salaries of recruits who quit. So you commit a crime to become a policeman. Everyone is stealing? Estimates run to $18 billion in Iraqi government money that has been lost to corruption since 2004, some American officials estimate that a third of what they spend on Iraqi contracts or grants winds up stolen or unaccounted for.
Cash is also often what leads to promotions — with the help of a fake college degree, purchased for about $40 — and theft is no less common. One government worker, who goes by the name Abu Muhammad, said a senior administrator at the ministry where he worked recently sold off computers, laser printers, office furniture and other supplies that appeared to have been paid for with American aid. The official was never caught or prosecuted, he said.It is not just a matter of getting rich, it involves schemes as simple as hand washing cars for survival money. Abbas Wadi Kadhim, 42, takes water from a broken water pipe to earn $4 per car - the water is "stolen" and he pays no rent on the abandoned government building he uses to house his operation. He is ashamed to violate the Koran's prohibition on corruption but avoids more forbidden acts which rescues some of his pride.
Maybe the mess would be tolerable in a war torn chaotic nation, Iraq rates as the 3rd most corrupt in the world, if there seemed to be some form of pushback by anyone, there isn't. Consider the government's stance on corruption investigations:
Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who runs the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki actually undercut anticorruption efforts this year by requiring that investigators get permission from his office before pursuing ministers or former ministers on corruption charges.Does anyone think that maybe this might rank right up there with passing a budget with BushCo? Well, in a reasonable world maybe, but it sounds an awful lot like the Administration's policy with our own Inspector Generals. In fact, in the US it is starting to look as though if it isn't nailed down it's for sale or stolen. You could almost make a case that we blew up a country so favored contractors could make a buck - well, billions or so. Stop and consider that Halliburton was seriously looking at bankruptcy before Cheney et al got the reins of power and others were just ordinarily profitable operations, now it sure is a different picture.
Mr. Maliki has also not rescinded a law, opposed by the Americans, that lets ministers exempt their employees from investigation. “Those two legal positions within the fledgling Iraqi government are incompatible with democracy,” Mr. Bowen said in an interview. “My concerns about the corruption problem have risen.”
The Surge that was supposed to give Iraqis a breathing space to get their act together seems to have done that,
The collective filching undermines Iraq’s ability to provide essential services, a key to sustaining recent security gains, according to American military commanders. It also sows a corrosive distrust of democracy and hinders reconciliation as entrenched groups in the Shiite-led government resist reforms that would cut into reliable cash flows.So who is it that is supposed to have an incentive to get this war over with? The war profiteers in Washington or maybe the Iraqis who gain to the tune of billions would want to cut the spigot off? Maybe the right who insist that it's all about terrorism could take a look at who benefits and wonder if the blood and treasure really needs to be spent for this cause - theft.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Still No Way Out
The title is the NYT Editorial from November 30, 2007 which addresses the quandary we find ourselves in regarding Iraq. The surge has resulted, finally, in lower levels of violence. That is about it, 30,000 additional troops and months of horrid violence in order to get back to 2005 levels of death and destruction. There was supposed to be a bit more involved.
Guns and bombs and murders are not politics, they are the failure of politics and in the absence of any politics in Iraq they are the available tools. They are the available tools to the US and and the Iraqis and they are the status quo from late 2003. It really isn't too difficult to look at conditions which 'require' the presence of US troops continually to wonder about the actual goals of BushCo. The Democrats in Congress, and the few 'responsible Republicans,' need to stop and think about what all this means to our soldiers and Treasury. None of that begins to look at the consequences to the Middle East of an enduring US occupation of one of their nations.
Finally, those 30,000 troops have to start coming home or the military will be irretrievably broken and once that influence is removed the other tools of the Iraqis will come back into play. That may presage another surge, one of violence.
Instead, Iraq’s politicians — and their American backers — have squandered the time and the best efforts of American troops. Mr. Bush’s generals are so frustrated that they’ve begun to complain publicly about the fecklessness of Iraq’s leaders. The ever-feckless White House, rather than looking for ways to compel Iraq’s leaders to perform, is lessening the pressure.I noted here my reactions and the consequences are accelerating, not so much on the ground in Iraq, but politically here.
The news has cheered Americans and dampened Democrats’ enthusiasm for keeping up the pressure on Iraq policy.This isn't about some political gamesmanship for Democrats, it is about what it is that we're trying to do. BushCo has kept the goalposts in nearly constant motion from the run-up to the war. The war right is jumping up and down, 'told ya defeatocrats, it works,' and the Democrats are getting ready to flinch. Try to get this, we are where we were in '05 only ethnic cleansing has progressed. The Sunnis in al-Anbar are not our allies, they have found a piece of common ground in the fabric of the total. Do folks remember "enemy of my enemy"? As long as al-Qaeda is the enemy of the moment things are fine, what happens when their enemy is the Maliki government? They are now better armed than ever before.
There was supposed to be some endpoint purpose to 30,000 troops and the death and suffering, in factPerhaps 160,000 American troops could hold down the overall casualty numbers indefinitely, but they cannot wipe away that sort of hatred. That’s the job of Iraq’s leaders. Either way, the American military doesn’t have enough troops for such an occupation without end, and the American Treasury can’t keep spending $10 billion a month to maintain it.
Americans need to ask themselves the questions Mr. Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what’s the plan for getting out?The NYT take on this is a bit more generous than mine, I don't believe BushCo's agenda actually has anything to do with the moving stated goals. If any of what has been said had anything to do with their intentions, they would have pursued those actual goals. Iraqis passing a budget is not about fixing what ails Iraq, it may have to do with accounting and spending, but in that morass of corruption and waste it is nearly no more than PR. What ails Iraq is that the only solution seen by all parties is force.
Guns and bombs and murders are not politics, they are the failure of politics and in the absence of any politics in Iraq they are the available tools. They are the available tools to the US and and the Iraqis and they are the status quo from late 2003. It really isn't too difficult to look at conditions which 'require' the presence of US troops continually to wonder about the actual goals of BushCo. The Democrats in Congress, and the few 'responsible Republicans,' need to stop and think about what all this means to our soldiers and Treasury. None of that begins to look at the consequences to the Middle East of an enduring US occupation of one of their nations.
Finally, those 30,000 troops have to start coming home or the military will be irretrievably broken and once that influence is removed the other tools of the Iraqis will come back into play. That may presage another surge, one of violence.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Surge Equals No Political Progress
Now that a bunch of Americans and Iraqis have died for the American "surge" we have exactly not one iota of the political progress that it was "intended" to foster. You may have noticed that when it comes to spending American blood and treasure like it was water the BushCo has no problem, but when it comes to Iraqis doing something to put their country back together all bets are off. Somehow George II can sell the idea that Americans need to die and be blown to broken shreds to fix an Iraq that has no intention of fixing itself. According to the NYT the BushCo's goals for the Iraqi government are that it pass a budget (??), vote to extend the UN mandate (if not, then what?), and take official action to reverse the effects of de-Baathification, already a quietly done deal. There you go. This is what 974 American lives in the last year buy, the dollar cost and wounded costs I won't bother to play pile on with, just actually dead American soldiers.
When you talk to your neighbor who has lost someone in this adventure of George II, this is the measure of his concern - you had better try to make up for it yourself. Asking someone to die for something is no small matter and it would seem as though the Commander in Chief would take that a little more to heart in some issue other than trampling the Constitution. I won't add anything to do with my absolute lack of respect for his Republican Congressional lackeys and their disregard of the sacrifice. This devaluation of what these troops spent their lives doing is, to me, unacceptable behavior. Despite all previous evidence I had hoped that along with the "surge" the BushCo would carry forward something constructive in Iraq. Ooops.
The Bush dead-enders will call any Congressional push as "not supporting the troops," the unending mantra of those with no coherent argument left. Every attempt of Congress to link the war to some practical end has been met with the same phrase, if Congress tries to make the President responsible for the results of spending American blood and treasure the answer is "not supporting the troops." The question that seems beyond the ken of these folks is just exactly how it is supportive of the troops to spend their lives with no result?
Even if you start out from a view point that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin and then to prosecute for a couple more years on the basis of "you broke it, you bought it," at some point America should see some result of its spending. The election of a non-functioning, corrupt, militia ridden government is not much return for an expense now measure in trillions of dollars, nearly four thousand dead and over twenty thousand broken troops. Is it real clear what BushCo expects back from our investment in that hole? Other than asking us to stay it is pass a budget?
When you talk to your neighbor who has lost someone in this adventure of George II, this is the measure of his concern - you had better try to make up for it yourself. Asking someone to die for something is no small matter and it would seem as though the Commander in Chief would take that a little more to heart in some issue other than trampling the Constitution. I won't add anything to do with my absolute lack of respect for his Republican Congressional lackeys and their disregard of the sacrifice. This devaluation of what these troops spent their lives doing is, to me, unacceptable behavior. Despite all previous evidence I had hoped that along with the "surge" the BushCo would carry forward something constructive in Iraq. Ooops.
The Bush dead-enders will call any Congressional push as "not supporting the troops," the unending mantra of those with no coherent argument left. Every attempt of Congress to link the war to some practical end has been met with the same phrase, if Congress tries to make the President responsible for the results of spending American blood and treasure the answer is "not supporting the troops." The question that seems beyond the ken of these folks is just exactly how it is supportive of the troops to spend their lives with no result?
Even if you start out from a view point that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin and then to prosecute for a couple more years on the basis of "you broke it, you bought it," at some point America should see some result of its spending. The election of a non-functioning, corrupt, militia ridden government is not much return for an expense now measure in trillions of dollars, nearly four thousand dead and over twenty thousand broken troops. Is it real clear what BushCo expects back from our investment in that hole? Other than asking us to stay it is pass a budget?
How We're "Winning" In Iraq, Now
The right, or the BushCo Gang, is now asking when the media and defeatocrats are going to admit that we're winning in Iraq. Troop losses the last two months have been the lowest since early 2006, including all US casualties and Iraqi force and civilian casualties. Any drop in casualties makes me very happy - not as happy as a cessation of casualties - happy for the troops and their families and Iraqis in general. That, of course, isn't what the question was. It might pay to remember that 2006 was what made the "surge" the thing to do, it might pay to remember that four years of war have succeeded in getting us back to year 3. It might pay to notice that the political progress in the past year has been exactly no better than it was in year 3, which isn't even as good as a status quo might be under ordinary circumstances.
I and others have pointed out that Iraqis are fiercely tribal as well as religious sectarians and the al Anbar successes were primarily homegrown and the virtually inevitable consequences of foreign Arabs trying to impose their foreign agenda on Sunni Iraqis. Bhagdad is now sectarian divided, essentially segregated neighborhoods where once mixed existed and a whole lot of potential victims have gotten out. The Iraqis returning after being forced out of Syria may be one of the coming test cases. While Iranian sanctuaried and trained Shiites in the south may have an upper hand in the formerly British controlled areas; they also may find the same results the foreign Sunnis have had in al Anbar. It took awhile for Sunni resentment to boil over in al Anbar so it may take that with the Shiites in the south, Basra in particular.
In the absence of so much violence some of the essential services are beginning to improve, that alone may make a large difference in how tolerant Iraqis are about their neighbors creating heat with the Americans. While it may seem a materialistic sort of reasoning, it is a bit more difficult to support or tolerate people whose actions take you from having some garbage removal back to none, as well as other services. They also will not tolerate for long having just some services, analyzing on that basis is pretty problematic.
This is where the lack of political solutions or any real political activity and high levels of corruption are going to cause havoc. Life problems have got to be addressed in a real manner, these people have had four years of absolute hell and they're not going to be very patient (not that they are anyhow). If there is no evidence of power sharing and problems continue in just trying to live there is going to be backlash. Cleaning up corruption will cause backlash from the supporter of those gaining from the corruption (Mahdi Army in particular) and yet leaving it go will cause backlash; when things are this messy the chances of any course working well diminish.
Every day that Americans are viewed as occupiers increases the potential for explosive violence. While a recent firefight resulting in an intelligence coup regarding importation of foreign fighters has had an effect on "random" violence; that information has a shelf-life, as it becomes more dated and new circles are built that importation will recover. It will recover faster and more virulently with active dislike for American presence, through no more than simple tolerance for its existence. Current troop levels are not sustainable; there simply are not enough troops to keep it up, this means that whatever damping effect is happening through troop presence will not continue on that basis. If no other basis is found the results could easily be reversed. Those who find expanded violence in their interest now have concrete examples of how to provoke it and then stoke it. Neither the willingness nor the materials have evaporated for those people.
What the Iraqi forces can accomplish is an open question, some few units have proven to be capable, others are so infiltrated with sectarians and partisans as to be a danger to both the civilians and Americans, and finally a large number are simple incompetent for the job, for many reasons. Iraqis finding themselves under the discipline of the latter two categories might reasonably opt for an entirely different solution - and a violent one.
I would actually like to go the BushCo dead-enders one better, no we're not just winning; we've now won, bring them all home and we'll have that parade you were planning for 3 years ago. I don't even care if George II hangs a Mission Accomplished banner from the White House portico, as long as there are no flight suits and ships involved.
Combat correspondent Michael Yon is an independent reporter, seems important to one of my readers that he is linked.
I and others have pointed out that Iraqis are fiercely tribal as well as religious sectarians and the al Anbar successes were primarily homegrown and the virtually inevitable consequences of foreign Arabs trying to impose their foreign agenda on Sunni Iraqis. Bhagdad is now sectarian divided, essentially segregated neighborhoods where once mixed existed and a whole lot of potential victims have gotten out. The Iraqis returning after being forced out of Syria may be one of the coming test cases. While Iranian sanctuaried and trained Shiites in the south may have an upper hand in the formerly British controlled areas; they also may find the same results the foreign Sunnis have had in al Anbar. It took awhile for Sunni resentment to boil over in al Anbar so it may take that with the Shiites in the south, Basra in particular.
In the absence of so much violence some of the essential services are beginning to improve, that alone may make a large difference in how tolerant Iraqis are about their neighbors creating heat with the Americans. While it may seem a materialistic sort of reasoning, it is a bit more difficult to support or tolerate people whose actions take you from having some garbage removal back to none, as well as other services. They also will not tolerate for long having just some services, analyzing on that basis is pretty problematic.
This is where the lack of political solutions or any real political activity and high levels of corruption are going to cause havoc. Life problems have got to be addressed in a real manner, these people have had four years of absolute hell and they're not going to be very patient (not that they are anyhow). If there is no evidence of power sharing and problems continue in just trying to live there is going to be backlash. Cleaning up corruption will cause backlash from the supporter of those gaining from the corruption (Mahdi Army in particular) and yet leaving it go will cause backlash; when things are this messy the chances of any course working well diminish.
Every day that Americans are viewed as occupiers increases the potential for explosive violence. While a recent firefight resulting in an intelligence coup regarding importation of foreign fighters has had an effect on "random" violence; that information has a shelf-life, as it becomes more dated and new circles are built that importation will recover. It will recover faster and more virulently with active dislike for American presence, through no more than simple tolerance for its existence. Current troop levels are not sustainable; there simply are not enough troops to keep it up, this means that whatever damping effect is happening through troop presence will not continue on that basis. If no other basis is found the results could easily be reversed. Those who find expanded violence in their interest now have concrete examples of how to provoke it and then stoke it. Neither the willingness nor the materials have evaporated for those people.
What the Iraqi forces can accomplish is an open question, some few units have proven to be capable, others are so infiltrated with sectarians and partisans as to be a danger to both the civilians and Americans, and finally a large number are simple incompetent for the job, for many reasons. Iraqis finding themselves under the discipline of the latter two categories might reasonably opt for an entirely different solution - and a violent one.
I would actually like to go the BushCo dead-enders one better, no we're not just winning; we've now won, bring them all home and we'll have that parade you were planning for 3 years ago. I don't even care if George II hangs a Mission Accomplished banner from the White House portico, as long as there are no flight suits and ships involved.
Combat correspondent Michael Yon is an independent reporter, seems important to one of my readers that he is linked.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
How To Profit From War, Parsons Corp
Maybe you remember a slight difficulty in Iraq with a Police Academy, one that had crumbling walls and sewage running from the ceilings and walls? The name of the US contractor who had charge of that $72 million project was Parsons Corporation. The NYT reported 11/06/07 that the 'problems' had yet to be rectified. Parsons seems entirely overwrought with remorse:
Folks, I'm a contractor, nowhere in Parson's universe, and I know that you almost have to try to make this big a mess. This is a training academy not a 5 star hotel or mansion, it is not that difficult. There are ways screw it up this bad and they generally involve cheating.
All Federal Candidates:
2000 $75,250 (38% to Democrats, 60% to Republicans)
2002 $130,500 (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
2004 $270,500 (50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2006 $417,050 (49% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2008 $209,000 (61% to Democrats, 39% to Republicans) to date
Numbers courtesy Open Secrets
Now it seems that not too long after the BushCo started to make it clear that they'd like to outsource government it became important to influence thinking as much as possible. Now '04 was a Presidential cycle, but it sure seemed awfully important, not to mention that the war started in '03. The '06 cycle didn't involve any Presidential campaigns ( in '04 $0 went to Democratic Presidential) but there sure was profit to be made from death and destruction and governmental largess with the kind of oversight that Stuart Bowen found so "useful."
There's a $45 billion reconstruction project turkey to cut up in Iraq, in '04 Parsons had contracts worth up to $800 million. By 6/06 the Army Corp had cancelled a $99.1 million contract for a prison that was 1 year behind schedule, weeks after a $300 million contract to build clinics and hospitals was canceled for non-performance.
So, it's worth pretty big bucks to candidates to get work worth a lot of money but the doing of it seems not quite as worthwhile. We need some more of this, let's be sure to elect the same mindset to Congress and President, Parsons would be appreciative...
A company spokeswoman, Erin Kuhlman, said that Parsons, which is based in Pasadena, Calif., had strictly abided by the terms of the contract it had received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to do the work at the academy.It seems that in July of '06 the Army wasn't happy with sewage running out the ceilings. Parsons put them in contact with the Iraqi subcontractor. In July and August of '06 the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent agency led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr. took a look and was distinctly unhappy, finding “indications of potential fraud” and oversight by the Army Corp and Parsons to have virtually nonexistent.
“Parsons completed its work at the Baghdad Police College in the spring of 2006,” Ms. Kuhlman said, adding that the Army Corps accepted the work as completed at about the same time.
Folks, I'm a contractor, nowhere in Parson's universe, and I know that you almost have to try to make this big a mess. This is a training academy not a 5 star hotel or mansion, it is not that difficult. There are ways screw it up this bad and they generally involve cheating.
On Sept. 28, 2006, as the inspector general’s report was released, Earnest O. Robbins II, a senior vice president at Parsons, testified before the House Government Reform Committee that the company would fix the problems at no extra charge. “We are repairing it at no cost to the government,” Mr. Robbins said in response to questions by Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.On the Sunday previous to this 11/6/07 news report :
the American officer affiliated with the new project to repair the problems described an elaborate and costly effort to tear out and replace the plumbing on entire floors. The problems were so severe, the officer said, that the military had also been obliged to build new latrines outside and demolish some structures entirely and start over.Now if you've started to wonder if war is good for business and if they think it is there are some clues available as to their thinking, little deals like FEC filings, say Parsons starting in 2000 when there was no war to profit from
“These buildings are all Parsons-built,” said the officer. “The piping is bad. It really is. To be honest with you, it’s raw sewage, raw fecal matter coming out of the walls.”
All Federal Candidates:
2000 $75,250 (38% to Democrats, 60% to Republicans)
2002 $130,500 (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
2004 $270,500 (50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2006 $417,050 (49% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2008 $209,000 (61% to Democrats, 39% to Republicans) to date
Numbers courtesy Open Secrets
Now it seems that not too long after the BushCo started to make it clear that they'd like to outsource government it became important to influence thinking as much as possible. Now '04 was a Presidential cycle, but it sure seemed awfully important, not to mention that the war started in '03. The '06 cycle didn't involve any Presidential campaigns ( in '04 $0 went to Democratic Presidential) but there sure was profit to be made from death and destruction and governmental largess with the kind of oversight that Stuart Bowen found so "useful."
There's a $45 billion reconstruction project turkey to cut up in Iraq, in '04 Parsons had contracts worth up to $800 million. By 6/06 the Army Corp had cancelled a $99.1 million contract for a prison that was 1 year behind schedule, weeks after a $300 million contract to build clinics and hospitals was canceled for non-performance.
So, it's worth pretty big bucks to candidates to get work worth a lot of money but the doing of it seems not quite as worthwhile. We need some more of this, let's be sure to elect the same mindset to Congress and President, Parsons would be appreciative...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)