Top Iraqi Graft-buster: Maliki's Government Must Go

With Congress and the White House engaging in yet another round of debate on the Iraq War, a former Iraqi judge who was--and who still may be--the chief anti-corruption officer of the Iraqi government has a tough message for anyone concerned about Iraq: The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is so riddled with corruption it ought to be totally scrapped. Radhi al-Radhi, who since 2004 has headed the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), an independent Iraqi institution that tries to investigate and prosecute corrupt Iraqi officials, offers this damning indictment of the Iraqi government at a time when Maliki and his allies are mounting a fierce attack against him and attempting to replace Radhi with a Maliki loyalist who himself has been arrested on corruption charges.

Last week I posted an article disclosing that a team of officials at the US embassy in Baghdad had drafted a secret report detailing rampant corruption and criminality throughout the Iraqi government. The embassy report notes that corruption is "the norm in many ministries" and that Maliki has consistently blocked the work of Radhi and the Commission on Public Integrity. Four days later, Maliki held a press conference in Baghdad and fiercely denounced Radhi. He accused Radhi of corruption--without offering any specifics. Maliki announced that Radhi would be prosecuted and that the Parliament was about to forcibly retire him. The prime minister also claimed that the CPI chief had fled the country. Three days after that, the Iraqi government named Moussa Faraj to replace Radhi.

While all this was happening, Radhi, who is depicted in the secret embassy report as a diligent and brave investigator, was in the United States, not fleeing but leading a delegation of CPI investigators attending a training session in Washington. I spoke with him yesterday about his own predicament and that of his nation. He laughs off Maliki's charges as a bogus and transparent attempt to end investigations probing Maliki's political allies, and he is quite blunt in his assessment of the Maliki government.

Radhi, a secular Shia, is a compact, 62-year-old man with a salt-and-pepper mustache and receding gray hair. It's easy to see the dent on his head where he was smashed by a rifle butt one of the two times he was imprisoned during the Saddam Hussein years. He rolls up a sleeve to show a long deep scar that he says he received during torture sessions and notes that his back is covered with similar marks.

The first point he wants to make--and he does so emphatically--is that he did not slip out of Iraq to escape prosecution, as Maliki has implied. Radhi explains that he came to the United States with ten CPI investigators who are being taught how to use a lie detector. (I've confirmed that such training is under way.) He takes out his passport. It contains an Iraqi stamp indicating he legally departed the country on August 22. "Maliki is making up stories to blame me for stuff," Radhi remarks. The prime minister's press conference, Radhi says, was a stunt designed to pressure Radhi not to return to Iraq: "They want to get rid of me because I have lots of important files that could be used to indict his ministers."

Radhi confirms that the secret embassy report's description of widespread corruption within the Maliki government is accurate: "This is what's going on. The government has failed in doing its job." He estimates that the various ministries, hampered by fraud and waste, are only meeting between 2 and 5 percent of their obligations. He says that $7 billion has been pocketed or wasted at the Ministry of Defense, that the same has happened to $4 billion at the Ministry of Electricity. "At other ministries," he adds, "it's half a billion dollars here, a quarter of a billion dollars there. You can imagine the whole number. It works like the Mafia."

Radhi's problem, he maintains, is that he wants to do something about all this--and that means trouble for the Shia-dominated government led by Maliki. "When I prosecuted Sunni ministers, they clapped for me," he remarks. "When I prosecuted Kurdish ministers, they clapped for me. But when I went after Shia ministers, they came after me and said I'm the corrupted one."

Maliki's campaign against Radhi is nothing new. Last year, Maliki sent Radhi a letter essentially accusing him of not accounting for hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the Commission on Public Integrity. According to the secret embassy report, an initial audit of the CPI uncovered management problems (not criminal conduct) and a subsequent audit was "glowing."

Sabah al-Saidi, a Shia leader who heads the Parliament's anticorruption committee and who has joined Maliki in the latest campaign against Radhi, has also been trying for a year to undermine the CPI by charging Radhi with graft. Radhi maintains that he earned Saidi's wrath because the CPI was investigating oil smuggling in Basra and its investigators believed this criminal activity was linked to Saidi's Fadillah party. Radhi's CPI pursued about 90 cases involving oil smuggling and corruption in Basra, and these cases were blocked from reaching court. The secret embassy report corroborates this point, noting that investigating corruption in Basra has been nearly impossible. The report describes an occasion when Radhi asked Maliki to support probes in Basra targeting the Fadillah party and Shia militias and Maliki "just went quiet." (According to a Radhi associate who asked not to be identified, oil smugglers in Basra routinely pay militias to safeguard oil pipelines and some of this protection money ends up with anti-American insurgents.)

Radhi says he has never had a case that directly involved Maliki. But he maintains that he has initiated several investigations of officials close to Maliki--including a minister of oil and a Maliki relative who used to head the Ministry of Transportation--and Maliki's office and other ministries shut down these cases, citing a law known as Article 136B. This provision in Iraq's criminal code--a provision that Maliki revived-- allows the prime minister or a minister to order a court to end a prosecution.

And earlier this year, Radhi notes, Maliki's office issued a secret order that forced the criminal courts to close all ongoing cases against past and present ministers and deputy ministers. (I have a copy of that memo.) About three dozen investigations were shuttered. With another secret memo, Radhi says, Maliki's office ended the prosecution of a key Maliki adviser on oil policy. And as we talk, Radhi pulls out yet one more secret memo, dated June 18, 2007, in which the prime minister instructed Radhi to dismiss one of the CPI's best investigators. Radhi refused. A month later, Maliki's office sent Radhi another memo reiterating this order. "I kept him," Radhi says.

Radhi notes that last year he had a "big case" involving one of Maliki's top national security aides. The official was given a large amount of money to fund a weapons buyback program in Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood controlled by the militia of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Radhi, the Maliki aide was suspected of having pocketed some of the money to buy a building for himself in London and of having passed weapons he had collected to militias. "When we looked into this," Radhi recalls, "the prime minister's office closed the case--using Rule 136. We had evidence in this case. And that's when they started to attack us."

Of Maliki, Radhi says, "he's not corrupt, but the group around him--all of them are corrupt. And he has to support them, because he's of their party."

Corruption within the Iraqi government, Radhi says, "is increasing day by day." The government's budget for 2007 (including funds left over from 2006) is $71 billion, he remarks, yet "you see no reconstruction, and we still don't have oil or electricity and no security from the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of the Interior, and they're each spending billions of dollars." Five million Iraqis have left the country, he says, yet the Ministry of Trade is still spending the same amount of funds for ration cards--apparently for people who no longer live in Iraq: "Where is the money going? No one knows." The Ministry of Health, he complains, has imported billions of dollars in medicine and medical equipment, "but we don't see medicine and equipment in hospitals. It's going to political parties or militias."

----------------------------------------
Please check out David Corn's personal blog at www.davidcorn.com for recent postings on Fred Thompson, Iraq, missing White House emails, Larry Craig, and other subjects.
----------------------------------------

Radhi still considers himself chief of the Commission on Public Integrity. His forcible retirement, he says, is illegal--and so is the appointment of his successor. (In a letter sent to Maliki two days ago, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the Sunni speaker of the Parliament, declared Radhi's removal "illegal and unconstitutional.") Regardless of the legality of Radhi's ouster, Moussa Faraj, who has been named Radhi's replacement, is an odd pick for the job. He was once a deputy at the CPI--having been installed at the commission by the ruling Shia Alliance Party. According to the secret U.S. embassy report on corruption, Faraj regularly prosecuted and delayed cases on "sectarian bases." Worse, the report notes that Faraj, a political ally of Sabah al-Saidi (the Parliament leader who has assailed Radhi), once "allowed a Shia Alliance member [charged in a multi-million-dollar corruption case] to escape custody." And after Faraj was dismissed from the CPI, the report says, he stole "literally a car load of case files." An arrest warrant was issued for him.

Several weeks ago, according to Radhi and his investigators, Faraj was arrested, placed in prison, and subsequently released on bail. "How can he be in jail and then be head of the integrity commission?" Radhi asks. Putting the CPI in Faraj's hands, Radhi says, will allow Maliki's office and Saidi to control its actions and prevent the commission from conducting investigations that inconvenience them and their political confederates. It will mean, he claims, the end of any meaningful anticorruption effort in Iraq.

Radhi says he hopes to return to Iraq and the CPI: "I want to go back and work because Iraq needs and deserves a clean government. You cannot rebuild Iraq without fighting corruption. We cannot stop the insurgency without blocking its source of funding, and corruption produces funds for the insurgents." But he has no clear strategy for undoing his forcible removal or for countering Maliki's moves against him. Radhi concedes he does not have a lot of options: "I don't have a political party or a gang supporting me."

This summer, there were two rocket attacks on his home. And the Iraqi government has informed him that his retirement benefits (80 percent of his salary) will be based on the pay of low-level government functionary (about $700 a month) not the income of a government minister (about $8000 a month), even though the CPI chief is considered the equivalent of a minister. For the time being, he may be stranded in the United States. And it's unclear how much the US government will help him, if at all.

"The people now running Iraq are corrupted themselves," Radhi says. "The only solution left is a new government, with a secular government of technocrats, not a religious government politicized by certain groups. Iraqi society is a civil society. The people deserve a civil government." He hopes the Bush Administration will pressure the Maliki government to follow the law "so no new dictatorship will be born." But is it realistic to expect any of this? A wholesale change in the Iraqi government? The Bush administration leaning on Maliki and forcing an end to systemic corruption? After all, the secret corruption report--which the Bush administration has not yet acknowledged--notes that the US Embassy in Baghdad has done little to bolster anticorruption programs and that Defense Department officials have blocked investigations of certain Iraqi officials. "I know it's difficult," Radhi says with a deep and sad sigh. "I'm not a political guy."

******

OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (39)

1. Let's re-read that again--

   "The government's budget for 2007 (including funds left over from 2006) is $71 billion, he remarks, yet "you see no reconstruction, and we still don't have oil or electricity and no security from the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of the Interior, and they're each spending billions of dollars."

   SEVENTY-ONE BILLION dollars....and guess who foots most of that?

   I wish some of the folks around here who are so concerned about Hillary getting $100K from some Chinese felon...or the New Jersey "Tammany Hall"....cared a BIT for a figure 30,000X that... of OUR money.

   Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 12:30pm

2. SEVENTY-ONE BILLION dollars....and guess who foots most of that?

   Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 12:30pm

   Math Time: Iraq's current estim. oil production is around 2 million bbl..... $70/bbl x 2 mbbl x 365 days = $51 BILLION!

   US surely funds much of Iraq's military spendings but let's NOT jump to the conclusion that MASK is trying to direct folks to...that we fund most of Iraq's normal Gov't expenditures (outside of military)!

   Posted by Happy at 09/07/2007 @ 12:47pm

3. Good `scoop' again, David! Much better piece on Iraq's corruption!

   IF the Coalition can `nudge' Maliki aside based IN PART on ELEVATING the corruption angle, I'm incline to `give a crap'!

   Posted by Happy at 09/07/2007 @ 12:50pm

4. "Radhi says he has never had a case that directly involved Maliki. But he maintains that he has initiated several investigations of officials close to Maliki--"

   Looks like Maliki's been taking some good notes from the Bush administration. Democracy is coming...

   Posted by MATTMAN at 09/07/2007 @ 12:50pm

5. Posted by HAPPY 09/07/2007 @ 12:47pm

   Technically, you're right. We don't give money directly to the Iraqi Gov't for their budget, it is from oil revenues. Sorry, if I gave that impression.

   But by footing the bill for their SECURITY, we're basically covering them to waste their domestic non-security budget to corruption.

   Whether weak quasi-democracy or a "new Saddam"...we pull out and the Maliki government no longer can stash away cash in Swiss bank accout...and have to pay some soldiers.

   Either way, it saves US money and GIs.

   Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 1:12pm

6. Yeah sure we're there to fight terrorir:

   "To describe AQI's presence, intelligence experts cite a spectrum of estimates, ranging from 8 percent to 15 percent. The fact that such "a big window" exists, says Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, indicates that "[those experts] really don't have a very good perception of what is going on."

   It's notable that military intelligence reports have opted to cite a figure at the very top of that range. But even the low estimate of 8 percent may be an overstatement, if you consider some of the government's own statistics.

   The first instructive set of data comes from the U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In March, the organization analyzed the online postings of eleven prominent Sunni insurgent groups, including AQI, tallying how many attacks each group claimed. AQI took credit for 10 percent of attacks on Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias (forty-three out of 439 attacks), and less than 4 percent of attacks on U.S. troops (seventeen out of 357). Although these Internet postings should not be taken as proof positive of the culprits, it's instructive to remember that PR-conscious al- Qaeda operatives are far more likely to overstate than understate their role.

   When turning to the question of manpower, military officials told the New York Times in August that of the roughly 24,500 prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq (nearly all of whom are Sunni), just 1,800--about 7 percent--claim allegiance to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, the composition of inmates does not support the assumption that large numbers of foreign terrorists, long believed to be the leaders and most hard-core elements of AQI, are operating inside Iraq. In August, American forces held in custody 280 foreign nationals--slightly more than 1 percent of total inmates.

   The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which arguably has the best track record for producing accurate intelligence assessments, last year estimated that AQI's membership was in a range of "more than 1,000." When compared with the military's estimate for the total size of the insurgency--between 20,000 and 30,000 full-time fighters--this figure puts AQI forces at around 5 percent. When compared with Iraqi intelligence's much larger estimates of the insurgency--200,000 fighters--INR's estimate would put AQI forces at less than 1 percent. This year, the State Department dropped even its base-level estimate, because, as an official explained, "the information is too disparate to come up with a consensus number."

   How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

   http://tinyurl.com/yrps6n

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2007 @ 1:40pm

7. Whether weak quasi-democracy or a "new Saddam"...Either way, it saves US money and GIs.

   Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 1:12pm

   This and that: While Iraq's Gov't is a mess and surely much of the money has been `Swissed' away, it is critical that the US, via the purse string & training, exert heavy `influence' over Iraq's military which presumably, is needed "either way"! It's NOT a bad thing to have a relatively strong (vs. civilian institutions) & more secular Iraqi military.....

   Posted by Happy at 09/07/2007 @ 1:43pm

8. "Stephen Biddle, a member of Petraeus's advisory panel. Here's his comment about the current plan to restore stability to Iraq via a "bottom up" strategy of working with tribal leaders:

   Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years -- and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

   Holy cats. This is coming from a "key proponent" of the tribal strategy? 100,000 troops for 20 years only gets us a "long-shot gamble" of success? What the hell do the pessimists think? Kaplan continues:

   Do Petraeus and Crocker agree with this assessment? Do they agree with each other? Petraeus is a military strategist; Crocker is an Arabist diplomat; they might calculate the risks and prospects differently."

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2007 @ 1:46pm

9. "They say that timing is everything. So, is it merely coincidence that the Bush regime's staunchest ally, Osama bin-Laden, is set to release his latest production at the same time that David Petraeus will be testifying before congress?"

   http://tinyurl.com/2dofss

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2007 @ 1:53pm

10. This reminds me of the corrupt governments of South Vietnam that we wasted so many lives and dollars supporting.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/07/2007 @ 2:49pm

11. It's NOT a bad thing to have a relatively strong (vs. civilian institutions) & more secular Iraqi military.....----Posted by HAPPY 09/07/2007 @ 1:43pm

    You're right, it's not. You think in ANOTHER four years the Iraqis might have one???

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 2:51pm

12. HAPPY Math Time: Iraq's current estim. oil production is around 2 million bbl..... $70/bbl x 2 mbbl x 365 days = $51 BILLION!

    A fair point, but you've overstated the number. According to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, these are the numbers for export revenue (in $US billions)-- January 2007 1.89 February 2.11 March 2.75 April 2.75 May 3.05 June 2.87 July 3.39 August 1.92 This adds up to under $21 billion for the first 2/3s of the year, which extrapolates out to $30-31 billion for 2007. Last year the figure was $31.9 billion.

    This isn't a new problem. An article [csmonitor.com] in the Christian Science Monitor from 2005 pointed out a couple of factors-- "As the country with the world's second-largest known oil reserves, Iraq should be sitting pretty at a time of $60-a-barrel oil, analysts say. But they quickly add that Iraq's potential has been tamped down by a continuing failure to invest in renewing the country's decrepit oil infrastructure and an ill-conceived strategy of placing exports above oil-field modernization.

    In addition, some experts say that the problem of petroleum-products smuggling and oil- revenue theft is increasing as the highly centralized and dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein is replaced by one with less authoritative control and more room for tribal and partisan interests."

    Posted by brunowe at 09/07/2007 @ 3:38pm

13. Republicans: WRONG ABOUT IRAQ

    Posted by conshame at 09/07/2007 @ 4:49pm

14. It's NOT a bad thing to have a relatively strong (vs. civilian institutions) & more secular Iraqi military.....

    Posted by HAPPY 09/07/2007 @ 1:43pm

    Sure, until they turn those 200,000 guns Betrayus LOST on US.

    Then we'll see how much you love the "Iraqi Army".

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/07/2007 @ 5:34pm

15. He hopes the Bush Administration will pressure the Maliki government to follow the law "so no new dictatorship will be born".

    A nice start would be some comment from Bush and Sen's Durbin and Obama on extradition of Iraq's former minister of electriciy and friend of Illinois's Tony Rezko: Ahim Alsammarae [capitalfax.blogspot.com] back to Iraq.

    Posted by Bill Baar at 09/07/2007 @ 5:42pm

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/07/2007

    excellent info, thanks

    by the way, do you know what "al-qaeda" means in arabic?

    here's a hint: carl rove's strategy has been to motivate "al-qaeda" to vote with such issues as gay this, abortion that, and flag something or other.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 8:13pm

17. They say that timing is everything. So, is it merely coincidence that the Bush regime's staunchest ally, Osama bin-Laden, is set to release his latest production at the same time that David Petraeus will be testifying before congress?"

    http://tinyurl.com/2dofss

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/07/2007 @ 1:53pm

    WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2008

    SPECIAL ALERT:

    BASED ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS CHANGED THE TERROR THREAT LEVEL TO "FUCHSIA".

    WE REPEAT: THE TERROR LEVEL HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO "BLOOD RED"

    STAY TUNED FOR MORE INFORMATION AND PLEASE GO TO THE MALL TOMORROW!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 8:18pm

18. ATTENTION ALBERTO GONZALES

    WE'VE GOT THE JOB FOR YOU:

    FOR MORE INFO PLEASE CONTACT

    M_FARAJ@CPI.IRAQ.GOV

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 8:28pm

19. The 110th also sucks.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/07/2007 @ 9:00pm

20. I continue to be amazed that The Nation, which constitutes some kind of 'extreme left' in the US features a writer who seems to believe that because he is American it is his birthright to decide what government Iraq should have. Iraqis didn't exactly elect Maliki, who was the product of a lengthy period in which the US twisted arms to get a government it thought it could work with, given the constraints of election results. But Iraqis certainly didn't elect David Corn. The Nation should be debating how to get the US to leave Iraq, and how best the US can make up for the disaster it has created there, and the refugee crisis. Leave the coup-plotting to the Bush administration and the Democrats.

    Posted by threehegemons at 09/07/2007 @ 9:08pm

21. Posted by THREEHEGEMONS 09/07/2007 @ 9:08pm

    Where did David Corn call for a "coup" of Nouri al-Maliki?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 9:52pm

22. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 8:28pm

    LOL.

    Posted by THREEHEGEMONS 09/07/2007 @ 9:08pm |

    Did you miss the part a couple of years ago where , having been lied to about mythical wmd's, 70% of the American public wanted to decide the Iraqi government. They were cheerleaded into this by the neo-con cabal, who formerly were against "nation building". Now they are for it, but they are incompetent.

    Too bad happycoward can't view my response. It once again amazes and confounds me how the neo-con war mongers will excuse ANYTHING to fit their utopian theories in Iraq. No matter how much of THEIR money gets siphoned off in Iraq, they are cool with it. Let a petty story about Hsu hit the airwaves, involving none of the neo-s money, and they go apeshit. But, the Iraqi "government" has been stealing BILLIONS from us for 5 years, and it's all good to the neo-con war mongers who won't fight for their country.

    Why is that, neo-cons? How long would you let welfare recipients steal hundreds of dollars from you? How long would you support "welfare queens" as they fail to meet goals set by your guvt? Why do you hold American citizens to a higher standard than you do a bunch of corrupt Shia/Sunni? How many more GI's will you watch die while they support a failed, corrupt, doomed government while you sit on your hands counting your stock portfolios and bitching about paying taxes that are going into the coffers of Iraqi politicians and Iranian stooges?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2007 @ 07:59am

23. 6 years after he helped lead an attack on the US, Usama Bin Laden is putting out new dance videos. Who is in charge of bringing Bin Laden to justice?

    George W. Bush.

    " The video is a reminder of the dangerous world we lie in" should be:"Without Bin Laden I can't spread fear to help my party stay in power"

    amazing the failures the neo-cons will put up with if they think they are getting a tax cut. A tax cut that their children will have to pay for some day.

    results of the Iraqi war:

    Bin Laden free.

    4000 Americans dead.

    Billions lost

    Iraq in civil war

    Islamic jhadism on rise

    Iran more powerful

    Islamic fundies have gained power in elections across the ME

    no wmd's removed from the terrorist pipeline

    Al Qaeda in Messopotamia formed

    700,000 Iraqis dead, matching Saddams best (worst) years

    2,000,000 Iraqis have fled their country of birth, causing neighboring countries to strain under the influx of Iraqi ex-pats.

    Mission failed.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2007 @ 08:09am

24. hahah, freudian slip, that should be "... dangerous world we live in"

    But, the original is more accurate for ChimpCo.

    "the world we lie in.

    har!

    I remember when lying was considered a sin by the religious right. That was from 1992 to 2000. Starting Jan 20, 2000, lying became a virtue.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2007 @ 08:13am

25. Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2007 @ 07:59am

    i guess they fill their bongs with sailboat fuel.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 08:51am

26. lying became a virtue.

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2007 @ 08:13am

    lying became a virtue by virtue of their lying.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 08:53am

27. Will Happy take Osama bin Laden's advice and convert to Islam? Will Ron Paul and Osama form the anti-globalism causcus of the Republican Party. Does Bush want to give Osama amnesty? Will Rudi Guiliani where women's underwear in the Oval Office? Will Republicans elect the flip-flopping pro-choice stuffed suit Mitt Romney, whose boys are servng their country by donning campaign buttons are invading Iowa? Stay tuned.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 09/08/2007 @ 1:31pm

28. The Real Rudi [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by NeilSagan at 09/08/2007 @ 1:40pm

29. BTW, you aren't going to find any of the "29% Club" or neo-cons defending al-Maliki.

    He and the "corrupt Iraqis, but you know how THOSE people are" are the three legs of the revisionist history of the Iraq War that will be coming out from January 2009 until the end of time.

    The other two legs are "Dems in Congress in 2006-2008 undercut the OBVIOUS chances for victory" and of course "Hillary (or even Rudy/Fred/Mitt) cut and ran JUST as we were able to establish order".

    Bush?...faultless. The invasion?...justified. The insurgency?...absolutely UNFORESEEN.

    Hopefully the 70% of America that doesn't buy it now...won't buy it in the future.

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 10:39pm

30. hmmm, no more neo cons on this one.

    cut and ran?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2007 @ 11:27pm

31. Hopefully the 70% of America that doesn't buy it now...won't buy it in the future.

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2007 @ 10:39pm

    When will it occur to you that the "70% of America" that fits your `wishful thinking' doesn't exist? Even IF you think it REAL, your Dem Congress does NOT!! For a change, I actually agree with your Dem Congress folks....and NOT you!

    Posted by Happy at 09/08/2007 @ 11:46pm

32. HERE'S A TERRIBLE THOUGHT...

    The U.S. is NEVER going to leave Iraq. Not ever. It doesn't matter who wins in 2008, we're staying. We're stuck with the corruption and death there forever. All because the Israel lobby basically convinced the neocons here (who convinced Cheney who convinced Bush) that Saddam had to be destroyed. Completely and utterly, and the only way to do so was to invade Iraq.

    It should be obvious that I'm of the school that contends that it wasn't even "the oil," or at any rate the oil was very secondary -- and where is that, anyway? The basic political motive for the U.S. invading Iraq was to remove a major perceived threat to Israel, to wit, Saddam Hussein. And I read somewhere very recently that Israeli policymakers are actually cool with the situation as it now exists in Iraq, since the threat to THEM has been removed anyway, especially as long as Iraq remains the "failed state" that it now is.

    Anyway, that's NOT my terrible thought. Here's my terrible thought. Consider the fact that we still have a substantial contingent of troops in GERMANY for god's sake, a Western country, basically as the result of defeating Germany in WWII over sixty years ago. The same holds true for Japan. Another country where we have a substantial occupation force is South Korea. You can say, OK, but aren't these troops for the defense of these countries, etc., etc., etc.? But my point is that they're THERE and will likely remain there until the End Times or the U.S. ceases to be a major power in the world.

    My point is thus this. Whenever we invade (or even defend) a sizable country in a major way, WE NEVER LEAVE. In fact, I'd appreciate someone pointing out to me someplace that we've SUCCESSFULLY invaded and completely abandoned. Maybe there is one. I can't think of it offhand. Panama? The Phillipines? (But I think we still have a military presence in both of those places too -- wouldn't surprise me, anyway.)

    Bush has even compared Iraq to South Korea, indicating that he sees a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq basically until the aforementioned End Times. I'm guessing this will turn out to be more rather than less as well, given the totally chaotic situation there. But at any rate, I guarantee whether the Democrats or the Republicans win in 2008, WE WILL STILL BE IN IRAQ by the next election after that, in 2012. (That IS the End Times according to the Mayan calendar.)

    Hey, I told you it was a terrible thought.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 09/09/2007 @ 12:04am

33. ....terrible thought.

    Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/09/2007 @ 12:04am

    However "terrible" it maybe, it IS closer to reality! Just DON'T be a one-issue voter and be fatally disappointed when your issue dies rather terribly for you!!!

    Posted by Happy at 09/09/2007 @ 01:02am

34. Saddam had to be destroyed. Completely and utterly, and the only way to do so was to invade Iraq.

    Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/09/2007 @ 12:04am

    man, whatever happened to exploding cigars?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2007 @ 01:42am

35. In fact, I'd appreciate someone pointing out to me someplace that we've SUCCESSFULLY invaded and completely abandoned.

    Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/09/2007 @ 12:04am

    got one (and i searched to see if there was still a deployment but found none)

    from qwikipedia:

    "Aftermath

    Following the U.S. victory, Grenada's Governor-General, Paul Scoon, appointed a new government and, in mid-December, the U.S. forces withdrew."

    now, find it on the map.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2007 @ 01:50am

36. Well, happycoward, as we will be there for a while, it gives you lots of time to sign up.

    but you won't put your body where you loud mouth is, now will you? Nor wll you volunteer your kids to fight for what you believe in.

    Weak and sad.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2007 @ 10:01am

37. Haek, you won't even hold the Iraqis to ANY kind of standard you have for your neighbors and fellow countrymen. Or do you not have any standards, except for increasing your portfolio tucked safely away in your McMansion?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2007 @ 10:03am

38. good morning to all:

    a sad day in mexico, a few years ago

    the secretary told me,

    and so i ran to the t.v. (the one with the good reception)

    and i saw and didn't believe

    and i changed the channel

    but it wouldn't go away

    a crash? the chaos. the bystander standing by,

    hoping as i was, as you were (where were you?)

    dust, screaming, bewilderment, "MOVE, NOW!"

    as if one could put order to the insanity

    and yet time was frozen

    so much confusion

    yet time was frozen

    now the radio, too

    i called my wife

    "oye, no vas a creer lo que pasó"

    "i know" i said, "i'm watching CNN en español"

    and then, the rumours, the hope stopped.

    and the icy grip on time was shattered

    as the second testament to,

    what shall i call it?

    hate, malice, ignorance,

    nothing will suffice

    insufficient words suffer when faced with

    such a daunting task

    and people leapt one last time

    praying to land in the arms of those who wanted them back

    and time raced forward and backward--but with what aim?

    one cannot feel empathy for the dead,

    for death is theirs alone.

    but to those trapped, trapped

    because they forgot their lunch box

    or wanted to get a good start that day

    i felt their pain and fear and why? why? why?

    if only for a moment

    and then i could not share their pain

    now, no one could.

    we could only run

    my condolences to all

    fz

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 02:47am

39. Christ,FROSTY! Do you have to repeat long post on every thread!

    BTW, nothing personal, I don't tend to read most long posts (LRJones & SRJ excepted)....I know you have certain talent either of an original nature or cut-n-paste from elsewhere.....but you know what they say, time is money!

    Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 10:51am