Judge Radhi Testifies on Iraqi Corruption; GOPers Attack--UPDATE

posted by David Corn on 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (106)

Subscribe Now

On Thursday, former Judge Radhi al-Radhi, Iraq's top anticorruption official until he was recently forced out by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, appeared before the House government oversight committee and described what had become of people who had worked for him at the Commission on Public Integrity as they investigated crime and fraud within the Iraqi government:

Thirty-one employees have been killed as well as at least twelve family members. In a number of cases, my staff and their relatives have been kidnapped or detained and tortured prior to being killed. Many of these people were gunned down at close range. This includes my staff member Mohammed Abd Salif, who was gunned down with his seven-month pregnant wife. In one case of targeted death and torture, the security chief on my staff was threatened with death many times. His father was recently kidnapped and killed because of his son's work at CPI. His body hung on a meat hook. One of my staff members who performed clerical duties was protected by my security staff, but his 80-year-old father was kidnapped because his son worked at CPI. When his dead body was found, a power drill had been used to drill his body with holes. Waleed Kashmoula was the head of CPI's Mosul branch. In March 2005, a suicide bomber met with Waleed in his office...and then set off his vest [bomb], killing Waleed....My family's home has been attacked by rockets. I have had a sniper bullet striking near me as I was outside my office. We have learned the hard way that the corrupt will stop at nothing.

Minutes later, Republicans members of the committee were suggesting there was nothing unusual or shocking about corruption in Iraq. "Corruption is not a new phenomenon," remarked Representative Tom Davis, the senior GOPer on the panel. Another committee Republican, Representative Darrell Issa, huffed, "We're not surprised a country that was run by a corrupt dictator...would have a pattern of corruption." And Republican Representative John Mica noted that corruption plagues many democratic countries, including the United States. Mica cited Watergate and the prosecution of Reagan administration officials, and he claimed that the Clinton administration had "the most number of witnesses to die suddenly."

Their spin: corruption in Iraq is no big deal.

But Radhi in his testimony reiterated what he said in an interview with me several weeks ago: corruption is "rampant" within Iraq (perverting virtually every ministry and costing tens of billions of dollars); it's undermining the entire government and has "stopped the process of reconstruction"; Maliki has consistently blocked corruption investigations (especially probes involving his associates and family); in some instances corruption is "financing terrorism" by funding sectarian militias; and the situation is getting worse. Radhi noted that of the 3000 corruption cases his commission investigated and forwarded to Iraqi courts for prosecution, only 241 have been adjudicated. Also appearing as a witness at the hearing, Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, echoed Radhi, testifying that corruption within the Iraqi government is the "second insurgency." Bowen reported that corruption is on the rise in Iraq--partly due to Maliki's protection of crooked officials. He quoted one Iraqi official who said that "corruption is threatening the state."

That is, this is worse than Watergate. (And back then, no one investigating Richard Nixon's dirty tricks ended up dead and suspended on a meat hook.)

Radhi agreed with the Republicans that corruption was present during the days of Saddam Hussein, but he pointed out that the current corruption "is undermining my country." And he was not fazed when the GOPers tried to discredit his testimony. Republican Representative Dan Burton excitedly pointed out that Radhi had once served as a prosecutor during the Saddam years. (Burton did not mention that Radhi was twice imprisoned and tortured during the Saddam years and still bears the scars.) And Issa suggested that Radhi was appearing at the hearing (and offering testimony inconvenient for the Bush administration) in return for receiving backing from congressional Democrats for an asylum request Radhi recently submitted to the U.S. government for himself and family members.

Radhi came to the United States in August with ten of his CPI investigators for training sessions set up by the Justice Department. While he was in the Washington area, the Maliki government forcibly removed him from his post, accusing him of corruption and essentially stranding him with almost no source of funds. As one of his associates said at the hearing, "If Maliki is right and Judge Radhi stole millions of dollars, why did he have to check out of his hotel here when he couldn't pay the bill?" Christopher Griffith, a State Department official who worked with Radhi, in a pre-hearing interview with the House committee called Radhi "the most honest government of Iraq official that I have met in my 21 months in the country." Arthur Brennan, a former State Department official (and a past New Hampshire state judge) who worked with Radhi in Iraq, has called him "courageous, honest, and effective." Bowen dubbed him, "My most reliable partner....in Iraq."

The Republican attempt to taint Radhi was predictable. Radhi, who has praised the U.S. invasion of Iraq, said he has no political agenda. But his testimony raised a troubling question for the Bush administration: should the United States expend American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to create "breathing space" for a government that may be too corrupt to achieve political reconciliation or provide essential services to its citizens? As Representative Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the committee, put it, "We need to ask, Is the Maliki government too corrupt to succeed? And if the Maliki government is corrupt, we need to ask whether we can in good conscience continue to sacrifice our blood and tax dollars to prop up his regime."

In response to the Republicans' corruption-is-everywhere defense, Radhi maintained that the "issue is different in Iraq....The infrastructure in Iraq is almost equal to zero. Services in the country is almost equal to zero." He noted that Iraq is a wealthy nation and that its government recently had a budget of $71 billion. Yet, he added, this money has not been used to rebuild and revive the country. David Walker, the comptroller general and another witness at the hearing, tried to spell out why corruption is a significant matter: "When the United States has 160,000 troops on the ground and billions of dollars invested...we ought to be concerned [with corruption] because it can have a direct impact on the Iraqi government's ability to achieve the 18 benchmarks [established by Congress]."

The 62-year-old Radhi left the hearing room quickly after testifying, taking no questions from reporters. Gerry Sikorski, one of his attorneys and a former House member, said, "He took a very risky step coming here"--implying that Radhi or his relatives might face reprisals for his testimony. In a written statement handed out by Sikorski, Radhi said that "real corruption...is destroying my country. It is impossible to have both democracy and corruption at the same time."

At the hearing, Waxman released a committee memorandum indicating that the Bush administration has mounted no serious effort regarding corruption within the Maliki government. After conducting interviews with several State Department officials responsible for anticorruption activity in Iraq, Waxman's committee concluded that "dysfunction and disarray...appear to be frustrating U.S. anticorruption efforts." Former Judge Brennan, who briefly headed State Department's Office of Accountability and Transparency (OAT), told committee investigators there was no coordinated U.S. strategy for combating corruption in Iraq. Michael Richards, the executive secretary of the Anticorruption Working Group, an interagency task force, said that his outfit did not have a coordinator for half a year and that few officials bothered to attend its meetings. And according to the committee memorandum, for a while this summer the State Department's OAT was run by a paralegal who previously had mainly performed administrative tasks within the department. In his prepared testimony, Inspector General Bowen reported that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has been lackadaisical in its anticorruption efforts.

Yet after Radhi, Bowen and Walker were finished at the witness table, Ambassador Larry Butler, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, testified that the "Department of State has devoted considerable effort and resources to helping courageous Iraqi establish mechanisms and procedures to investigate and prosecute corruption." Butler did not have an easy task. But he stuck to his talking points, and--tougher still--he defended his department's refusal to cooperate fully with Waxman's committee.

Prior to the hearing, Waxman asked the State Department to provide witnesses and documents to his investigators. The department responded by claiming that previously unclassified documents about Iraqi government corruption were now classified (including the U.S. embassy draft report detailing extensive corruption within the Maliki government that I first disclosed in this column) and that any information provided by a State Department officials about corruption in Iraq would have to be classified (meaning it could not be discussed at a public hearing).

Writing to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Waxman contended that this was absurd and outrageous. He argued it was ridiculous for the State Department to claim it could not answer even general questions about Iraqi corruption within a public setting. At the hearing, Waxman hurled a series of queries at Butler. What effect does corruption have on the Iraqi government's ability to achieve political reconciliation? Has Maliki obstructed any corruption investigations? Does the Maliki government have the political will and capability to root out corruption? Is corruption funding the insurgency? Again and again, Butler replied that he would be delighted to answer these questions in the proper setting: a classified hearing behind closed doors. This information, he explained, was secret because its disclosure would "endanger" U.S.-Iraqi relations.

Noting that Rice had previously praised Iraqi anticorruption efforts in public, an upset Waxman declared, "If you say something negative about the Maliki government, it's classified, but if it's positive, then it's not." Representative Stephen Lynch, a Democrat on the committee, angrily remarked, "Do you see the irony here? You've established [for Iraq] a committee on accountability and transparency. But here...you're claiming there is a level of confidentiality...and we cannot tell the American people what we're doing with their money." Butler would not be moved. He kept declining to say anything about corruption in Iraq and its impact on the U.S. efforts there. "Secretary Rice," Waxman warned, "is going to have a confrontation with this committee....The executive branch must answer the questions of the legislative branch."

Well, maybe. In the meantime, it's unclear what will become of Radhi. He has several lawyers working pro bono on his immigration status (and that of his family members). And with the Iraqi government refusing to pay him the retirement benefits usually awarded former government officials of his rank, he will have to find a way to support himself in the United States (assuming he stays here). Moreover, it's not certain what impact, if any, his testimony will have on the ongoing debate in Congress concerning George W. Bush's Iraq policy and the administration's latest funding requests for the war. There were several reporters--but not many--at the hearing.

During his testimony, Radhi said he does not favor a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But he did say that the Iraqi government can only function effectively if "professional technocrats...qualified to perform vital government services" are placed in charge. And by his own account, that is not happening. He estimates the Iraqi government is meeting 2 to 5 percent of its obligations--with the rest of its activity committed to waste and fraud.

So Radhi is, as Waxman noted, a man "without a country," and he's also a man caught between his desire (a clean and functioning Iraqi government backed by the United States) and his view of reality (a corrupt Iraqi government that's a threat to him and his family and that does not deserve the support of the United States). By design or not, his testimony does undercut the Bush administration's rationale for the so-called "surge--as would any public examination of corruption within the Iraqi government. Which is why the State Department is in fierce battle with Waxman and why this matter will not end with Radhi's testimony.

According to a Radhi associate, Radhi left the committee room believing he had done the right thing. Even as he was depending on the U.S. government to process his asylum request, he had delivered Congress a straight message that happened to be rather inconvenient for the Bush administration. Then hours later, he received disturbing news: his son, who had been trying to obtain political asylum in England, was ordered by the British government to return to Baghdad. That's where people connected to Radhi have been kidnapped, tortured and killed. "For Judge Radhi," the Radhi associate said, "this put his day on Capitol Hill in a very different light."

UPDATE. From my www.davidcorn.com blog: Two days after former Iraqi Judge Radhi al-Radhi testified in Congress about the rampant corruption within the Iraqi government, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki struck back. On Saturday, Maliki, who weeks ago forced out Radhi as Iraq's anticorruption chief, announced his government will prosecute Radhi for smuggling documents, for libeling Maliki, and for engaging in corruption himself.

This is not a new strategy for Maliki. A year ago, the Iraq government accused Radhi and the Commission on Public Integrity that he ran of corruption, but the charges went nowhere. (According to a now-confidential U.S. embassy draft report, Radhi's CPI passed an audit with flying colors.) And Radhi's work and integrity has been endorsed by a number of U.S. officials who worked with him, including Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. By the way, there is documentary evidence showing that Maliki's office has blocked dozens of Radhi's prosecution cases. (Apparently, Maliki is upset that Radhi has copies of these documents and shared them with U.S. congressional investigators.) As for the charge of personal corruption, Radhi shows no signs of having run off with any money. After being stranded in the United States by the Maliki government--which removed him from his post while he was in Washington at the invitation of the Justice Department for a training session--Radhi had to leave his hotel because he could not afford the bill. Friends of his in the United States are now trying to figure out how to raise money for him.

The question is, why is Maliki pursuing Radhi with such vengeance? Yes, Radhi has declared that Maliki's government is so corrupt it ought to be abolished and has accused Maliki of personally stopping corruption investigations targeting his associates and family. And Radhi's appearance on Capitol Hill last week did generate several news stories inconvenient for the Maliki government. But Radhi and his comments have not gotten as much attention as they deserve. From a political perspective, it might have been better for Maliki to ignore Radhi and hope the former judge (who was twice tortured during the days of Saddam Hussein) would slip off into obscurity. Instead, Maliki is pursuing Radhi, and this pursuit will raise Radhi's profile. (I see a 60 Minutes segment in all this.)

Radhi appears to have really gotten to Maliki. More important, Radhi's claims and evidence warrant more notice. As a Washington Post front-page story shows, Iraq's government is unable--and seemingly unwilling--to achieve political reconciliation. If it is also as corrupt and dysfunctional as Radhi says--and the available evidence supports him--then there is no reason for the Bush administration to be supporting the Maliki government and asking American soldiers to die for it. With his anti-Radih crusade, Maliki is digging a deeper hole.

Comments (106)

Thanks for a powerful post David.

It has been abundantly clear to anyone with their eyes open and their brains engaged that the Iraq occupation has been an unmitigated disaster of world historic proportions.

Even more alarming --for Americans at least-- is the condition of American government that has allowed such a travesty to unfold, and our corporate owned media's passivity in the face of such an overwhelming injustice.

It is our own political/economic system that should be the focus of any inquiry that wishes to understand the root cause of the Iraq debacle.

Sadly, a proper inspection is more likely to come via post mortem than from any genuine attempt to fix the problem preemptively.

The current American presidency has breached its Rubicon, and no one in view is proposing a rollback.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/05/2007 @ 01:12am
Republicans are fucking morons. Obviously!!!!!!!

Posted by Waltz at 10/05/2007 @ 01:38am
And corrupt. And they hate government. Which is why they should get out of government and leave it to people who care about what they are doing.

Posted by Waltz at 10/05/2007 @ 01:49am
wow.

heartless.

a man of such courage and honour will be reduced to a taxi driver (if he's lucky)

heartless.

wow.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 02:06am
David Corn, Excellent article. And once again, we see that sharks protect their own. The rethugs don't see anything wrong with corruption because they wrote the book on it. They accused the Clinton administration of killing people but yet didn't have a shred to prove it. In this case, the evidence of corruption is so overwhelming that they can't deny it. All these assholes can do is say, well, well, well, Clinton did it too. What a bunch of moronic lying losers.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/05/2007 @ 06:53am
Thanks, David. This story also undercuts the juvenile condescending attitude here at "home" that the Iraqis aren't "doing enough." The problem isn't lack of will on the part of the Iraqis--the problem there is the same as here in the U.S.: an oligarchial kleptocracy. But we'll have to wait for a change in government here before the Iraqis get a change in government there.

Posted by John Sullivan at 10/05/2007 @ 09:36am
Few comments from our 29% Club?!?!?

You'd think they'd attack Radhi...except he's not for a US withdrawal so they can't say he's "part of the liberal's cut & run amen chorus"...

You'd think they'd say the corruption is "no big deal"....except they go after William Jefferson for a dollar amount that wouldn't amount to a TIP in Iraq.

Or you'd think they'd have some "evidence" (from "The Weekly Standard" no doubt) that things are getting better in Iraq on corruption....but...they don't?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 10/05/2007 @ 09:41am
This is a very good article. The issue is so serious one doesn't wish to comment lightly. It's always helpful to the public to see the real people involved and the choices they face.

Posted by RLawrence at 10/05/2007 @ 10:32am
....flap with the limbaugh smear of troops who disagree with him....

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 10:27am

NO time to post but FRANKS' Rush Hate-Fest requires a quickie....from Rush's radio broadcast yesterday on the REAL "phony soldier" had a REAL agenda...and looks to me, the Left once again, bought it hook, line and sinker....From today:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I kind of glossed over this, but the phony soldier being discussed on this program since last Wednesday, Jesse MacBeth, was born as Jesse Al-Zaid in 1984. Now, he did something interesting in January of 2006. After he told all of these lies, after he lied about his Purple Heart -- the guy never got out of boot camp. He washed out after 44 days. He was never a Green Beret, Special Ops, never anything, never went to Iraq. The whole thing was manufactured. Obviously, he had to do this on purpose with the intent of discrediting the US military. Now, these are the people, before they learn the truth, the Democrat Party embraces, sad to say. So he tells all these lies about all these soldiers that he saw hanging innocent civilians from the rafters of mosques and all this.

His words were spread all over the world on the Internet, they were translated into Arabic, and I'm assuming here that Al-Zaid is an Arabic name. So what we have here in the case of Jesse MacBeth, who, by the way, was originally embraced, he was like a hero to the anti-war left. They loved spreading the lies. Are there any retractions coming from them now? No. And there won't be. The truth is inconvenient. It is fiction that propels the anti-war movement, ladies and gentlemen. But in January of 2006, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, and he was welcomed into this group. It should raise questions about the mission. The Jesse Al-Zaids of the world do not represent most vets and those serving now. So he joins this group, and they welcome him. I don't know that he will ever be denounced by these guys.

END TRANSCRIPT

Posted by Happy at 10/05/2007 @ 10:38am
excellent work Mr. Corn. If only the rest of the "liberal media" would pick this story up and broadcast it to the main street republicans. There are many Old School repubs that don't find corruption acceptable.

Can't wait to read the slander of Judge Rahdi and the defense of Iraqi corruption from our very own neo-cons, who hate to see THEIR hard earned tax money wasted on childrens healthcare when it could be used to prop up an Islamic state.

I am sure Bill/Hillary did something similar that can be used to defend the Maliki "government".

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 10:51am
Ah, leave it to HAPPLESS to spew some more Junkie talking points from the frothing pie hole of the head of the Wingnut Gassbag Brigade.

Get a life, jackass.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 10:54am
Happy,

Nice try..to post the truth here is a waste of electrons...some of us appreciate the efforts and as you can see, the rest..well, you know.

The only words missing from Jesse or El-whatever are..

allah akbahr...and even then, thses guys would even notice...

Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2007 @ 10:59am
or wouldn't they?

Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2007 @ 11:00am
Posted by HAPPY 10/05/2007 @ 10:38am

You quote Rush Limbaugh? BUWAHAHAHAHAHA. Jesus, what a maroon.

So, Happy, why don't you wax eloquent about:

Jessica Lynch going down in a hail of bullets and then being rescued from rapists and republican guards.

How Patrick Tillman died from gunshots from Taliban

How the tens of thousands of litres of anthrax were destined for the US subway system

How Max Cleland was drunk and dropped a grenade on himself

How Murtha was a "fake" soldier

How the Clintons had Vince Foster killed

How we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, brought about by the nookyular program that "no doubt" exists

How victory in Iraq is just around the corner.

*****

You do realize that it is YOUR money, made from the Perfect Stock Market, that is being WASTED in Iraq, don't you? Or do you realize that it is your childrens, and your grand childrens money being borrowed from Commies and Islamists that is being WASTED in Iraq?

no, you just count your beans and refuse to fight the good fight.

Rush. HAHAHAHA. Unbelievable. Really. Why don;t you crawl back up Coulters skirt and stay there.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:00am
JOHN, I know you hate guvt waste, where is your outrage? Would it help in Maliki formed a union? Would that get you attention?

Don't you think we owe this judge a lot? shouldn't he be given a green card and a place to live for a few months, maybe an office til he can get back on his feet. Like Chalibi? Unlike Chalibi, this guy is not a wanted felon. This guy put his life, and his families life, on the line.

Unlike you and HAPPYCOWARD,

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:04am
RUSH:"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" (TV, Feb. 23, 1994).

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:08am
During the September 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, in response to Media Matters for America's documentation of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh further asserted that "Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point." To support this claim, Limbaugh purported to air the "entire" segment in question from the September 26 broadcast of his show. In fact, the clip he then aired had been edited. Excised from the clip was a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of the 1 minute and 50 second discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his reference to MacBeth, the full audio of which can be heard here .

Prior to airing the edited clip, Limbaugh said: "Here is, it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy." After the clip ended, Limbaugh stated: "That was the transcript from yesterday's program,

....LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there

Really? Where?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 10:27am

FRANK, you and I agree on a few...disagree on a lot more, but there are only TWO things that really SCARE me about you. (and no, one isn't your crushing on "Akasha" Rodham)

1. This continual claim (and/or desire) to "destroy the republican party"...which sounds an AWFUL lot like Rove and his "permanent majority". I thought progressives FEARED (as I do) a "one party system"...you seem to want it to happen.

Now I know you claim you'd favor another "progressive 3rd party" emerging....as long as it was WELL after 2016 and Her Nibs' re-election....but if you really wanted it, you'd want it now.

and second is your call for censorship of Rush Limbaugh (and other right-wing radio I assume). Limbaugh was aptly described by Mr Al Franken once, was seeing a decline in his ratings under the GOP Congress and Bush, and frankly has "jumped the shark"...

but to call for his CENSORSHIP, should be opposed by any true progressive...any true libertarian...and really anybody who holds dear the American ideal of free speech, ESPECIALLY political speech.

That too is scary stuff, FG.

Posted by Mask at 10/05/2007 @ 11:18am
Of course Rush the drug addict will take one person and make him out to be an entire movement. I have to assume that these groups are all fake too:

http://www.ivaw.org/--Iraq veterans against the war

http://www.vvaw.org/-- Vietnam veterans against the war

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

ALl of these guys must hate America. It is the only possible conclusion.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:22am
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:25am
The silence from the neo-cons on the corruption of the Iraqi guvt is deafening.

It's all good. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Just billions of dollars going down the toilet. Lets' focus on the real Bad Guys, the teachers unions and workers of America.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 11:33am
They're hoping of they keep quiet the Don will "give them a taste".

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 11:43am
"Corruption is not a new phenomenon."

Neither are mass graves, but you wanted to launch a full-scale invasion because of 'em. Something needn't be new to be a crisis.

"We're not surprised a country that was run by a corrupt dictator...would have a pattern of corruption."

Well, funny how you didn't mention this before we invaded. It would have been nice if the American people knew that the "democracy" we were going to install was going to be corrupt to the core and be putting people on meathooks (now, these meathooks, are they in the "rape rooms"?)

Republican Representative John Mica ☼ noted that corruption plagues many democratic countries, including the United States.

Yes, a country of 300 million people has corruption. No shit. Iraq is, what, the size of California? If Arnold were killing anyone who spoke out against him or tried to investigate him, what would you say then, Mica?

Mica cited Watergate and the prosecution of Reagan administration officials, and he claimed that the Clinton administration had "the most number of witnesses to die suddenly."

Wow, this is off the deep end. Is Mica accusing the Clinton administration of murdering witnesses? Or is he merely making an observation about statistics? If the former, he'd better be prepared to back up such a statement (and he can't); if the latter, he's just flat wrong (the Mob, among others, are well ahead of any President).

What a pile of shitheads we've got running things. I am afraid that America has reached its peak and is serious decline. Time to learn Chinese.

Posted by BlueSpark at 10/05/2007 @ 12:41pm
well, indeed a certain amount of corruption is unavoidable in this corrupt old world...

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO FIGHT IT!

wow...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2007 @ 1:12pm
SIGIR 07-015T Page 1 of 9

TESTIMONY OF STUART W. BOWEN, JR.

SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

"ASSESSING THE STATE OF IRAQI CORRUPTION"

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

OCTOBER 4, 2007

"...This past August, I visited Iraq for the 17th time since my appointment three and a half years ago as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. While in Baghdad, I met with key Coalition and Iraqi officials on the subject of corruption within the Government of Iraq. SIGIR has regularly reported on Iraqi corruption in our past 14 quarterly reports, and we have conducted two audits of U.S. support to Iraq's anticorruption institutions.

The Second Insurgency

Since mid-2003, Iraq has struggled against a violent insurgency. Corruption has concomitantly afflicted the Iraqi government, exerting a corrosive force upon Iraq's fledgling democracy. SIGIR has described that force as the "second insurgency." Prime Minister Maliki recently echoed this sentiment, referring to his country's struggle against corruption as "the second war in Iraq."

It is instructive to note how the anti-war brigade here operates. It seems to have been totally unaware that corruption in the Iraq government and its departments (and beyond) was identified and has been the focus of much work by your own "anti-corruption specialist" Stuart Bowen and his office, and others, since 2003. You may notice, from the above excerpt, that he has visited Iraq 17 times and issued 14 quarterly reports.

Your prissy over reactions indicate that you had been asleep on this issue until David Corn gave you a chance to minutely recover from the shock and awe reaction that you have been suffering, over the obvious set backs caused by the good news out of Iraq and Congress's inaction or inability to make your wildest (or even more moderate) dreams come true.

My suggestion is that you read all this report. Get yourselves informed and be prepared for more "bad" news as the grand war on the "second" insurgency is prosecuted by Americans, better equipped, for such a task, than your mob could ever imagine. I don't know about Republicans but I can assure you that anyone who understands how democracy works, knows that corruption in a nation's government, its agencies and in its business community, is inimical to its proper formation, functioning and growth.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/05/2007 @ 1:39pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 1:39pm

So, LRJ, are you saying we need a "Surge" of anti-corruption experts sent in....and they'll fix it (or reduce it by 5%) in ANOTHER 4 years?

Posted by Mask at 10/05/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 2:06pm

I tend to think of Rush as Joseph Goebels.....

Wasn't he the "Propaganda Catapulter" for Hitler?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 2:44pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 1:39pm

Nice try, Leeroy, but your argument holds no water. We "ant-war" types have been talking about Iraqi corruption for years. If, in fact, "our" guvt had been doing it's job, corruption would have decreased. It has not. The fact that the republicans in these hearings went after Radhi should be of concern to you, they are holding their hands over their ears, not us.

Waxman has issued many reports describing the corruption. He has openly criticized our "corruption Czar" for NOT doing his job. This Czar has kept some things secret. There is no doubt in my mind that what they want kept secret does not make them look good. Waxman has been belittled by the repubs, and here, for doing what should be done, hold people accountable. But that is considered "anti-war".

Sorry. Please continue to enlighten me as to the workings of this world you live in.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 2:47pm
Please continue to enlighten me as to the workings of this world you live in. --- CW

I've heard tales of a pleasing pink sky, time running backwards, and the truth being entirely malleable

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 2:49pm
Yes, Clear Channel is all about freedom of opinion. they have no history of squashing those that question the government of George W. Bush.

I have a bridge for sale. It comes with some prime Palm Springs beach front property. Neo-cons, are you in?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 2:50pm
I don't know about Republicans but I can assure you that anyone who understands how democracy works, knows that corruption in a nation's government, its agencies and in its business community, is inimical to its proper formation, functioning and growth.

Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 1:39pm

We don't have corruption in our country.

now you understand why the republicans don't get it.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 2:53pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 10/05/2007 @ 2:49pm

a world where Saddam hussein and Usama Bin Laden were allies. A world where flying colored horseys will come from the sky bringing love and Armageddon from the One True God.

A fun place where no oil drilling is allowed in the US, and AL Gore invented Willy Horton.

A world where democratic witch hunters brought down the good, pure, honest, forgetful Scooter Libby and now they are going after Senator Craig.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/05/2007 @ 10:59am

you don't think god is great?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 3:15pm
Time to learn Chinese.

Posted by BLUESPARK 10/05/2007 @ 12:41pm

Sparky, Well said, and I couldn't agree more. P.S We would need to learn Mandarin, not Chinese.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/05/2007 @ 4:01pm
The corrupt perv repubs in congress, while in charge for 12 years, climaxed their tenure by folding our US Constitution for the hsuB/cHeney admin to use as tp. That they fain hypocritical dismay at Radhi's testimony of analogous corruption, is not surprising but rather conclusive of their culpability.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2007 @ 4:19pm
"A fun place where no oil drilling is allowed in the US, and AL Gore invented Willy Horton."

*snort*

*chortle*

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/05/2007 @ 4:40pm
GRITFORBRAINS,

Rush only got on AFN in the first place because the troops repeatedly requested him, and they only get 1 hour of his daily 3 hour show as it is....As far as I'm concerned, Rush is already being censored by the likes of you...you should be happy about that...(heh,heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 10/05/2007 @ 5:39pm
.(heh,heh)

Posted by DAVEBARLETT 10/05/2007 @ 5:39pm

Are you Beavis or Butthead?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 5:46pm
Or perhaps their love child?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 5:49pm
Which is it, Davey me boy?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/05/2007 @ 6:14pm
Yeah well the Iraqi gov did learn from hsuB/cHeney:

"However, the Red Cross's findings on U.S. detainee treatment have leaked repeatedly, presumably from opponents of the Administration's interrogation techniques who had access to them. In those reports, the ICRC has consistently and repeatedly asserted that some U.S. techniques amount to torture. ICRC spokesman Florian Westphal declined to comment on the reports but said, "The dialogue between the ICRC and the U.S. on all matters of detention has always been very vigorous. Where we felt that there were things that needed to be addressed, we did so." It's not a minor dispute. Every time Bush asserts that the U.S does not torture, he is not just undermining his own credibility, he's diminishing the Red Cross too. "It's a downward spiral," says Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First. "If I'm the ICRC and I'm visiting [abused] prisoners in, say, Egypt, the Egyptians will say 'What are you going to do? The U.S. says this isn't torture.'" Worse, if a dictator in some god-forsaken part of the world captures an American soldier, the U.S. may protest. But it is the Red Cross's assertions of a violation that will be the immediate point of pressure on the captors. "What it virtually guaranteed is that dictatorships will cite the U.S. government's own arguments to defend themselves and that will make it harder for the ICRC and everyone else to condemn and shame those governments," says Tom Malinowski, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch."

http://tinyurl.com/2gwfam

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2007 @ 6:37pm
Hey Frank:

"And the hits just keep on comin'.

Listening to Rush at the top of his show today was a feast for the ears for anyone covering the wingnut P.T. Barnum's "phony soldiers" implosion. Straight out of the gate Rush admitted he doctored the tape, proving Media Matters is not only correct but that Rush Limbaugh will do anything to duck the truth. But it gets better.

Guess why Rush doctored the tape?

Ready?

After he said the "phony soldiers" line, he was "vamping" while Mr. Snerdly printed off a transcript. That's right, the broad gap between "phony soldiers" and Rush actually mentioning one, which has become his lying alibi, is all because Limbaugh was "vamping."

It gets better.

Immediately after admitting he doctored the tape he went on a full scale wingnut screed against former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and former general Wesley Clark, calling him "Ashley Wilkes," as Rush is known to do. Proving again that whenever a soldier disagrees with Rush or Republicans strategery, no matter how bad, that veteran gets attacked, smeared or swiftboated. No doubt Rush is peeved that Clark wants him off AFR.

Rush's continual aversion to the truth continued on Monday night's ABC News with Charles Gibson. Via Think Progress:

(Limpaw): "Not one member of the media, not one congressman, nobody has called our office to ask, "Did you really say this? And what did you mean by it?"

In fact, MSNBC called Limbaugh for comment, but he stiff armed the request.

The slurs continued yesterday on Rush's show when he compared VoteVets.org veterans against the war to "suicide bombers."

So today on and on Rush blathered. He's paddling as fast as he can but he's not getting anywhere."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26332

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2007 @ 6:44pm
Yep, GOP'ers, just keep tapping along:

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/10/another-toe-tap.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2007 @ 6:46pm
corn, this is the best reporting you've done. thank you.

the truth is there is no iraqi government. there is the u.s. occupation forces, and the street.

i only hope god will forgive us one day - and that we have somehow earned that forgiveness - for our heinous crimes against Judge Radhi, his family & friends & co-workers, and the iraqi people as a whole.

please keep us informed as to mr. radhi's future, such as it is...

Posted by Scrub at 10/05/2007 @ 7:09pm
by "heinous crimes", i realize it is the insurgency or the shia militia or whoever who are brutally murdering and torturing the people involved with mr. rahdi's efforts. but our complicity in all this - and how we are discarding him like oil sludge - is beyond disgusting. no words for it, really.

Posted by Scrub at 10/05/2007 @ 7:12pm
excellent work Mr. Corn. If only the rest of the "liberal media" would pick this story up and broadcast it to the main street republicans. There are many Old School repubs that don't find corruption acceptable.

Can't wait to read the slander of Judge Rahdi and the defense of Iraqi corruption from our very own neo-cons, who hate to see THEIR hard earned tax money wasted on childrens healthcare when it could be used to prop up an Islamic state.

I am sure Bill/Hillary did something similar that can be used to defend the Maliki "government".

Posted by CRABWALK 10/05/2007 @ 10:51am

Neurons on the blink today Crabs? The "Republicans" didn't know about corruption in Iraq? And they were getting quarterly reports from 3 or 4 years ago? There may not be much Martha Stewart or Enron style corruption in your country but there certainly seems to be a fair bit of lying/self delusion/problems adding 2&2. As I told you before we Aussies might be dumb but stupid we ain't.

As far as the good judge goes, if you can't get any satisfaction from the neo-cons, why don't you make up your own slander? I'm sure you wouldn't find that a novel or distressing experience.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/05/2007 @ 7:54pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 1:39pm

Nice try, Leeroy, but your argument holds no water. We "ant-war" types have been talking about Iraqi corruption for years. If, in fact, "our" guvt had been doing it's job, corruption would have decreased. It has not. The fact that the republicans in these hearings went after Radhi should be of concern to you, they are holding their hands over their ears, not us.

Waxman has issued many reports describing the corruption. He has openly criticized our "corruption Czar" for NOT doing his job. This Czar has kept some things secret. There is no doubt in my mind that what they want kept secret does not make them look good. Waxman has been belittled by the repubs, and here, for doing what should be done, hold people accountable. But that is considered "anti-war".

Sorry. Please continue to enlighten me as to the workings of this world you live in.

Posted by CRABWALK 10/05/2007 @ 2:47pm

You really do need a lot more work done on you Crabs. I can only assume there is still a bit of Russian in you all, so can only guess that the Czar, you mention, is the IGIR. My suggestion to you is to initially by pass the commentary from Waxman and read your IGIR. Then see if Waxman is having you on or not.

More generally this investigation, including the contributions by the "Waxmans" and Judge Radhi is just what the doctor ordered, because democracy in Iraq is one of the goals of the neo-cons and the great leader himself. Thus eliminating corruption is a vital cog in achieving that end. (That Repubs challenge Waxman is quite a healthy tactic, which not only helps to identify bullshit, if he is indulging himself, but also strengthens Waxman's claims if they can be shown to stand up when challenged).

As far as taking so long and seeming to get worse, may I remind your lot that you have been trying to get your soldiers out of Iraq for over four years and it seems to be getting "worse (from your perspective) all the time. You, of all people, should know things like this take time and patience.

If you read the 4th Oct 07 IGIR report you will notice that, though he paints a sombre picture of the present reality, he does outline some existing positives and a course of action that should be pursued by the Iraqis, particularly those Iraqi organisations that are presently involved in the anti-corruption arm of the government, which if implemented will improve the situation.

(You of course are not totally unaware of the American companies in Iraq, such as Parsons, that could probably teach the Iraqis a thing or two about corruption, so whatever you may think, it is a human problem not essentially an Iraqi one. What you (the US) have in place are checks and balances and regulation in government and business plus effective law enforcement agencies that make sure the Enrons of your country get the chop. If you didn't have that structure in place you would make Iraq look, in comparison to the US, as corrupt as a bingo night at the local Catholic Church hall. Those structures including relevant laws and effective enforcement are what need, according to the IGIR, to be established in Iraq.)

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/05/2007 @ 8:51pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 8:51pm

So the system is working you say. It's okay that billions of dollars have gone unaccounted for and little reconstruction has been done. The U.S. government was clearly not designed to build more democracies. Our bureaucracy is just not set up for that purpose and does not function well in that purpose. If Maliki is truly as bad as he is made out by some and the government in Iraq is really this bad, we cannot let Bush and Cheney run the show anymore. We must impeach them and hope that the next administration can undo some of the damage. Also what is this IGIR report you speak of? I can't find it.

Posted by Waltz at 10/05/2007 @ 9:11pm
Was that clear enough for you?----Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 1:54pm

Perfectly...and a reason I fear both Right AND Left a lot.

Posted by Mask at 10/05/2007 @ 9:35pm
The Federalist Society and ACLU is suing Armed Force Radio (AFR) for removing the Rush Limbaugh show from AFR programming. AFR is a government agency and the first amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe the freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

I don't agree with Limbaugh's act or his divisive and polarizing polemic but when it comes to free speech and the first amendment, I'm with the Federalist Society and the ACLU.

Posted by NeilSagan at 10/06/2007 @ 12:12am
SO CORRUPTION IS NO BIG DEAL FOR REPUBLICANS...

Why do I find that so easy to believe? Is it because the current Republican administration is the most corrupt in American history? Is it because the Republicans exported their endemic corruption to Iraq during the U.S. occupation? Hey, just business as usual, right Dick? Right Dubya?

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/06/2007 @ 12:19am
Posted by NEILSAGAN 10/06/2007 @ 12:12am

WHAT A STUPID ARGUMENT...

It's been conclusively demonstrated time and again that taking a given personality off the air more or less for whatever reason is in no way an infringement of their freedom of speech. Rush Limbaugh can still say what he damn well pleases when he damn well pleases, and I'm certain he will. If he were being denied ALL access to any media whatever BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS that would be an infringement of his free speech, but that isn't the case here. It doesn't matter if it's Armed Forces Radio or whatever. Besides, the military itself has the right to vet what its troops read and hear, as well as what they are allowed to say. It's not the same as civilian life by a long shot....

The ACLU often shoots itself in the foot like this by defending the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who, I am certain, would certainly never return the favor....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/06/2007 @ 12:29am
Sadly, Rush and his ilk will always have an eager audience in the ranks of those who need to be told what to think.

Ergo - ditto-heads.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/06/2007 @ 01:14am
So the system is working you say. It's okay that billions of dollars have gone unaccounted for and little reconstruction has been done. The U.S. government was clearly not designed to build more democracies. Our bureaucracy is just not set up for that purpose and does not function well in that purpose. If Maliki is truly as bad as he is made out by some and the government in Iraq is really this bad, we cannot let Bush and Cheney run the show anymore. We must impeach them and hope that the next administration can undo some of the damage. Also what is this IGIR report you speak of? I can't find it.

Posted by WALTZ 10/05/2007 @ 9:11pm

W,

You do in fact have a pretty good system, including checks and balances, for picking up and removing the perpetrators of corruption in government and in the private and corporate sectors and it is probably as alive and well under the GW Bush administration, as it was under any other. eg Jack Abramoff at the government level and a Republican to boot and Enron in the corporate sector.

Your Senate and House Committees also play a role in this process regardless of who is in the WH. The Iraqis in the end will have to do this for themselves. However the US can certainly help in setting up the legal, auditing and enforcement structures needed to control corruption in Iraq.

Corruption robs the common people of their fair share of the financial cake so you can be sure that Iraqis will be following via TV, radio, newspapers and the internet what is going on in the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with great interest. That in itself is a powerful didactic on corruption for Iraqis. So these investigations have aother purpose beyond providing fuel for the Bush bashers and guidelines for Iraq.

This URL for the Oct 4th 2007 SIGIR report:

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/testimony/SIGIR_Testimony_07-015T.pdf

This one for other SIGIR reports:

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/testimony.aspx

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2007 @ 01:55am
If you read the 4th Oct 07 IGIR report you will notice that, though he paints a sombre picture of the present reality, he does outline some existing positives and a course of action that should be pursued by the Iraqis, particularly those Iraqi organisations that are presently involved in the anti-corruption arm of the government, which if implemented will improve the situation.lrjones

Of course there are signs of progress in a report by chimpCo. Wouldn't be PRUDENT to be a member of ChimpCo and NOT put signs of progress in your report, real or imagined. Do you think maybe one course of action would have been to keep Judge Radhi in his job? Or defend his family from the insurgents? Instead, your boy Maliki chased him out of the country.

this is YOUR war, YOUR corruption. Don't try to make it ours. It won't fly.

However the US can certainly help in setting up the legal, auditing and enforcement structures needed to control corruption in Iraq.

and that is why people like you and HAPPY should go there and help set these systems up. But you won't, will you?

Corruption robs the common people of their fair share of the financial cake so you can be sure that Iraqis will be following via TV, radio, newspapers and the internet what is going on in the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with great interest. That in itself is a powerful didactic on corruption for Iraqis. So these investigations have aother purpose beyond providing fuel for the Bush bashers and guidelines for Iraq.

Perhaps you could explain why the republicans were so harsh to Judge Radhi? Why do they fight congressional oversight of US corruption tooth and nail?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 08:33am
LeeRoy, could you tell me why, if these reports detail ongoing corruption, there has been no action on it from ChimpCo. Why has no funding request come with "benchmarks" for anti-corruption? Why has no funding been cut when the Iraqis are unable to get the corruption under control? Why has Halliburton been able to continue to overcharge the US taxpayer?

enlighten me, Oh Wise One. For I am confused. IF Chimpy knows about the corruption, why does he do nothing about it? Why will he not work FOR Judge Radhi and get him a free pass into our country?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 08:43am
There are still military in Iraq that think we went there to find wmd's, and that we found them. Of course they want to listen to Rush, it feeds their fantasies.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 08:48am
How's this for a powerful didactic on corruption:

"The problem you had in California was caused by a combination of things--an unwise regulatory scheme, because they didn't really deregulate," Cheney said in the May 17 Frontline interview. "Now theey're trapped from unwise regulatory schemes, plus not having addressed the supply side of the issue. They've obviously created major problems for themselves and bankrupted PG&E in the process."

When asked whether it was possible whether energy companies were behaving like a "cartel" and if some of the high power prices in California could be the result of manipulation, Cheney responded with a resounding "no."

turns out, the energy "crisis" was created by manipulation by energy companies, including ENRON, Reliant ansd Williams Energy Companies.

Maybe the Iraqis are learning from their puppet masters.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 09:05am
Perhaps you could explain why the republicans were so harsh to Judge Radhi? Why do they fight congressional oversight of US corruption tooth and nail?

Posted by CRABWALK 10/06/2007 @ 08:33.

You'd have to ask them but if you really wanted to know if Radhi was on the level wouldn't you want to test him out in the same way? At least they were earning their pay. This is the approach of one of them which seems to me have some merit given that he wants to help the present government beat corruption, presumably, through the measures suggested by your SIGIR and the deliberations of this committee:

Republican Tom Davis said it is not enough to point out Iraq's culture of corruption.

"Good government and democrats in Iraq don't need to be lectured by this committee on the extent of corruption in their country," said Congressman Davis. "They need our help in building the structures, policies and processes to fight it."

Some Republicans had/have doubts about Rahdi's bona fides so that may account for their aggressive approach in committee. It seems that every American involved professionally with Radhi believes that he is above reproach.

There are quite a few sections of the SIGIR report that mention some Iraqi positives as well as steps, such as more adequate funding and training of Iraqi anti-corruption staff and agencies but space limits us to several. The entire report needs to be read to get these quotes more fully into context but they do show the general tenor of the SIGIR report:

"Iraq's anti-corruption agencies face significant capacity and resource shortfalls. Enormous training shortfalls exist in the important fields of investigations, audit, and management. The Government of Iraq must remedy the problems of insufficient staffing and inadequate budgets if these institutions are to succeed."

"Despite these grim challenges, there are some limited signs of progress in Iraq on the anti-corruption front. Investigators and auditors have begun to receive more training. The BSA just completed a World Bank training program in Jordan; and the BSA has organized 57 training programs for more than 800 employees over the past two years. The inspectors general have formed the Iraq IG Organization, and its chairman is conducting assessments of each IG. Of recent note, a Joint Anti-Corruption Council was established this summer within the Office of the Prime Minister, an apparent positive move forward, but one that still requires clearer direction and more robust support from the Prime Minister."

"Managing the anti-corruption support activities of the various U.S. agencies is complex and requires a clear strategic plan. SIGIR found, however, that no strategic plan for this mission was ever developed. Moreover, there was no program of planned activities, no framework for outlining the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies, and no integrated budget identifying the resources needed for implementation. There exists a recurrent problem with "stove-piping" among the federal agencies working on anticorruption efforts in Iraq; and coordination among military advisors, embassy personnel, and PRT representatives is hampered by staff shortages and organizational disconnects."

"Despite these largely negative findings, SIGIR did find that the anti-corruption efforts within the Ministries of Defense and Interior are more robust than those within other ministries because of resources provided by the Department of Defense through the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC-I). The other ministerial IGs share a single U.S. advisor."

It is an extremely useful report in that it identifies deficiencies and offers solutions, some as radical as new Iraq anti-corruption legislation (some of which is in the legislative pipeline) others that require better use and co-ordination of resources.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2007 @ 11:21am
"Despite these grim challenges, there are some limited signs of progress in Iraq on the anti-corruption front. Investigators and auditors have begun to receive more training

Greaaatt News there Leeroy. After 4 1/2 years, things are beginning to have limited signs of progress.

"Managing the anti-corruption support activities of the various U.S. agencies is complex and requires a clear strategic plan. SIGIR found, however, that no strategic plan for this mission was ever developed. Moreover, there was no program of planned activities, no framework for outlining the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies, and no integrated budget identifying the resources needed for implementation.

Whose job was it to set up these programs? ChimpCo.

You are making my points for me LeeRoy. Thanks. Keep up my education.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 12:58pm
Now, if Arab countries had a history of corruption, then I would understand ChimpCo's unwillingness to set up ant-corruption efforts years ago. but Arab countries are uncorrupt.

Buwahahahaha.

who woulda seen it coming?

A Franco-Armenian architect who spent years building military cities in Saudi Arabia, asked to describe what that country was like, replied:

"Money can buy everything."

And then he added: "Except civilization."

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 1:02pm
Isn't this sweet:

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, members of the Saudi royal family were scattered all over the United States. Some had gone to Lexington, Ky., for the annual September yearling auctions. The sale of the finest racehorses in the world had been suspended after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, but resumed the very next day. Saudi prince Ahmed bin Salman bought two horses for $1.2 million on Sept. 12.

Go shopping, good advice for all Saudi Billionaire Wahabists. Especially those that are buds with Chimpy McFlightsuit.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 1:10pm
Waxman is not stealing anything. He is one of the few that actually give a damn and is not singing just to sing. Do a little research on him and then see if you still think he is full of hot air.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 2:19pm
Republican Tom Davis said it is not enough to point out Iraq's culture of corruption. "Good government and democrats in Iraq don't need to be lectured by this committee on the extent of corruption in their country," said Congressman Davis. "They need our help in building the structures, policies and processes to fight it."

The irony is that the structures, policies and processes supporting corruption were put in place by the U.S. Why would any Iraqi think the U.S. would want to change that? Both Democrats and Republicans, and anyone getting an investment dividend has profited from ongoing military action - somewhere, anywhere in the world.

The U.S. doesn't manufacture, produce, or make money any other way. U.S. corporations have made more money in Iraq in less than 5 years than they have in two decades. Most of congress benefits from those structures, policies and processes - including Bush, Limbaugh, Waxman, Kerry and Clark.

War is BIG business.

Posted by du2vye at 10/06/2007 @ 5:23pm
his own brethren.

Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 3:02pm

Name some names. Show me were Waxman has benefitted from Iraqi corruption.

I am not aware of Waxman being corrupt at all, other than being a career pol. Show me were I am wrong and ya got me.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/06/2007 @ 09:32am

IN ESSENCE, RUSH LIMBAUGH...

Makes up "facts" to support his illogical arguments....

I'm starting to believe that conservatism and, especially, neoconservatism in America are actually personality disorders disguised as political perspectives. Because these perspectives seem to me to stem more from a basic attitude towards life -- one that arises out of a wholly selfish disregard for the rights of other people as well as a kind of uncritical worship of militarism in all its guises. It is basically the attitude of the schoolyard bully writ large and propped up with logically flimsy argumentation and made-up "facts" (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly).

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/06/2007 @ 6:41pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 5:53pm

You got me! My name is Mr. Prince.

damn those meddling kids!

Some more names:

Uncle Bucky Bush

Prince Bandar (Bush)

More later if you want.

I am under no illusions about Waxmans sainthood. But I will await your proof of his war profiteering.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 7:49pm
I am not aware of Waxman being corrupt at all, other than being a career pol. Show me were I am wrong and ya got me.

Posted by CRABWALK 10/06/2007 @ 5:28pm

Crabs I tend to agree with you about Waxman though if you check you will find that he is sponsoring US citizenship etc for Radhi and his family (along with a few other Democrat pollies). I'm not suggesting even a whiff of corruption in that but did think that Waxman has been really impressed with Radhi. That just tends to make me a little cautious that he may be seeing Radhi through rose tinted glasses. Despite that my reading of it, and as far as I can ascertain, is that Rahdi is OK in terms of integrity.

A contributing factor in Rahdi's position, apart from treading on corrupt toes, may well, have its origin in a personality clash with Maliki and some of his present Iraqi adversaries.

The important thing of course is to remember that even when Radhi was head of the CPI, corruption was growing in the government so in that context he is not a crucial loss in the fight against corruption in Iraq. My suggestion is that if the Waxman Committee's recommendations are acted upon both by the US administration and the Iraqi government, Rahdi's important contribution will have been as a high profile attention grabber and the fight against corruption will be taken up by other brave Iraqis.

(Just noticed how you worked out LeeRoy. Very clever, I must say, I thought it was probably a local rabid dog's name. I once noticed LR also sounds like Allah but that would be blasphemous so leeroy it is).

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/06/2007 @ 8:42pm
I find little wrong with Waxman sponsoring someone who put his life on the line collaborating with the US.

I find a lot wrong that 4 1/2 years on, it is necessary.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:18pm
You show me where Mr. McFlightsuit and VP Chainsaw have benefited from Iraqi corruption. Name me names of their brethren who have profited from the Iraq disaster!

Always happy to oblige when it to comes the misdeeds of the Bush clan:

Neil Mallon Bush the younger brother of the President, infamous for his involvement in the Silverado S and L scandal, has been hired by Crest Investment Company as a consultant for $60,000 per year to assist with their efforts to serve as a middleman to advise other companies that seek taxpayer-financed business in Iraq. Working with Crest puts Neil Bush at the center of multiple organizations profiting from the war and occupation in close alliance with long-term Bush Family allies.

Crest Investment is headed by Jamal Daniel who is a principal partner in New Bridge, a Houston, TX based company with offices in Iraq and Kuwait. The main focus of New Bridge is to advise companies that seek opportunities in the private sector in Iraq, including licenses to market products in Iraq. The company highlights that the Coalition Provisional Authority decision to allow foreign companies to establish 100 percent ownership of businesses in Iraq, an unusual arrangement in the Mideast, has added to the attractiveness of the market. The company describes itself by saying:

" New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq." (See: http://www.newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp ) .

New Bridge Strategies , is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March 2003. Earlier he was Chief of Staff to then-Governor Bush of Texas Other directors include Edward M. Rogers, Jr. vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to President George Herbert Walker and now have close ties to the White House."

*Neil also famously admitted in court papers that he accepted prostitutes from the Chinese guvt. He just didn't know they were hookers, just random women that happened to knock on his hotel room door.

***William H.T. ("Bucky") Bush, an uncle of George W. Bush, joined the board of directors of the St. Louis based company Engineered Support Systems in March 2000. (See: http://www.engineeredsupport.com/) Bucky Bush was one the Bush "Pioneers," the campaign contributors who raised more than $100,000 in the 2000 presidential election. Engineered Support Systems has three areas: light military support equipment, heavy military support equipment, and electronics/automation systems. Since 2000, following the presidential election and the 9-11 attacks, the company's federal contracts, revenues and its stock value have all gone up. Engineered Support Systems has been in the top 100 contractors with the DoD since 2001. It's contracts with the U.S. military have totaled over $1 billion.

*****William H.T. Bush is also a trustee for the investment firm Lord Abbott, one of Halliburton's top 10 shareholders and also a top-ten mutual fund holder in Halliburton, which has obtained prime contracts in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, still has between $18 million and $87 million invested through Vanguard, another top-ten holder in Halliburton stock.

******

Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush, shares an interest in federal contracts held by companies in his firm's portfolio. Marvin Bush is also an adviser at HCC Insurance, formerly called the Houston Casualty Company, one of the biggest insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Bush was a director at HCC, which has benefited financially from the 9-11 insurance bailout legislation passed by Congress at the instigation of the White House. The departure of Marvin from the HCC board was announced the same day, November 22, 2002, as the passage of the bill.

Marvin Bush is co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm which is part of a larger firm called the Chatterjee Group. (See http://www.winstonpartners.com/. ) According to SEC filings, the Chatterjee Group consists of Winston Partners, LP; Chatterjee Fund Management, LP; Winston Partners II LDC, a Cayman Islands-based company; Winston Partners II LLC; Chatterjee Advisors LLC; Chatterjee Management Company; Mr. Chatterjee himself; and Furxedown Trading Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Isle of Man. The address for Winston Partners II LDC is in the Netherlands Antilles. The other subsidiaries were organized in Delaware. Governor Jeb Bush is also an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which happens to be managed by Marvin's firm.

According to the Sept 30, 2003, issue of Mother Jones, an $80 million Iraq contract was awarded to Nour, a company which began in 2003 with ties to Winston Partners. Nour is an "international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and claims expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel."

In January, 2004, Nour was awarded a $327 million contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and Civil Defense Corps. However, not long after it was awarded, Nour came under heavy scrutiny because of questions involving the company's president and Ahmed Chalabi, of the US appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Newsday reported, Chalabi received a $2 million "fee" for helping to arrange a $80 million contract, that was actually awarded to a firm called Erinys International "within days" of being granted the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.

In addition, after the $327 million contract was awarded it was revealed that Nour had no prior experience in providing military equipment. Nour's response was it planned to subcontract its weapons procurement to the Polish firm, Ostrowski Arms – unfortunately, Ostrowski didn't even have a license to export weapons. After these concerns the Army decided to terminate the contract with Nour. This added to the delays in body armor and other equipment that have increased the risks for U.S. soldiers. In May 2004, ANHAM, a joint venture with Nour, based in Vienna, Va., was the winner of a $259-million contract to equip the new Iraqi army and security forces with guns, trucks and other equipment. Nour lists current Iraq projects with the Ministry of Oil, the New Iraqi Army, and Criminal Intelligence in Iraq, Security in Iraq. (See http://www.nourusa.com .

Now you show me yours.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:30pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 10:30pm

You might have a point, if they made a shekel off of us bloggers.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:33pm
pass the peanuts down to the end of the bar Marky. And the pickled eggs.

thanks.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:38pm
Who are the brethren he is covering for? What is the benefit Waxman receives from the war profiteers for holding hearings on war profiteering and corruption?

I told you, my name is Mr. Prince. I come from Michigan and am the brother-in-law of Dick DeVoss. You outed me, remember?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:48pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/06/2007 @ 8:42pm

I guess I would have more hope if most of the professional class had not already fled Iraq. They are the ones that would help root out corruption.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:51pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 10:49pm

third or fourth childhood. It's fun. Like you.

You asked for the names of Chimpies brethren that have profited from the Iraqi disaster. Now you have your knickers all twisted up.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:54pm
HAve fun at your end of the bar, Marky. Careful in the mens room, though. Keep a narrow stance. Should be easy with those panties all knotted up like that.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/06/2007 @ 10:59pm
i think flaying limbaugh for this 'phone soldier' is...well...phony. a bunch of BS. and i say this from the left.

so, Rush is an American fascist. the liberal/left hates this of course, but can't stop him, can't out entertain him, can't get a hold of his audience and influence them, and this makes them stay up late at night.

they latch onto a bunch of BS - where Rush is just referring to a couple of rogues who had spoken out in the moderate/liberal/left press - and now we thing we've "caught him". nice. all we do is increase his stature among his followers, drive up his ratings, get him practically a medal from the halls of Congress, and in the process of all this turn him into a self-righteous martyr. nice. nice work on the liberal/left, as always. what a bunch of clowns. they wouldn't know how to take on American fascism if it showed up at their door with a salute.

meanwhile, moveon.org is praised for its Petraeus/Betray US stand. what a bunch of crap. first they call the Commander of Iraq 'Judas', then they come on the Ed Schulz Show (Air America) and claim it's "not personal". what a bunch of crap. calling someone 'Judas' - the military commander no less, whether true or not - and then saying it's "not personal". these people can't be trusted. would u want to jump into a foxhole with someone who calls someone 'Judas' and then says it's "not personal"? didn't think so. then they whine like mamas when the Congress calls their BS, crying all the way to the bank by raising money off of it. nice. make it worse for all of us (they helped to ruin the Petraues debate; what a bunch of clowns), and then ask for more money. with friends like them, we might as well toss in the towel.

dylan has said for 40 years to beware the "liberal secular humanists". why? because a) at least you know where you stand with a fascist; b) a "lib sec humanist" will call u "judas" (as they did him), and then say it's "not personal"; and c) they have no faith. can't trust them. in fact, they only make it worse.

anyway, that doesn't leave many options. maybe we can get the psychopath to put impeachment back on the table. until then, save your money and for the love of God stop turning Rush Limbaugh into a martyr....

Posted by Taboo at 10/07/2007 @ 06:47am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/07/2007 @ 12:20pm

First, always curious as to what LAW you think Limbaugh is breaking to earn a place in jail...."saying things that are bad"?

Second, I think I figured it out, FRANK....

You don't particularly like Hillary Clinton. You just hate Limbaugh...and Limbaugh hates the Clintons, especially her....ergo, ispo facto....you MUST support her.

It's not about her...it's about El Rushbo!

Posted by Mask at 10/07/2007 @ 2:49pm
Rush Admits Doctoring Tape

Listening to Rush at the top of his show today was a feast for the ears for anyone covering the wingnut P.T. Barnum's "phony soldiers" implosion. Straight out of the gate Rush admitted he doctored the tape, proving Media Matters is not only correct but that Rush Limbaugh will do anything to duck the truth. But it gets better. Guess why Rush doctored the tape? Ready? After he said the "phony soldiers" line, he was "vamping" while Mr. Snerdly printed off a transcript.

10/4/2007

Posted by NeilSagan at 10/07/2007 @ 9:40pm
oh, you knew that...

Posted by NeilSagan at 10/07/2007 @ 9:48pm
far as the good judge goes, if you can't get any satisfaction from the neo-cons, why don't you make up your own slander? I'm sure you wouldn't find that a novel or distressing experience.

Posted by LRJONES4 10/05/2007 @ 7:54pm

LRJ

As you profess to being an Ausie, why do you give a shit one way or the other about American Forces in Iraq? Futhermore, if you are truly an Ausie, why aren't you out there fighting with your tough troops?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2007 @ 10:01pm
Posted by MASK 10/05/2007 @ 9:35pm

So what is it? You think that it's ok for Limbaugh to censor veterans but it's not ok to kick his ass off AFN?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 10:36pm |

Frank, DOn't waste your time with this. Actually, it called AFRTS, American Forces Radio and Television Sytstems, at least that is what it was called back in the day when I was in the A.F. Anyway, the troops all know, or least most of them know, that what they see on that network is all "wind and smoke".

Sorry, had to take that line straight off Das Boot. What else would the DOD / Pentagon put on their "publica communications network"?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2007 @ 10:08pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/07/2007 @ 12:20pm

First, always curious as to what LAW you think Limbaugh is breaking to earn a place in jail...."saying things that are bad"?

How about Slander? That's the Karl Rove, George Bush, GOP punchline. They float out false accusatons through their political network and when the damage is done, they pull the old Pontius Pilate of the situation and say they had nothing to do with it.

But, they knew of what their political hacks like Karl Rove and the GOP destroy machine were doing all along. They just don't want to get their fingers dirtied up in the process.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/07/2007 @ 10:18pm
As you profess to being an Ausie, why do you give a shit one way or the other about American Forces in Iraq? Futhermore, if you are truly an Aussie, why aren't you out there fighting with your tough troops?

Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/07/2007 @ 10:01pm

How're they hangin Wolfie. Got no one else to talk to tonight? Not still in that cupboard are you?

Your troops will always get my support when they are engaged in a noble cause.

Why I am not in the Aussie contingent in Iraq:

1. If someone else is going to do my fighting and dying for me I want it done by highly skilled professionals with an aptitude for killing the enemy or whatever else is required. I couldn't kill a chicken if I was starving to death so my aptitude as well as my training is not in that area.

2. If I was with the Aussie contingent in Iraq, who would sort out your mob's crazy ideas?

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/08/2007 @ 03:16am
If Maliki is truly as bad as he is made out by some and the government in Iraq is really this bad, we cannot let Bush and Cheney run the show anymore. We must impeach them and hope that the next administration can undo some of the damage...

Posted by WALTZ 10/05/2007 @ 9:11pm

Here is a clip from this article.

Radhi appears to have really gotten to Maliki. More important, Radhi's claims and evidence warrant more notice. As a Washington Post front-page story shows, Iraq's government is unable--and seemingly unwilling--to achieve political reconciliation. If it is also as corrupt and dysfunctional as Radhi says--and the available evidence supports him--then there is no reason for the Bush administration to be supporting the Maliki government and asking American soldiers to die for it. With his anti-Radih crusade, Maliki is digging a deeper hole. [End of clip from article]

Who picked out the candidates for president and all that anyways? I would really like to know that. The Iraqis or the Americans? And then there's Chalabi of Course. He got paid millions of dollars by the U.S. government and then fed them lies in return. Who chose that guy? People in the Bush administration?

Posted by Waltz at 10/08/2007 @ 10:25pm
That is actually a pretty good article that he linked there in the Wall Street Journal.

Posted by Waltz at 10/08/2007 @ 11:35pm
1. If someone else is going to do my fighting and dying for me I want it done by highly skilled professionals with an aptitude for killing the enemy or whatever else is required. I couldn't kill a chicken if I was starving to death so my aptitude as well as my training is not in that area.

2. If I was with the Aussie contingent in Iraq, who would sort out your mob's crazy ideas?

Posted by LRJONES4 10/08/2007 @ 03:16a

Just as I suspected LRJ. You are a chickenshit who wants others to fight and die on your behalf, but don't have the balls to do your own fighting.

I used to be one of those "trained professional killers" you mentioned, meaning that I served in the U.S. armed forces, but I can tell you that I never killed anyone, nor do I wish to. I guess killing is for guys like you who like to kill by other peoples' hands. What a brave soul you are.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2007 @ 07:29am
I used to be one of those "trained professional killers" you mentioned, meaning that I served in the U.S. armed forces, but I can tell you that I never killed anyone, nor do I wish to. I guess killing is for guys like you who like to kill by other peoples' hands. What a brave soul you are.

Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/09/2007 @ 07:29am

Wolfie whether you like it or not, while you are in civvy street your soldiers are doing "your fighting and dying for you", in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, despite whatever service you did for Uncle Sam in the past.

In fact like me you also seem to be a bit squeamish about the killing part. In which case you and I can better help the war effort by working hard at what we are trained for and competent at. In this way we can directly or indirectly provide employment for others, build the economy of our respective countries and pay our taxes to support "the boys (and girls) over there". They will, each one I'm sure, do a better job, fighting and killing (when required) than either of us.

I notice the normally very sane Mr.Ibble is pining for the good old "amateur army" aka "citizen's army" days, which sounds to this Aussie as being undergirded by something akin to a lynching or posse mentality. That may, when you think of it, (others on the left, no doubt, can easily fill in the details for this line of reasoning) be a part of why America seems to be constantly at war, including a bloody civil war (my justifiable US wars are WW2, Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps one or two others that slip my memory right now).

Perhaps one reason the military is much closer to your government and its deliberations about foreign policy, than in some other nations, traces back to the strength of the "citizens army" idea in the American psyche. Conversely the idea of a highly professional military, that is relatively, politically disinterested, and as, for example, we have in Australia may make for fewer wars.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/09/2007 @ 11:47am
LRJ, I am able to fight at my age now, and would probably be a lot better at it now than I was in my 20's. But,I wouldn't raise a finger against an unknown enemy. We are in two countries, neither of which was responsible for the September 11th attacks.

If we were really after those responsible for September 11th, we would be starting with Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudi's including Bin Laden. This brand of lunatic Islamic fundamentalism that promotes killing infidels is supported by Saudi Arabia.

The Bush administration ties to the Saudi royal family is there for the public to see. What really unnerves me is that Bush senior still has access to top secret information while conducting business with Saudi Arabia. Once again, kind of a conflict of interest or outright treason going on there.

I don't think any ex presidents should be allowed access to information when a new president is in office, nor should they be able to seal or hide information from the next president as so many of our corrupt presidents have done in the name of national secuirty. It's more a question of covering their asses in the name of national security.

Our nations economy runs on defense spending. The Pentagon pulls in the lions share of tax reveunes (the ones that we are allowed to see). Obviously, the people whetting their beaks off this venture do not wish to see it change and therefore, we always have to have the boogie man out there to get us in order to convince us tax payers that we should invest so much of our national resources to defense spending.

We have become a nation controlled by fear of war and more directly put, war on the home front to the point where we will sacrifice everything it is to be called an American in the name of protecting against that fear. How does the saying go, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? Well, the powers that be have played the fear card extremely well in this country for a very long time and will continue to play it as long as profits can be made off that fear.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
lol iraq is a justifiable war? we have enough lying wingnuts over here. go play with a croc.

Posted by pretzel at 10/09/2007 @ 1:21pm
"iraq is a justifiable war?"

Only if lies, lies and more lies justifies anything, eh?

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/09/2007 @ 3:11pm
Only if lies, lies and more lies justifies anything, eh?

Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 10/09/2007 @ 3:11pm

No. There was a moral case, for those who have or can even conceive what a moral conscience is, to remove the totally unacceptable human rights violating Baathist regime. That issue transcends the whole WMD, issue which at best was based on American self interest.

And that moral case still exists until those who are presently using the same terrorising methods against the Iraqi people are neutralised or defeated.

Your position is not new in America, as even in WW2 there were large proportions of your population who sought to salve their consciences, perhaps as you are doing, by claiming Hitler was being slandered by lies. You may be able to convince yourself with the subterfuge that the war was started on a foundation of lies and by repeating that mantra over and over dodge around the true moral issues but many of us cannot.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/09/2007 @ 4:03pm
Guards working for an Australian-owned security company fired on a car as it approached their convoy Tuesday, killing two women before speeding away from the latest bloodshed blamed on the deadly mix of heavily armed protection details on Baghdad's crowded streets.

Too bad there isn't an argument that will wring someone's neck.

How about some Howard Zinn People's History excerpts:

Pg. 612 "A Harris/Harvard School of Public Health poll of 1989 showed that most Americans (61 percent) favored a Canadian-type health system, in which the government was the single payer to doctors and hospitals, bypassing the insurance companies, and offering universal medical coverage to everyone. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party adopted that as its program, although both insisted they wanted to "reform" the health system."

So me now they were talking about reform for the health care system in 1989. :-) Talk Talk Talk. A bunch of b.s. they feed us and don't buy it. Find out the truth. Someday we have to figure out how to solve our problems without killing each other. They could have assassinated Hitler. They didn't even try to take out the concentration camps. Big business. Money. Can you imagine what the insurance companies would say to the above plan? They have big money invested in the current system. BIG MONEY. Howard Zinn: "A survey by the Gordon Black Corporation for the National Press Club in 1992 found that 59 percent of all voters wanted a 50 percent cut in defense spending in five years. Neither of the major parties was willing to make major cuts in the military budget." pg. 612 Republicans claim to be against big government but they are not. The military budget is huge. They are against education, and healthcare, and programs for the poor, or at least funding any of it through poor peoples' taxes. Who do they work for? Not us. These three issues represent a pittance of our budget so by cutting those programs how can one claim to be against big government? Where are the priorities?

Posted by Waltz at 10/09/2007 @ 7:32pm
"There was a moral case"

Yeah, stopping the WMD's that they knew were not there.

When I hear someone start speaking of moral war I wonder what moral means to the warmongers?

Please - extrapolate on the moral case for lying America into a war of aggression to prevent Saddam from . . .

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/09/2007 @ 7:46pm
Did you know only 50% of the people vote? After the election where Gore lost it's not even worth it anymore. That election probably cost a million people their lives.

Posted by Waltz at 10/09/2007 @ 10:32pm
Let's give the Republicans a 100% landslide victory for them to gloat with! They'll be like take that left! We'll be like, "wow...we didn't even vote...you guys are amazing...go invade some countries and steal all our money...thanks."

Posted by Waltz at 10/09/2007 @ 10:34pm
go invade some countries and steal all our money...thanks."

Posted by WALTZ 10/09/2007 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person

I hope some serious Republicans are listening, like Candidates or the CIA or FBI because this is what we think of you.

Posted by Waltz at 10/09/2007 @ 10:45pm
When I hear someone start speaking of moral war I wonder what moral means to the warmongers? Please - extrapolate on the moral case for lying America into a war of aggression to prevent Saddam from . . .

Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 10/09/2007 @ 7:46pm

There is no need to wonder, all you need is to do a bit of investigating yourself.

The moral argument has to do, not with what Saddam and his Baathist Party might possibly have done to the USA (incidentally you Americans can't be too bright if you bought that argument. The US could have wiped him and his WMD (which would have had to be old technology weapons) off the map at the touch of a button or a flight of bombers) but rather what he had being doing to his own people for most of his barbaric rule.

The problem with you CK, along with most of your anti-war cohort, is your gross ignorance of your own political history. Read the "Iraq Liberation Act 1998" and you will get all the moral reasons, you need for a valid justification for the Iraq war.

You really are like a bunch of uninformed kids who blame your own pre-war stupidity on being lied to when in fact you failed dismally to see the holes in the WMD argument viz. the impossibility of Saddam harming the massively counter- armed US even if he had WMD.

Beyond that you did not realise then, and apparently still don't know, that your own Congress gave you real, moral and valid arguments to remove the Baghdad Butcher and his Baathist Party from power in Iraq.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/10/2007 @ 04:25am
You really are like a bunch of uninformed kids who blame your own pre-war stupidity on being lied to when in fact you failed dismally to see the holes in the WMD argument viz. the impossibility of Saddam harming the massively counter- armed US even if he had WMD.

Beyond that you did not realise then, and apparently still don't know, that your own Congress gave you real, moral and valid arguments to remove the Baghdad Butcher and his Baathist Party from power in Iraq.

Posted by LRJONES4 10/10/2007 @ 04:25am

First, LRJ, pushing 50 hardly makes me a kid. Secondly, most of the people of Iraq didn't stand up against Sadam. He was a brutal dictator, but we (the U.S., Great Britain, and your country, Australia) all support brutal dictators when it is to our advantage whether it be precious metals, minerals oil etc.

It only becomes a moral issue of removing a dictator like Sadam when he doesn't play ball like he's supposed to, kind of like Chavez in Venezuala.

You are the one who is acting like the naive school kid. Do you think any governments on the face of this planet give a crap about what is moral? If you do, you are really being played for a sucker. Besides, morality is somewhat relative to individual people and time. What was moral 100 years ago may not be considered a moral thing to do now. Times change. One thing that doesn't change however is killing for greed, wealth and power.

Governments are controlled by a select few who profit quite handsomely off the system in place whether it be a democracy, communistic state, socialistic state or dictatorship. If you had a king or dictator who put the needs of the people first, you would probably have a great kingdom.

Look at the U.S. right now. What the people of this country want is not what happens despite polls and our votes. That pretty much shows that the people of the U.S. are no longer in charge of this "democracy" which means it is only democracy for show. What the real form of government we have here is run by big business. I don't know if these businesses get equal votes or representation in this system, or how their influence is measured, but lobbyists and corporate America control both parties and the citizens don't have a choice other than to elect one of the stooges put forward by corporate America to vote for.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/10/2007 @ 07:16am
If you cannot answer just say so.

No reason to imply insults.

I am not ignorant and I am well read. Laws are not moral nor are governmental actions by fiat or majority.

So, I would query again - Please - extrapolate on the moral case for lying America into a war of aggression to prevent Saddam from . . .

Take a swing at an answer or are insults and arrogance your "A" game?

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/10/2007 @ 07:32am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 10/10/2007 @ 07:16am

My reference to being LIKE uninformed children was directed in general to the "we were lied to" anti-war crowd, who miss two things that prompted that comparison.

1. Even if Saddam did possess the WMD, your intelligence agencies were sure he had, and which assessment they passed on to Congress (NIE Oct 2002), there is no way that these presented any threat to mainland USA (for the reasons I mentioned). So to keep insisting that you were lied to and that those "lies" allowed the war to proceed fails to get anyone off the hook for assuming, at the time, that Saddam's WMD presented the slightest threat to continental USA, or its strategic position in the ME and beyond. To continue to claim otherwise is a measure of the rationality and maturity of those who keep "chanting" that mantra.

2. "Uninformed" is in the context of the moral reasons laid out, for example, in the Iraq Liberation Act 1998 (that Act does not major on WMD, but rather human rights abuses, as the reason for removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power) and of which you seem to be unaware. Bush took up the findings of this document in his pre-war speech to the UN in September 2002. So there is no doubt that politically aware informed Americans should have known that part of Bush's argument, for the Iraq invasion, was the human rights abuses of the Saddam regime in Iraq. Thus it was not an after thought justification, on his part, when no WMD were found in Iraq but was always part of the stated reason for removing Saddam from power.

I notice what you say about the entrenchment of militarism in the US, Britain and Australia and how you see it as benefiting one small class within those countries. I've noticed that the "big business" class and the few, who you suggest, run each country don't need continual wars to top up their profits eg they're doing very nicely right now out of getting into "greening" Australia much to the disgust of the Greens who thought this was its exclusive patch.

In Australia we don't glorify war heroes in the context of political office as you do in the US. I'm not into historiography but perhaps that factor is more influential than the suggested manipulating power of the "robber barons" for the US getting involved in so many wars.

Taking all that into account my view is that all those countries, including the Brits and Australia, that supported the Iraq war, did so in the context of 9/11 and consequently with some understandable paranoia and hence some exaggeration of the significance of Saddam, and his WMD. However the record of Bush's, Blair's and Howard's pre-war speeches clearly show that the horrific human rights abuses in Iraq by Saddam were part of the justification for going to war.

It is in that area that the moral justifications for the war are to be found and one needs to read up a bit to see that Bush was really taking seriously the cross party anti-Saddam bias and rhetoric that developed through the 1990s right up to March 2003. This was not prompted by big business or a shadowy controlling elite but by the informed consciences of your elected representatives.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/10/2007 @ 11:42am
""Iraq Liberation Act 1998" and you will get all the moral reasons"

LRJONES - do you know what morals are?

Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/10/2007 @ 11:51am
Take a swing at an answer or are insults and arrogance your "A" game?

Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 10/10/2007 @ 07:32am

If you got off your lazy backside and read a bit more widely about the pre-war information, that is readily available to all on the internet, you wouldn't continue acting with what appears to me to be child like repetitiveness and petulance. Also I can't help thinking you wouldn't know what a moral argument is if you tripped over one.

I'm sure the real Captain Kirk is more resourceful than you. I hope this little encouragement, I'm favouring you with, is the beginning of a journey of discovery for you.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/10/2007 @ 11:54am
It is in that area that the moral justifications for the war are to be found and one needs to read up a bit to see that Bush was really taking seriously the cross party anti-Saddam bias and rhetoric that developed through the 1990s right up to March 2003. This was not prompted by big business or a shadowy controlling elite but by the informed consciences of your elected representatives.

Posted by LRJONES4 10/10/2007 @ 11:42am

LRJ, You seem like a pretty good sort here. You really think Bush went into Iraq because of the human violations Sadam had been on record of committing. My hat is off to you.

Now, look what a humanitarian George w. Bush is by negating the rules of the Geneva Convention which prohibit torture of prisoners.

Bush has also broken various laws within the U.S. supposedly to catch terrorists at work via satellite eavedropping and other higher tech info gathering possiblities without tapping into peoples' communications links. Piezo devices work wonders.

Look at the atrocities Blackwater and other private contracting companies have done while in Iraq. Kicking peoples' doors in and scaring the crap out of them while hunting / guessing where insurgents may be hidden. We've terrorized the people of Iraq damn near as bad as Sadam and have killed scores more than Sadam.

So, while the intent may have been moral, we sure as hell haven't been.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/10/2007 @ 4:57pm
Posted by LRJONES4 10/10/2007 @ 04:25am | ignore this person

The difference between a compelling moral argument that makes a commanding case for declaring a pre-emptive war on a soveriegn nation and mere additional justification in addition to a purported WMD threat is the difference at hand in this case.

We take our leaders at their word. We have learned too late this president's word is worth nil. I heard Bush make the case in his SOTU address. I heard Powell make the case at the UN. I heard Congress debate the authorization of military force. The WMD threat was the prevailing concern.

Americans, as a matter of national security, did not feel the need to police Iraq, or Saddam's prior mass murders. No, war authorization was granted becuase of a dire threat on our safety, or so we were told.

Looks like Bush and Cheney wanted to secure oil reserves and break the OPEC cartel. If that is the case, can you make a moral argument that justifies war for that purpose?

Posted by NeilSagan at 10/11/2007 @ 01:15am
Posted by LRJONES4 10/10/2007 @ 04:25am | ignore this person

The difference between a compelling moral argument that makes a commanding case for declaring a pre-emptive war on a soveriegn nation and mere additional justification in addition to a purported WMD threat is the difference at hand in this case.

We take our leaders at their word. We have learned too late this president's word is worth nil. I heard Bush make the case in his SOTU address. I heard Powell make the case at the UN. I heard Congress debate the authorization of military force. The WMD threat was the prevailing concern.

Americans, as a matter of national security, did not feel the need to police Iraq, or Saddam's prior mass murders. No, war authorization was granted becuase of a dire threat on our safety, or so we were told.

Looks like Bush and Cheney wanted to secure oil reserves and break the OPEC cartel. If that is the case, can you make a moral argument that justifies war for that purpose?

Posted by NeilSagan at 10/11/2007 @ 01:17am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Judge Radhi Testifies on Iraqi Corruption; GOPers Attack--UPDATE

posted by David Corn on 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am

David Corn

Archives

» Altercation

» The Notion

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Capitolism

Judge Radhi Testifies on Iraqi Corruption; GOPers Attack--UPDATE

posted by David Corn on 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» Altercation

» The Notion

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Capitolism