Payments to ghost employees. Contractors overcharging by hundreds of millions of dollars on no-bid contracts. And billions in reconstruction money gone missing. The list of reasons for an Independent War Profiteering Commission just keeps on growing.

The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) disputed $263 million in charges from Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root for its $2.41 billion no-bid contract. Normally, the Army withholds between 55 to 75 percent of the monies flagged by the auditors.

So what did the Army do in this case? It withheld 3.8 percent of the payments. Yes, you read that correctly, 3.8 percent – meaning it paid all but $10 million of the charges in question despite the alleged corruption.

A spokesman for the DCAA told the New York Times that the decision was based on "broader business considerations" than the audits alone. A senior manager in the Defense Department translated this ambiguous statement, saying, "That's as close as DCAA can get to saying, ‘We're not happy with it either.' "

Could it be that "Sure Shot" Cheney was once again right on target when it comes to helping his Halliburton friends? Never mind that the company was charging three times more than its competitors for fuel transportation costs. It was a no-bid contract, after all, so who cares about the competition?

A few weeks ago I called for an independent war profiteering commission composed of current and former public servants drawn from across the political spectrum. Frankly, the Halliburton travesties alone justify such a commission. But the problems go well beyond Dick Cheney's former company.

Custer Battles, ordered on March 9 by a federal jury to pay $10 million in damages, is accused of bilking the government out of $50 million. Bechtel has hired three subcontractors who were fined more than $86 million in the past four years but are still somehow eligible for new contracts. And 60 Minutes revealed that $50 billion of taxpayer money – more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security – "has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops, and rebuild the country…with little or no oversight."

And let's not forget that $9 billion was simply lost – that's right, lost, gone, nowhere – by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Stuart Bowen, the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, reported the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were funded and that the CPA "failed to establish financial controls and transparency."

Sen. Patrick Leahy seems to understand why this is such an affront to all Americans. "[It's] clear that the Bush-Cheney Administration's approach to reconstruction in Iraq has been a formula for mischief," Leahy said. "Waste, fraud and abuse in the name of defense is doubly destructive and doubly offensive, and it should never be tolerated. It saps resources needed by our troops and it plays the taxpayers for fools, all the while hiding under the cover of national defense."

Leahy recently introduced the War Profiteering Prevention Act that would make these overcharges a felony punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and fines of $1 million or twice the gross proceeds of the crime – whichever is greater. Furthermore, any person who makes false statements about these contracts could be sentenced to 10 years in prison and the same aforementioned fines.

It's well worth supporting this legislation. But don't hold your breath that this bill will pass. Similar legislation introduced by Leahy was already killed in 2003 by the Halliburton White House and Republican House leadership.

And while the Custer Battles verdict is encouraging, it is unrealistic to think that whistleblower action alone will uncover the extent of the war profiteering. There is one way – and one way only – to get to the bottom of this: through a War Profiteering Commission led by public servants of all stripes -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--and let's include former veterans and members of military families.

At this moment of great division in our nation, let's unite against the kind of criminal and moral corruption that all decent citizens agree has no place in our nation.

Comments (88)

1. Could The Nation create a ranking of commissions and investigations it would like to see established to look into mistakes and corruption during the last 4 years? I can't keep track of them all and my ability to create a good Excel spreadsheet just isn't there.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/20/2006 @ 2:25pm

2. does cheney own stock in haliburton? this is an angle i think could yeild results...it is taxpayer money, into the pockets of war profiteers...they just hate taxpayer money going to poor and middle class, but when it further bloats the already bloated?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 2:29pm

3. This isn't war profiteering - it's money laundring. If Dick Cheney had proposed simply gifting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to Halliburton because he liked them and, oh yeah, he was still on their payroll - I don't think many Americans would have gone along with that. So Cheney needed a plan and the plan called for war. So far, his scheme has worked brilliantly.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/20/2006 @ 2:32pm

4. At this point, I'm just going to call this stuff "filler until November".

   Ms vanden Heuval wants an independent war-profiteering commission? Okay, figure out how to get Democrats the majority in Congress and they'll do it.

   But this dovetails nicely with her LAST article talking about Hillary Clinton pushing an agenda in November and Ms vanden Heuval not liking that HRC isn't pushing Iraq harder.

   So, Hillary listens to Katrina and says "Okay, we'll drop the other stuff, like health care, New Orleans, etc to 'secondary'...and push harder on Iraq, despite the fact that nobody showed for the anti-war protests this weekend"....then Democrats lose Congress AGAIN in November, because they're listening to "The Nation", instead of the moderate and independent voters....and then....no war-profiteering commission AGAIN happening under a Republican-controlled Congress.

   Posted by Mask at 03/20/2006 @ 2:46pm

5. does cheney own stock in haliburton?

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/20/2006 @ 2:29pm

   Of course he does; he was Halliburton's CEO. I don't know if he still receives a Halliburton paycheck every month, but up until a few years ago he did.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/20/2006 @ 2:46pm

6. Monday, March 20, 2006

   The third anniversary...sacrifice, fear and hope. It has been three years since 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' began and for three years we debated whether the decision was right or wrong and until this moment we have different feelings and opinions about where this operation brought us and where its aftermaths are going to lead us.

   This disputed operation no doubt had-and will continue to have-major effects on the future of the region and the rest of the world and it's not limited to the boundaries of Iraq; a fact that makes rational debate legitimate by all standards.

   To me, each anniversary brings emotions, thoughts and expectations; some are personal and others are for the future of my country and people. Today I relive those historic moments and remember the way my mind accepted and welcomed those moments like all, or say most Iraqis did as we were praying to see Saddam overthrown without even bothering to think of the consequences or results…all we wanted was to see Saddam out of power, period.

   Maybe people still remember how Iraqis first reacted to the change; they directed their rage against anything that reminded them of the regime they hated, burning and looting anything that represented Saddam and his regime. The rich and the poor both stormed those buildings because those angry crowds felt those buildings were Saddam's property and few of us realized at that time that that was wrong yet the emotions driving it were understandable.

   The smoke faded away and we woke up to see all the chains gone and instead of the God-president and his iron grip over our destinies, we found ourselves without a guide, without any guidance but our long buried primitive nature, the long repressed nature of loving freedom and practicing it.

   The change began then, at that moment where reason mixed with sentiments; were we free…or, were we lost?

   Actually it was a lot of both and there was also a sense of great relief that the terrifying warnings from hundreds of thousands of deaths, famine and mass refugees were not true at that point, on the contrary the military operation itself was clean and successful by all standards and didn't cause any serious harm to the civilian population, the infrastructure, or the marching troops.

   Saddam was gone and suddenly Iraqis and Americans found themselves face to face in a place that felt new to both of them. They knew almost nothing about each other as the prison Saddam built around us left the world with little knowledge about Iraqis except for the whispers of Iraqis who fled the horrors of the tyrant. On the other hand, all that Iraqis knew about America was that it's the merciless enemy of Muslims and Arabs, the invader coming for oil, the all-time supporter of Israel against the Palestinians, the imposer of the sanctions and above all, the America that let us down in 1991.

   Now the two strangers had to work together to accomplish a goal Iraqis knew almost nothing about; they knew that America wanted to topple Saddam and secure the oil fields but that's all they knew while America was thinking of a huge transformation for the entire Middle East with Iraq being the key to that transformation. There was a wide gap between the two but we had no choice but to work together, because in a moment Iraqis didn't choose, America and a group of Iraqi ex-pat leaders were suddenly replacing a regime that controlled everything for too long. Iraqis were confused and vulnerable and there were too many differences to cope with but we were there and there was nothing we could do about it and we had to prepare ourselves for many transitional stages that some Iraqis thought were improvised and arbitrary while others thought were planned long time ago.

   The question keeps ringing… Was it the right decision to remove Saddam?

   I say yes, and that's what most Iraqis said and still say even if they became divided over what happened later…the truth is that virtually no one wants Saddam back.

   I will just ignore the weepers, whiners, teenagers and half educated naïve people and their silly rallies as I don't want to waste time on people who can do nothing but blindly oppose everything without thinking. I will ignore them and focus on the more important goals we want to reach here…

   Life stopped and time stopped when Saddam ruled Iraq, actually that totalitarian regime was moving backwards and dragging us with it and nothing could stop the deterioration that began the moment Saddam came to power. We had to accept the change and live with all that would come along with it whether good or bad. The democracy we're practicing today in Iraq is the exact opposite of what we had for decades and until three years ago. This democracy carries the essence of life, the differences, the dynamics and yes, the failures but also the seed of a better future.

   Before the liberation we were suffering and we had no hope, now we are also suffering but we have hope and I see this hope even in the words of those that are cynical about the outcome of the political process; who say they hope things will be better in four years or eight years… When Saddam was here we didn't have any hope and we could expect nothing good from a dead regime that cared only about its absolute existence.

   Yes. We are facing enormous and dangerous challenges and this is not unexpected because the old will not easily step down and accept the loss; the old will fight back fiercely and the old here is not only Saddam and the Ba'ath, the old can be found among many of our current leaders and the mentality they carry that belong to the same generation that bred Saddam but I believe they will melt away as well because no one can go against the direction of time and the clock cannot be forced backwards.

   The green bud looks weak and is buried in the dirt and surrounded by a tough shell but it will break through this covering, pierce the dirt and stand on its feet to announce a new era. We will not be defeated and orphans of the dark past will get what they deserve and our sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who stand with us shall not go in vain, our sacrifices will pave an easier road for those want to follow us when they decide it's time for them to change.

   And yes…Iraq will be the model.

   Posted by Mohammed @ 19:26

   From an Iraqi posted on the website Iraq the Model Blog

   Posted by libzsuk at 03/20/2006 @ 2:51pm

7. Mask will never understand that it's not about reaching the "mainstream, independent voters" who have yet to make a clean break with imperialism. It is about developing critical mass within those pockets of the culture that have made themselves understand that New Orleans is their future if they don't move on this mess in a more decisive way then voting mainstream. Rearguardism is just as dogmatic a trend as vanguardism, and it's easily twenty times as reactionary.

   Posted by Sweetdaddy at 03/20/2006 @ 2:53pm

8. Posted by MASK 03/20/2006 @ 2:46pm

   Hence the need for a ranking system of "Calls for Action".

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/20/2006 @ 2:54pm

9. As Sweetdaddy was saying in a post on one of the other pages, what we're dealing with here is a ruling elite that are extremely irresponsible and mercenary, and not willing to make concessions as they were in the past. That requires a number of different strategies, not only mainstream work- which Mask is quite right in calling for, but it can no longer be an end in itself. If we were dealing with a "mainstream" that was prone to make concessions, that would be one thing, but this democratic party isn't the party of Phillip Hart or Ernest Gruening, it's the party of political dynasties like Clintonism and it's oddball offshoots. The republican party of our day isn't the republican party of Jacob Javits, or Edward Brooke, or Hugh Scott, or Barry Goldwater, all of whom were honorable opponents, it's the party of Bush and his fellow little birdie from Texas and Trent Lott.

   So mainstream work is essential, but it can no longer be an end in itself. We should instead be fighting inside the community centers, in the community meetings, in the unions, in the schools, etc. That's where we'll build our base. For my own part, I vote for democrats only as a neccessary compromise or when there emerges an actual candidate who's paying attention to the needs of the working class majority, and those people are few and far between. But I do vote for democrats occasionally. Putting all our energies into capturing the house, or the senate, or the presidency, that's as bankrupt as being in a sectarian tendency. As Sweetdaddy has phrased it, rearguardism, or voting mainstream, is just as dogmatic as vanguardism, or the idea that a political faction can get way out in front of actual teaching moments. Rearguardism, though, is twenty times as reactionary, because it encourages reliance on political entities who have demonstrated their bankruptcy endlessly. In the past, they've used us. From now on, a genuine grassroots campaign uses them. I mean USE them. If they're good for a vital vote, USE them. Then we go back about our business, organizing the people they don't give a shit about. It's a war of attrition, and they're losing ground, really. The question is, what will we build and throw into gear? That's the question.

   Posted by bkarloff at 03/20/2006 @ 3:19pm

10. Posted by SWEETDADDY 03/20/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    Soon cometh the Revolution, eh comrade?

    Probably some ol' Hayden/Hoffman S.D.S. guys around, who remember when we first heard this in 1966, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/20/2006 @ 3:25pm

11. Mask: Ms vanden Heuval wants an independent war-profiteering commission? Okay, figure out how to get Democrats the majority in Congress and they'll do it.

    Mask admits that Republicans don't give a rat's ass about tens of billions in corruption, waste, and fraud. According to Mask, the only way to hold the war profiteers accountable is to change control of Congress. Apparently, war profiteering is a Republican family value.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 3:25pm

12. Mask: push harder on Iraq, despite the fact that nobody showed for the anti-war protests this weekend

    Twisting reality again, maskman? Certainly more people showed up for anti-war protests than for pro-war protests. And the polls are certainly clear that American voters strongly oppose the failed Bush occupation in Iraq.

    ....then Democrats lose Congress AGAIN in November, because they're listening to "The Nation"

    Are you claiming that the Dems failed to retake control of Congress in '02 and '04 because they were too anti-war? I guess I just don't remember. Maybe you can remind me. Which national Dems were running on a Nation-inspired anti-war platform in '04?

    instead of the moderate and independent voters

    Moderate and independent voters OPPOSE the occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 3:33pm

13. Mask,

    If all of the pieces here are just "filler", why are you almost always one of the first to post on practically every thread? Why waste your time with such nonsense.

    Lets add to the list of items you wish not to discuss: The mishandling of the war in Iraq, checks and balances of the way taxpayer dollars are spent.

    What would you like to discuss Mask? What issues do you see as relevant if Iraq and Congressional abuse of power arent?

    Just curious?

    Posted by jpolston at 03/20/2006 @ 3:40pm

14. Posted by JPOLSTON 03/20/2006 @ 3:40pm: If all of the pieces here are just "filler", why are you almost always one of the first to post on practically every thread? Why waste your time with such nonsense.

    Its his job.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 3:41pm

15. Isn't KVH profiteering off the readers of the magazine by publishing that Republican Dictionary? The contributers didn't get a penny for coming up with the witty definitions that were published.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/20/2006 @ 3:41pm

16. Nothing is going to happen until there is an adminstration change. Unfortunately because both parties are involved there will be little resolve regardless of what's happening. Of course that doesn't mean we sit idly by. That's just what I see happening. We all know Republicans don't give a shit about the American but hell, the Democrats don't either. When will the American public be presented choices of value? I guess I can be glad that someone wants to hold someone accountable. I mean no-bid contracts. That had to be the stupidest idea ever. How can you support someone who says its okay to defraud Americans. That's why there is a bidding process, so every company(big and small) has a chance to compete. Isn't that the democratic, American way. Why pay someone 60 million when you can pay someone 6 million to do the same job? But hey, he's our president. He must have our best interests at heart.

    Posted by k330k at 03/20/2006 @ 3:46pm

17. Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006 @ 3:41pm: Isn't KVH profiteering off the readers of the magazine by publishing that Republican Dictionary? The contributers didn't get a penny for coming up with the witty definitions that were published.

    Amazing. Are you claiming that there is a similarity between a privately published book and tens of billions in corrupt war profiteering? Are you really human or just a chimpanzee hitting random keys in hope that something intelligent will eventually pop out?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 3:46pm

18. Mask -

    You don't think an issue like mismanagment of taxpayer money will resonate with voters?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/20/2006 @ 3:56pm

19. Amazing. Are you claiming that there is a similarity between a privately published book and tens of billions in corrupt war profiteering? Are you really human or just a chimpanzee hitting random keys in hope that something intelligent will eventually pop out?

    Corrupt war profiteering? HA HA HA HA HA! Silly liberal...

    Posted by woodyee at 03/20/2006 @ 3:56pm

20. "This isn't war profiteering - it's money laundring.", posted by AMSTERDAM69 03/20/2006 @ 2:32pm.

    The DP World Port deal smelled of money cleaning too.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:09pm

21. TJBEHRENS1- I'll help you get started on your corruption spreadsheet...Start making horizontal columns: Haliburton, Katrina No-Bids, Faith-Based Initiatives, Pork Barrel Projects, Prescription Drug Plan (aka Pharma. Industry subsidies), etc. Put $'s on the vertical columns, you'll have the ever-increasing, astronomical deficit which ultimately runs off the page.

    We do need an independent commission. Unless everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, wants our grandchildren's debt to keep increasing in absence of one.

    Posted by kfine at 03/20/2006 @ 4:10pm

22. Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006: Corrupt war profiteering? HA HA HA HA HA! Silly liberal...

    I have no idea what that even means. Do you feel that it is uncorrupt war profiteering? Or is your point that Intelligent Conservatives understand that corrupt war profiteering is good for the country? Or, are you still just hitting random keys hoping that something smart will pop out?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:13pm

23. It's smart capitalism. Who wouldn't overcharge the govt? I knew an upholsterer who stuck it to a hospital for repairing the furniture in the waiting rooms. He did it because he felt they overcharged him for surgery. As for those that are providing services during this war, do you expect them to do it for free or cheaply? They have bills to pay also.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/20/2006 @ 4:19pm

24. It's smart capitalism. Who wouldn't overcharge the govt? I knew an upholsterer who stuck it to a hospital for repairing the furniture in the waiting rooms. He did it because he felt they overcharged him for surgery. As for those that are providing services during this war, do you expect them to do it for free or cheaply? They have bills to pay also.

    Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006 @ 4:19pm

    Spoken like a true contemporary "conservative."

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:23pm

25. Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person

    no problem - click! - ignored

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:24pm

26. Speaking of moonbat theories, here's one for you to pass around. Bush started to war during this time of the year because he knew that the anniversary protests would be light because the younger crowd would be on Spring Break and would give the impression that only 1960's leftovers were protesting the war. I mean, that's why the protests this weekend were so light, right? Low poll numbers, war's unpopular; you'd expect a bigger crowd, right? They must have been on Spring Break.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/20/2006 @ 4:26pm

27. WOODYEE: It's smart capitalism. Who wouldn't overcharge the govt?

    Lots of people woodster. Its called ethics. Perhaps you should look into getting some.

    And, by the way, most people do not consider graft to be "smart capitalism". Rather, it is considered a crime. And the people who engage in it are considered criminals.

    More Wood: As for those that are providing services during this war, do you expect them to do it for free or cheaply? They have bills to pay also.

    The article has nothing whatsoever to do with expectations of free or cheap services in support of the war. It is about Friends of Dear Leader who are billing the government for services they did not perform; overcharging the government (by inflating expenses); and flat out just stealing billions of dollars. Only a catatonic Bushite monkey would call this "smart capitalism".

    And you call me a silly liberal?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:27pm

28. Hey VanDumbEVIL,

    What a silly nitwit you are...Why dont you and your commie husband move to Moscow where you will feel right at home with Putin and his oppression of human rights and free speech

    Posted by libzsuk at 03/20/2006 @ 4:30pm

29. Posted by MASK 03/20/2006 @ 2:46pm

    get control of congress, maybe with help of sane pub sympathy...then do it! sounds like a great idea. actually any number of independent commisions on several topics, including reopenig he 9/11 investigation are called for here...but right - november looms important and who knows what further stupid corrupt crap these blindly arrogant jerks will throw out between now and then? keep paying out rope and greasing that trap door on the gallows...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 4:31pm

30. Posted by LIBZSUK 03/20/2006: Hey VanDumbEVIL,What a silly nitwit you are...Why dont you and your commie husband move to Moscow where you will feel right at home with Putin and his oppression of human rights and free speech

    Another American patriot for war-profiteering family values.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:33pm

31. Please do not respond to the crank posters.

    Just click ignore.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:35pm

32. Ouch, ORWELL2005! Ease up on the personal attacks. I tell you what; I'll read the article again because I missed the part about billing the government for services they did not perform; overcharging the government (by inflating expenses); and ESPECIALLY flat out just stealing billions of dollars. Also, I'll look for names of those involved (ex., Joe Blow from ACME.INC). Maybe I read it wrong the first time.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/20/2006 @ 4:36pm

33. Posted by ORWELL2005 03/20/2006 @ 4:27pm

    has that idiot stopped its lame (laughing) stupidity? i say ignore regardless...that was just too much for the possibility of redemption. make it go away...ignore it.

    Posted by LIBZSUK 03/20/2006 @ 4:30pm considering ignoring this thing also. i've had some fun playing with, taunting it, but if it can't show some respect, perhaps responding to its childish insults is not worth it. bad manners, bad child...

    ignore button - its SO EASY, and whether it goes away or not, in effect makes it GO AWAY

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 4:37pm

34. Posted by WOODYEE: ORWELL2005! Ease up on the personal attacks.

    Just like a bed-wetting Bushite. Whine, whine, whine.

    I tell you what; I'll read the article again because I missed the part about billing the government for services they did not perform

    I can see how you might miss it. Especially given that the article opens with "Payments to ghost employees. Contractors overcharging by hundreds of millions of dollars on no-bid contracts. And billions in reconstruction money gone missing".

    Maybe I read it wrong the first time.

    Maybe you don't actually know how to read. It's ok. Most chimpanzee s can't read. Just keep hitting those keys. Eventually something smart has to come out.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 4:41pm

35. bushrules, the braggart fratboy is another GO AWAY iggy...

    HALF SERIOUS TO SERIOUS POSTERS OF ALL PERSUASIONS: HERE IS A SHORT LIST OF FOLKS WHO I HAVE LEARNED, AFTER HAVING A LITTLE FUN WITH, ARE NOT WORTH THE EFFORT, ONLY SERVE TO DISTRACT, AND ARE ULTIMATELY NO FUN. IGNORE THEM

    BUSHRULES, LIBZSUK, WODEYEE

    RESPODING TO THEM REWARDS THEM...I HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THIS ALSO, HAD SOME FUN, AS THEY ARE NOT REALLY 2 BRIGHT, LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN BARRELL - TAKE A PARTIG SHOT AND MAKE THEM GO AWAY

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 4:49pm

36. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/20/2006 @ 4:49pm

    I am with you - those two offer nothing intelligent to discuss.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/20/2006 @ 5:09pm

37. WOODYEE,

    Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo (That's a rendition of "Deliverance" on the banjo for you.)

    How stupid are you? Anyone who condones overcharging the government DOESN'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!! No bid contracts abound while wounded servicemen and women, who are paid peanuts, can't afford phone cards to call their families from the hospital. An independent commission should be formed in the name our our troops.

    This corrupt Administration is spoon-feeded "faux patriotism" to people like you. I bet you have a "support our troops" bumper sticker, huh?

    Posted by kfine at 03/20/2006 @ 5:33pm

38. spell check: spoon-feeding

    The wing-nuts are big on spelling corrections today.

    Posted by kfine at 03/20/2006 @ 5:39pm

39. Didn't know there were remnants of Reagan's $100 hammer defense budget crowd still around. For a bunch of people who are so tight with funding for actually needy American citizens, one might expect a little more concern about the slap-in-your-face Soprano's system that Halliburton has inflicted on the Treasury through its bitches on the inside. Sure, the money trees are in season and any homeless person can simply make a fortune if he takes the time to harvest the fruit.

    It's bad enough to overcharge for paving roads. But it's just downright ugly when the overcharging is related to slick little weenies overseeing the care of combat troops or overseeing the restoration of a war-torn country. Defend that at your own peril. Such actions, if left uncheck, make it harder and harder for our government to do the work it has to do.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/20/2006 @ 5:53pm

40. Yes, well, the public sector is only there for people who don't need assistance. The wealthy want to run government like they run banks, you know, institutions that will only help people once they prove they don't need help.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/20/2006 @ 6:28pm

41. I mentioned this a while back and don't have the time right now to read through all the post yet, but what if a law was enacted that outlawed making a profit from war, any war. What if any corporation that contributed even gave up 10-25% of their assets as their contibution as they can't die like people? How many wars will there be by choice then? Flaws in my thinking, I'm sure there are, but no time to think about it yet. Later.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/20/2006 @ 6:50pm

42. It's smart capitalism. Who wouldn't overcharge the govt?

    Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006 @ 4:19pm

    What is it about the conservative mind that, for all its wringing of hands over "welfare mothers" and other "parasites" living off the government, fails to form a parallel reprehension of corporate welfare?

    Posted by breasonable at 03/20/2006 @ 6:55pm

43. Shoot, they're true to the form that they've walked around in for as long as I've known of them, Breasonable. Their entire system, when you look at history, is built upon the enclosure acts (first in Britain, then Europe, and now the "developing" world, forced labor (slavery in U.S., slavic or slave-like labor in eastern europe) relocation (indians of all the Americas, New Orleans today) and underpricing (redlining of banking institutions). Capitalism is all for collective solutions or planned economy to solve a problem when they can line their own pockets plus, but are deathly opposed to such solutions when they are extended to the victims of their policies. Why wouldn't they think bilking the public is good business? We're all just here to take care of them.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/20/2006 @ 7:04pm

44. Posted by BREASONABLE 03/20/2006 @ 6:55pm

    take a parting shot and igggggggg....u will get nowhere with this wingbot...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 7:15pm

45. Posted by KFINE 03/20/2006 @ 5:33pm

    actually i kind of think of it as...

    nah nah nah nahr nahr nahr narnahrnnn....

    MAKE IT GO AWAY

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2006 @ 7:20pm

46. orwell, i happen to like monkeys and chimpanzees, ok, so will u quit hurling the lowest insult possible at them?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/20/2006 @ 8:12pm

47. Sorry, my bad.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/20/2006 @ 8:34pm

48. Mask will never understand that it's not about reaching the "mainstream, independent voters" who have yet to make a clean break with imperialism. It is about developing critical mass within those pockets of the culture that have made themselves understand that New Orleans is their future if they don't move on this mess in a more decisive way then voting mainstream. Rearguardism is just as dogmatic a trend as vanguardism, and it's easily twenty times as reactionary.

    Posted by SWEETDADDY 03/20/2006 @ 2:53pm

    As the fortunes of the right have declined MASK has eroded into a clown standing with both feet solidly astride history and loudly bellowing, "Let's discourage anyone who thinks the world can be improved"!

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/20/2006 @ 9:32pm

49. It's smart capitalism. Who wouldn't overcharge the govt?

    Posted by WOODYEE 03/20/2006 @ 4:19pm

    Just anyone who has any manhood.

    What is it about the conservative mind that, for all its wringing of hands over "welfare mothers" and other "parasites" living off the government, fails to form a parallel reprehension of corporate welfare?

    Posted by BREASONABLE 03/20/2006 @ 6:55pm

    They were psychologically imprinted with the aloof, unloving father figure who raised them. They're spiritually stamped with the strategy of seeking love by cowering sycophancy to authority. That's all it is. There's no rationality involved.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/20/2006 @ 9:39pm

50. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/20/2006 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person

    No, FROM....I'm not.

    I'm just not buying that the OLD ways of improving it will work. And the old ways are apparently all that most of the Left has as they try to come up with ways to either imitate Euro-socialism or resurrect the "Great Society"; and all with a firm egocentrism that tells them that they have never been wrong, or mistaken, and that counter-agents are the cause of all their failures.

    Posted by Mask at 03/20/2006 @ 10:17pm

51. If anyone other than our bought-and-paid-for members of congress / administration is "for" war profiteering please stand up and be counted now.

    Obviously, unless you own war contractor stock or are in some other way a stakeholder in that endeavor you will not be "for" war profiteering. Perhaps 1-2% of Ameirca is in that category.

    When oh when will Congress start caring about the other 98-99% of voters?

    If this isn't the wake up call for EVERY American citizen to demand that the election cycle be publically funded then I think this democracy is pretty much doomed.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 09:36am

52. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2006 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

    More CFR, FREE?

    Okay, let's start this thread anew. Once you get "public funding of campaigns", what do you do to prevent either Exxon or the Sierra Club from exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and sponsering ads in support of one candidate or another?

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 10:50am

53. I'm just not buying that the OLD ways of improving it will work. And the old ways are apparently all that most of the Left has as they try to come up with ways to either imitate Euro-socialism or resurrect the "Great Society"; and all with a firm egocentrism that tells them that they have never been wrong, or mistaken, and that counter-agents are the cause of all their failures.

    Posted by MASK 03/20/2006 @ 10:17pm

    "old ways, imitate, egocentrism". You're living in a fantasy world. You sound like a person who is both fascinated by and jealous of someone who gets more attention than you. That's why you seek out any faults of your object of attention and do everything you can to exaggerate them.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/21/2006 @ 11:00am

54. Mask,

    I've told you before.....you prohibit them from naming the candidate. They exercise their first amendment right by lobbying to the public for their cause not for their politician.

    Mask, we put a man on the moon.....this is not really that difficult you know!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 11:06am

55. Mask,

    I've told you before.....you prohibit them from naming the candidate. They exercise their first amendment right by lobbying to the public for their cause not for their politician.

    Mask, we put a man on the moon.....this is not really that difficult you know!

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2006 @ 11:06am

    Yeah, MASK, how would you like being sent to the moon?

    Just kidding. Really.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/21/2006 @ 11:11am

56. Mask is silly. Of course the left picks up and rebuilds from where it left off. It can do nothing else. People always start out from the highest point they achieved in political development before they continue. That means the labor movement, community organizations, anti war efforts, etc. There are no pristine paths, no schematics for a new politics. If anything, what is most disjointing the "left" now is the insistence on new forms, which cannot be acchieved without first moving through what was found to work within the old forms. Once those possibilities are exhausted, the more spontaneous growth will bear fruit. And you may also be very sure of one thing, there is far more scrutiny of actions pursued going on in the left right now then there are in a hundred mobilizations pursued by the right, and by the moderates, who cannot and will not accept the fact that the party machines they insist on putting all their money on have changed substantially from what they were a mere thirty years ago. As Sweetdaddy said, rearguardism is just as dogmatic as vanguardism. It just believes itself to be "practical" because it has the endorsement of the "mainstream", who are historically, in the words of Frederick Douglass, people who want the ocean without waves and crops without turning over the soil and rotating.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/21/2006 @ 11:12am

57. GWB has just said "I don't think Iraq is in civil war". He says it with the "I don't think" qualifier so later on when he's proved wrong his apologist's can say he wasn't "actually" lying.

    What a sad joke this dismissal of reality has all become.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 12:03pm

58. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/21/2006 @ 11:00am | ignore this person

    Thanks for clearly and succinctly pointing out all the new ideas the Left has come up with since 1980. Some posters would have taken the opportunity to prove I was wrong about that, by merely engaging in a personal attack on me!

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 12:17pm

59. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2006 @ 11:06am | ignore this person

    Sorry FREE....it IS that difficult.

    So Exxon comes out with an ad in October 2008 stating "We at Exxon want to develop new sources of oil to keep our economy strong and we think America should too"...and a day later Republican Joe Smith makes a speech saying "I'm vor developing new sources of oil to keep our economy strong and I think America should too"?

    or the Sierra Club has an ad saying "Protect our precious wetlands from development" and Democrat Frank Jones comes out the next day with his "Wetland Protection Act".

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 12:19pm

60. Would there be some probably with your scenario, MASK? Any advertising simplifies political issues to substanceless pablum, whether from an organization, corportation, party or candidate. This can't be prevented.

    What gets really sticky is when either the Sierra Club or Exxon goes off their standard lines and instead funds advertising on tax cuts or education or military spending--toeing a party's or candidate's line in a way that clearly converts the private funding of advertising into political contributions. This is where I get confused about how to proceed.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/21/2006 @ 12:33pm

61. Mask,

    I'm all for that. In the example you have just illustrated there is a naked exposure of the candidates special interest advocacy.

    I'm not against special interests and I don't think that a special interest position is inherrently "evil".

    The problem with our current system is that nothing is getting done on a plurocratic basis. The only things that are getting done are getting done on a "dollars into the political machine" basis.

    You of all people should recognize that the tiddlywink amount of money in election cycles is peanuts in comparison to the payoff. That's the type of bargain that should be reserved for the electorate not for the corporatocracy.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 12:40pm

62. What new ideas would interest you, Mask? You endorse a world capitalist system whose whole idea of global development is repetition of seventeenth century enclosure laws and the same crap that's ripped the world apart for four hundred years. When other ideas are suggested, you go off into hypothetical meanderings, instead of looking at the complexities that systems that challenged the global domination of the west had to deal with. At home, you defend an order of affairs that is actually a throwback to where it was a hundred years ago, the rebirth of dynastic politics in both parties. And then you have the gall to wonder why other people aren't more innovative then yours and your side. I'd say if that kind of thinking wasn't due a good drubbing, what is?

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 03/21/2006 @ 1:16pm

63. Again FREE

    I don't see how "public funding of campaigns" has ANY effect on that....money from special interests just gets "re-routed" into "issue ads" that support the candidates, if "vaguely", whether it's Big Oil or Big Enviro.

    Joe Smith gets the same cash as challenger going up against Senator Claghorn, but then Exxon, the NRDC, Microsoft, Greenpeace, HALLIBURTON, etc. get to run ads in support of Senator Claghorn's POSITIONS on issues (Including BTW, TJ...things that might not be 'exactly' their issue...for instance pro-across-the-board tax cuts from Boeing Aircraft, just because they want Claghorn to win on tax cuts....and THEN help out with a defense contract).

    Campaign finance reform, even the "silver bullet" answer of public financing, cannot overcome one major "problem"...the 1st Amendment.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 1:55pm

64. Posted by SWEETDADDY 03/21/2006 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person

    Again, thanks SWEET....for answering my question and giving me all the new ideas that the Left has, instead of resorting to assumptions about what I am "endorsing" and personal attacks.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 1:56pm

65. Mask,

    Do I need to hit you over the head with a rubber mallet?

    Who cares if an election is run on issues paid for by the issue backer? That is completely different from what we have now, which is that the monied interests pay to keep the actual issues out of the debate!

    If you're going to be too cynical and or stupid to see that there is a huge difference in giving money to promote an issue directly than there is in giving money to a person to get elected to promote an issue then I don't think there is any point whatsoever in you ever engaging in any debate with anybody but an average intelligence third grader.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 2:38pm

66. MASK:

    I'll ask again -

    You do not think mismanagement and potential fraud involving taxpayer dollars will resonate with voters?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2006 @ 2:55pm

67. FREE

    Let me see if I can be clearer then....

    2008 and federal funding of campaigns inacted....Fred Jones believes in selling lumber rights to the lumber companies...maybe he is IN the lumber business. Incumbent Congresswoman Jane Smith is an environmentalist who opposes it. LUMBERCO sponsers ads for Jones and outspends the Sierra Club ads for Smith 4,5-1. Jones wins the election and votes for lumber rights on Federal lands.

    Now, I assume you're saying that a Congressperson will NOT support the interests of a special interest (like a lumber company) over the "public good"...because that special interest can no longer donate DIRECTLY to the Congressperson's campaign fund.

    But, I just outlined here (and above) how a special interest CAN help support a candidate's re-election....and given that a person goes to Congress (unless we ALSO inact term limits) to REMAIN in Congress for more than one term, that person is going to help those who help them remain in office.

    Now...Congressman Jones up for re-election in 2010 against Mary Murphy, a new environmentalist. LUMBERCO again sponsers 5-1 ad buys for Jones over Murphy and even though BOTH have the SAME Federal campaign cash, Jones stomps Murphy.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 3:02pm

68. Posted by HMAN23 03/21/2006 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person

    Not in this case, no.

    It worked in 1993 with the House Bank and House Post Office, because it played to public expectations of Congress and because Gingrich and the right-wing used it to say "We can do better".

    But, waste and corruption in the military hasn't rung any bells for YEARS (maybe not since Truman's acension to Veep in 1944). Remember when Reagan was boosting defense spending, and many on the Left noted the $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers, but it STILL didn't result in any major cutbacks in the Defense budget, did it?

    Now, if Democrats can win ONE House and hold some hearings, it MIGHT gain some publicity, but I really don't think the MAIN problem the public has with the Iraq War is ...."Custer Battles".

    In fact, even WITH hearings, I think the only response a pollster would get on "Custer Battles" is.....65% wonder why he didn't wait for Major Reno's troops to arrive at the Greasy Grass.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 3:07pm

69. MASK:

    You are correct re: the Reagan years, but individual items like $600 toilet seats vs. the figures listed in the article ($263 million, $50 million, $86 million, $50 billion, AND $9 billion SIMPLY LOST?).

    Seems like a different level to me.

    But, hey it's not like we are talking about people ripping off welfare or anything, so why should conservatives get all worked up about it?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2006 @ 3:24pm

70. Mask,

    Once again, with the big rubber mallet perilously close to your head.

    LUMBERCO, can buy ad time in an election cycle. They can talk about what a wonderful job creating, wealth generating opportunity it would be to sell lumber rights on government land. They can spend an infinite amount of money on this endeavor. They cannot, however, mention a party affiliation or a preferred candidate. They cannot show pictures of any candidates. They cannot mention negatively, by name, or party, any candidate that opposes their desired position.

    If the voting public likes the idea of this job & wealth creating bonanza they will now spend some time researching which candidate is more likely to assist LUMBERCO and vote accordingly.

    I sure hope I don't have to let this rubber mallet drop!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 3:30pm

71. Yes, conservatives scream about "people having babies just so they can get more welfare" and "Piss Christ" and demand reform, but when we are talking about billions in potential fraud REPs in Congress will not even entertain the thought of a hearing on the matter.

    I'm surprised none of the so-called "limited government" conservatives have stepped up to the plate here. C'mon ths is your chance - you'll be heroes - we are talking BILLIONS here, not measley millions for NEA funds!

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2006 @ 3:40pm

72. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2006 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

    Well, first....how is Congressman Jones saying "I'll support our lumbering interests in the Waxapatachie National Forest" on a campaign stump speech NOT going to be helped by 25 thirty second ads put on local WWAX-TV by LUMBERCO, saying "Lumbering is our key jobs market here in Waxapatachie and we need Congresspeople who support it.....We DON'T need those who would curtail our lumber jobs with their left-wing environmental extremism"? No names, no parties, no pictures of Jones...just "backing up" Jones' stance on the issue, possibly during the same WWAX newscast that shows Jones' speech?...and no mention of challenger Murphy even needed.

    But second....your rules in general. In the Real World, you run into a major problem....the Supreme Court. Especially with a long-lived Roberts Court, with Alito, Thomas, Scalia, maybe another before 2008 (or even afterwards if McCain or an a pro-CFR Dem doesn't win) saying that corporations have free speech rights?

    AND even if the USSC denies corporations the right to free speech....going to be VERY hard to say that J. Worthington Bomburst-III, CEO of LUMBERCO, can't give himself a bonus in the summer...and spend it on PERSONAL issue ads in the fall.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 4:01pm

73. nine billion dollars--vanished...missing...nine billion dollars. that's no six-hundred dollar toilet seat.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/21/2006 @ 4:04pm

74. Posted by HMAN23 03/21/2006 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person

    Actually HMAN, it play out quite well for the REAL conservatives.

    The Left and some Democrats rightfully criticize wasteful spending, and so MAYBE we get reform to wasteful spending in the Defense Department, but the problem is they now open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy if they don't enact similar reforms of the social programs and entitlements

    How do they say "We lost 800 million on bad water from Halliburton" and then when asked say "Oh, but we NEEDED to spend 300 million on artists painting themselves nude in chocolate and reciting the Ten Commandments"?

    This actually will work about as well as the new "fiscally responsible Democrats" who promise a "balanced budget" line of thinking. They CAN'T keep such a promise...and only repeal the tax cut for the "top 1%", and re-institute funding that has been cut by the GOP, AND create vast NEW "vital, needed" programs.

    They can't enact a tax hike big enough to cover all that AND balance the budget, without either stalling the economy OR even more likely, getting tarred with the same brush that killed them in 1994.

    So....they either break their promise on balancing the budget, and then NEITHER party can use it to their advantage ever again (or until the GOP smartens up and does balance it)....OR they DO attempt to get a balanced budget, but in doing so, they have to REJECT liberalism and NOT enact any new programs, and possibly not even restore all the funding cuts.

    Bush and the Republicans with their domestic agenda have basically given the Democrats two choices....1. suicidal tax hikes to pay for a "New New Deal" their base demands....or 2. fiscal responsibility and a domestic agenda reminiscent of a Warren Rudman Republican, that alienates their base and coalition groups.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 4:17pm

75. MASK:

    At least DEMs have a proven track record in balancing a budget. Maybe I am incorrect, but I remember reading that Republicans have NEVER submitted a balanced budget - even when they were in the minority and knew the DEMs budget would prevail. So, I guess fiscal restraint is not even a principle for them.

    I think your 300 million for the NEA is off-base, but even so - that is an argument on the merits of the NEA itself - it is not as if the 300 million disappeared or went to a shell corporation. DEMs are not advocating NO defense spending so will not be seen as hypocrites for wanting to continue something like the NEA.

    I can think of one way DEMs can trim a potential $100 billion off upcoming budgets - but it involves an issue you think they should not discuss - Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2006 @ 4:33pm

76. Mask,

    Ooops the big Monty Python style rubber mallet has just dropped on your head.

    If Congressman Jones is supporting that program in that region and the voters in that region want it then that is wonderful. That's democracy buddy. It might not be what I want, but that's why the US of A is not my personal Kingdom.

    A wealthy candidate will not be able to self finance a campaign. If a wealthy candidate wishes to spend personal money in an election cycle then that person, I suppose, could spend it on highlighting issues, again without party or personality affiliation.

    The Supreme Court will have a hard time ruling this down as it does nothing to impinge the Free Speech of the Sierra Club or Corporations. They are free to speak about their issues, but they cannot mention the public's employee by name......recall, it's my taxpayers that pay my Senator's salary so he/she is my employee not the Sierra Club's employee.

    Sorry about the bruise.

    I know that you'll respond with lots of dots and the occasional capitalized word, but don't bother as unless you're actually adding to the conversation instead of being the eternal doomsdayer I'm not going to read it.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2006 @ 4:36pm

77. Posted by HMAN23 03/21/2006 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person

    HMAN.....I assume you're referring to the 1993 tax hike passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by Clinton, which I don't think covered 1/4 of the projected deficit.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 4:51pm

78. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

    My style of writing gets much criticism, but I do it for emphasis and to achieve a more "conversational" style and easy of read.....if it doesn't do this, I'm sorry.

    Again, these are the same claims of "almost perfect" reform we heard about McCain-Feingold, and what did we get....Swift Vets and Move On.

    The money will find a way!

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2006 @ 4:53pm

79. "Well, first....how is Congressman Jones saying "I'll support our lumbering interests in the Waxapatachie National Forest" on a campaign stump speech NOT going to be helped by 25 thirty second ads put on local WWAX-TV by LUMBERCO, saying "Lumbering is our key jobs market here in Waxapatachie and we need Congresspeople who support it.....We DON'T need those who would curtail our lumber jobs with their left-wing environmental extremism"? No names, no parties, no pictures of Jones...just "backing up" Jones' stance on the issue, possibly during the same WWAX newscast that shows Jones' speech?...and no mention of challenger Murphy even needed."

    Posted by MASK 03/21/2006 @ 4:01pm

    I think you are missing the point. Yes, the above example would garner exposure for 'congressman jones'. But it would be based on an actual stand, that congressman jones takes.

    Now, Lumberco can finance ads, that say," Vote for jones. he's tough on crime and hates fags". Probably, Lumberco has no interest in crime or gay rights, but knows jones will help them, if they help him. And it might get him elected.

    With public funding and no mention of candidates/parties, only ideas will get exposure. Sure, they could run an ad,"Lumberco hates fags." But would they? Corporations don't want to get obviously political. They're trying to sell stuff.

    No, it wouldn't fix everything. And they envelope would be stretched, beyond what you, I or the bill writer thought possible. But anything is better than the status quo. Which is all you seem to advocate.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/21/2006 @ 7:28pm

80. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8743

    "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a study by John J. Mearsheimer, the doyen of foreign policy realism, and Stephen M. Walt, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, has blasted the scales from our eyes.

    Go here to download the full PDF and READ IT:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0321/dailyUpdate.html

    The Mearsheimer-Walt study is an important step in identifying how and why we are bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, but it is only a first step. The second, third, and fourth steps will come as we unravel the complex web of lies that lured us in on a variety of pretexts. What were the sources of the phony "intelligence" that made U.S. policymakers believes – or pretend to believe – Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" primed to launch at a moment's notice? More importantly, how did this ersatz data get pumped into the U.S. intelligence stream, and who injected it?

    Those who are crying the loudest about this study are the same people who, when confronted with the news of an FBI raid – two of them! –on the headquarters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby that has long dominated the debate of Middle East policy on Capitol Hill, were either uncharacteristically silent or else in total denial.

    READ THIS REPORT.

    LEARN WHY WE ARE AT WAR.

    TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

    These are the Scholars telling you the truth:

    John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science and a co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School, published their paper, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," on the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University website.

    Posted by plunger at 03/22/2006 @ 05:53am

81. The most important message thread on the web is here under this heading:

    "Using character smears to prevent foreign policy discussions"

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/

    READ IT ALL

    Posted by plunger at 03/22/2006 @ 07:01am

82. With public funding and no mention of candidates/parties, only ideas will get exposure. Sure, they could run an ad,"Lumberco hates fags." But would they? Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/21/2006 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person

    Why not?....if Jones is a pro-lumbering guy, but needs the Religious Right to get his voter turn-out....why wouldn't LUMBERCO see that sponsering "anti-fag" ads HELP them later with their interests on lumbering, if Jones is their guy in Congress?

    Posted by Mask at 03/22/2006 @ 09:30am

83. MASK:

    Point taken.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/22/2006 @ 09:48am

84. GW Botch's uncle has made $2.7M on the war....cool beans.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/23/2006 @ 08:57am

85. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/23/2006 @ 08:57am | ignore this person

    And how much did Bill Clinton get from the UAE to advise them?

    Nobody has "clean hands" on money and foreign policy, FREE.

    Posted by Mask at 03/23/2006 @ 1:15pm

86. ya, mask, but 9 billion is missing--vanished into thin air...has anyone else done that?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/23/2006 @ 1:18pm

87. Damn, Rio Bravo, you guys can't add either.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/23/2006 @ 5:33pm

88. Jeez, Mask, as Mark Twain used to say, even a burglar couldn't have argued that rationalization of swimming in shit better.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/23/2006 @ 5:36pm