The Cost of Corruption
The Washington Post excerpts a book about what we already knew: that ties to GOP trumped know how in Iraq. This is one of the most damning examples in a long list - damning because this war is the center piece of both foreign and domestic policy in Bush's two terms. Never before has a war of aggression dominated American politics for as long as the Iraq War.
O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
This isn't really an expose, in fact, it has been such common knowledge that the executive has packed key positions with political hacks that it even had a name "Proconsul Bremer" referring to Paul Bremer, and the incredibly partisan manner in which people were chosen under his tenure.
Last year the Christian Science Monitor ran this article:
A former senior advisor to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq until the election of an interim Iraq government last January, says that the US government's refusal to prosecute US firms accused of corruption in Iraq is turning the country into a " free fraud zone."Newsweek reported earlier this week that Frank Willis compared Iraq to the "wild west," and that with only $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion that the US government set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq having been spent, the lack of action on the part of the government means "the corruption will only get worse."
A month later the first corruption charges were filed but these amounted to drops in a very large bucket. And they came over a year after a comprehensive Marketplace report concluded:
During a three month investigation, though, Marketplace found that the corruption plaguing Iraq today has its roots not only in the parched soil of that beleaguered country, but also in Washington. In the first of two reports today, the Center for Investigative Reporting's Mark Schapiro takes us to Capitol Hill. Then Adam Davidson brings us more from Baghdad.
The warnings would only get louder, as a year later, in March, Transperancy International would warn:
The anti-corruption body said urgent steps were needed to ensure that corruption did not become endemic.Publishing its annual report, TI said there was evidence of "high levels" of corruption in post-war Iraq.
The Iraqi government, coalition forces and foreign donors must be more "aggressive" on corruption, it said.
Foreign contractors should be bound by anti-corruption laws while the management of Iraq's oil revenues needed to be much more transparent and accountable, Transparency International said in its Global Corruption Report 2005.
Later in the year it was admitted that the United States had lost track of 9 Billion of the reconstruction funds.
By this year, even the Associated Press, an organization that has often bent the facts to help the Administration in its reporting, ran this piece, which told the story of murder for hire, and complaints that had bounced around the DoD for months:
And as for the corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry that so infuriated Stoffel?It went much deeper than even he suspected.
Stoffel and his CLI colleagues were dealing with Shaalan, the defense minister who was a small business owner in London before the invasion, and with chief procurement officer Zaid Cattan, a salesman with joint Polish-Iraqi citizenship who'd been living in Europe.
He griped about both, but his complaints found no legitimacy until five months after he and Wemple were killed.
In that time, a new parliament was sworn in, with Shaalan as a member. Letters from the U.S. Defense Department about Stoffel's accusations had bounced from Rumsfeld's office down to a military attorney who concluded the entire matter had nothing to do with the U.S. military.
The root cause of this is rather clear: namely, the "Coalition of the Billing", as wags in the internet rapidly dubbed the defense contractors, did not see success as being imperiled by their activities, and Republican political hacks stood aside as the taxpayer was robbed blind.
In business, the first question they ask you when you try and raise funds for a new company is "what is your market?" The second is "what is your management team?"
We have the answer about the quality of the management team headed by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. The Democrats in Congress are planning on calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. The pervasive pattern of waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq shows that this is a step that is long over due, as is the need for comprehensive oversight of how money has been wasted in Iraq, how Republican partisans were packed into positions of power, and how the United States Department of Defense allowed corruption to become endemic in the Iraq occupation and reconstruction.
Comments (24)
The question remains, though: how to come to terms with the corruption?
September 17, 2006 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The corporate culture that is celebrated by this administration reflects the same sort of rank cronyism you see displayed in Iraq. Neither merit, seniority nor competency are immune to the reality that "who you know" is often more important than "what you know". In business, there's very little else that explains why people who are known failures move up the ladder on a regular basis.
September 17, 2006 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As noted elsewhere, some on the right have added this tagline to their signatures on comments on blogs: "Thank god for Diebold in November." Cronyism in election procedures may well keep us from using our votes to punish cronyism and corruption in Washington and in Iraq.
And anyway, out here in the "heartland," most are convinced that they're being asked to vote between "dumb" and "dumber." Like being forced to choose between malaria and DDT. Reform has been on people's minds for a long time, and a significant chunk of people who weren't particularly religious believed voting for the Christian right would get them reform. Now they know better! I bet a political force with a clear and convincing reform platform would get a lot of votes, maybe even enough to erase the built-in Diebold advantage...
September 17, 2006 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. has done a pretty good job of tracking down the corruption. You may find his reports to date here.
Yes, he is a Bush appointee but that does not seems to have inhibited him. Does it slow down or stop the corruption, I don't know. Does it address foreign contractor corruption, I don't know.
September 17, 2006 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democracies need to have a simple rule with respect to corruption:
"They broke the law and without fail, they must be convicted and go to jail."
However far up that goes.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
September 17, 2006 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you have to be a boot-licking Bush loving moron to work for Bush should come as no surprise.
Tom
September 17, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it therefore an omen that the WHO has endorsed DDT for malaria control?
September 17, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
PW said in a comment above, " As noted elsewhere, some on the right have added this tagline to their signatures on comments on blogs: 'Thank god for Diebold in November.' "
Could we have links to those Sites? I believe that tracking down Commenters who say, "Thank god for Diebold in November."
might lead to a smoking gun or two.
Equally disturbing to me is comments I've heard that Rove is not that concerned about the November elections. Hmmmm.
September 17, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops. Forgot this is a Site where the last comment is first.
So make that: PW said in a comment BELOW
September 17, 2006 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a more terrible form of corruption going on, and it seems that we have a big hand in it as well. Go here:
http://www.cryingwolf.deconstructingiraq.org.uk/...
It is completely sickening.
Jan Knaus
September 17, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Below or above is in the eye (or screen preferences) of the beholder. I have mine set to first comment first.
September 17, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Whoops. Forgot this is a Site where the last comment is first." Christie, not a criticism of you, but in case this helps you out, it depends on your account settings.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 17, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You smoked me out! I was reading about that shortly before posting!
September 17, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was likely a site called "Newsbusters" (codswallop.gop) I got my kick of the week from a few days ago, Christie. Couldn't swear to it. But I've seen it more than once I'll bet it turns up here if there's another Drudge-attack.
Avi Rubin has some interesting things to say about polling experiences in the Maryland primary at his site. And I hope you saw the article in the Post this morning about elections...
September 17, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much the Bush Administration's so-called Christian values plays a role in their incompetence.
From the Washington Post book excerpt:
Remember when Bush referred to the war in Iraq as a crusade. Everyone passed it off as an honest Bushism. But was it? Perhaps Bush's line on spreading Democracy in the Middle East is code for spreading Christianity. Isn't that what born again Christians are supposed to do?
So what WE are left with is a government run by a bunch of incompentent Christians who hate the very existence of the government they have been charged with running. Remember that according to Grover Norquist, the Republicans are drowning the government in the baby's bath water, or something along those lines.
This begs the question, that if they don't like their own government, how can they be expected to build a government in Iraq? Why would they build a government, when they have no use for a government? Corporations and the church - that's all you need.
September 17, 2006 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stu-awesome dude-an honest Bush supporter-totally a-w-e-s-o-m-e!!! Not inhibited to boot!!! Stu is smoking out the fraud, waste and abuse-wow! No wonder they assigned him to Iraq!
September 17, 2006 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Later in the year it was admitted that the United States had lost track of 9 Billion of the reconstruction funds.
It is odd that Bush supporters, those patrons of ever more tax cuts, are silent in the face of the astronomical $9b loss.
Yet, if an illegal immigrant family goes to a hospital for medical care or a single mother applies for welfare benefits, the outrage expressed by the puffed up and self-righteous 'overburdened' taxpayer is extremely loud and explicit.
They don't want THEIR money going to those who do not practice personal responsibility.
Evidently, the Pentagon is exempt from practicing ANY responsibility with their money.
It is a frame of mind, that no matter how I try, I just can't understand.
"You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath underseas and under fire." --George W. Bush, addressing war veterans, Wash, D.C., Jan. 10, 2006
September 17, 2006 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it the Pentagon, the CPA, or a combination of the two that "lost track" of the funds?
Tom
September 17, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so anyone who doesn't follow the link is clear, the Jim O'Beirne who was filling the CPA slots with Bush hacks is the husband of National Reviewer, Kate O'Beirne. So in the same week that the NYT made a hash of exposing the links between big right-wing foundations and op-ed pieces, there was this very basic pillow-talk at the heart of the media-industrial enterprise that was the Iraqi reconstruction. Also, the book excerpt doesn't name the neocon daughter who also landed a CPA job, but I assume he's referring to Tara Ledeen.
September 17, 2006 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it all depends on the where the buck stops?
DOD was in charge of the reconstruction but the CPA was actually in Iraq (not) doing it.
I'm not sure they know who lost it.
"You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath underseas and under fire." --George W. Bush, addressing war veterans, Wash, D.C., Jan. 10, 2006
September 17, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it better to have fraudsters there so they do not cheat us here? Fly paper!
September 17, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that tends to make us ineffective, in my opinion, is a tendency toward myopia or group think.
The suggestion that this story is no big deal because this patronage is now "common knowledge" is an example of this tendency.
It is NOT common knowledge to most Americans.
According to a Washington Post article today, the corruption scandals are not having much impact on the elections. That's true, I would guess, for three reasons.
One, Americans figure its both parties. Two, they figure the FBI and Justice Dept. is dealing with it and three they don't see it having a huge impact on anything even if they don't like it.
This story can change that.
This Iraq thing demonstrates how the culture of corruption and back scratching has COST AMERICAN LIVES and how Bush is directly responsible. It therefore, by itself, makes a strong argument for why we need a Democratic Congress to put a check on the Bush administration.
We should be telling this story over and over again until people are sick of it.
This story is the IN to many of the issues we're facing with Bush. It's very easy for the American people to understand. It demonstrates that the Bush administration's tendency to bypass long established rules is not about busting through red tape to get things done but is in fact bad for the country and the war against terror.
It demonstrates that the GOP is responsible for the division of the country because it shows that they have been partisan even in who they've allowed to participate in the fight, not allowing independents and Democrats who wanted to help do so. If that isn't a way to divide the country, I don't know what is.
It shows why they spend so much money -- finding jobs for all your political cronies costs a lot and results in massive inefficiency.
We need to put this in television ads over and over again all over the country.
September 17, 2006 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got it as Simone Ledeen - maybe the same person, but anyways, this is not the point.
The revelation about partisan/ideological purity defining who went to work in the CPA is not new. There's this Post article, from May 2004, which includes the following about the make-up of the CPA foot-soldiers:
When it came to suitability for their jobs, Ms. Ledeen discovered that "an interview, a background check or some other follow-up" was not necessary. She just got hired on the spot. For a straight up six-figure, all expenses paid foreign policy experiment. (Also, just wondering is there's an intrepid journalist out there who can track down a Lt Col Joseph Yoswa, who is reported to have claimed in relation to the CPA that "there was no organized effort to hire Republicans.")
There's a small question on how sick-minded people like O'Beirne are, that they regard political affiliation as a litmus test for professional competence. Such people are justifiably referred to as Stalinists.
Then there's the bigger question: we are doubly clear that CPA hires were pre-screened for ideological purity. Where else is this happening? Which other government agencies are applying such a filter? And for how long have they been doing so?
Here's hoping TPMmuckraker has answers...
September 18, 2006 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They cheat us here, they cheat us there. They simply cheat us everywhere.
Muckraker has a great story on Halliburton offering military honors (medals) if the injured contractors agree not to sue.
September 18, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink