Given how much untraceable cash has disappeared down the Iraqi drain, anyone care to place any bets on what sewer pipe "funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress" might have been siphoned from?
Back to Main
July 18, 2005
WB: When Scandals Collide
Comments
I think the answer to the question posed at the beginning is simple: the only group that has credibility on wasteful spending, so far as the media is concerned, are the Republicans. The media was concened about Democratic administrations paying for $200 haircuts and $300 toilet seats. If Republicans do the same and worse (much, much worse), the only people complaining are those nasty partisan Democrats, and the media just ignores the story.
Posted by: Dustin | Jul 18 2005 7:22 utc | 1
Any real criticism and investigation of these guys can’t happen until their approval rating dips down to the low 30’s. At the moment, questioning the motives of these fucks is like questioning Jesus to these wingnuts.
Posted by: steve expat | Jul 18 2005 7:37 utc | 2
I believe I recently read a report that two or three (I cannot recall how many) former employees (probably disgruntled) had filed Qui Tam cases against the companies they had worked. These companies are involved in the `reconstruction’ effort over there. The former employees were exposing the massive fraud of these companies. Perhaps one of these cases may provide the spark to outing the story. We can only hope.
Posted by: Dismayed | Jul 18 2005 8:29 utc | 3
There is potentially one remedy to all of this and that my friends is the judiciary.
Last week, a Federal District Court judge in DC refused to dismiss a False Claims Act case against Iraqi contracting firm Custer Battles.
You can read about it here
The False Claims Act allows citizen whistleblowers to opportunity to collect a portion of the damages for fraud committed by govt contractors. If more of these cases prevail, we may see some movement on behalf of worried contractors to settle with the DOJ instead of leaving themselves open to much greater financial liability. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out and could provide a glimmer of hope that there could be some justice.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 8:49 utc | 4
The Hersh piece is now public: GET OUT THE VOTE
.. Whether the election could sustain its promise had been in question from the beginning. The Administration was confronted with a basic dilemma: The likely winner of a direct and open election would be a Shiite religious party. The Shiites were bitter opponents of Saddam’s regime, and suffered under it, but many Shiite religious and political leaders are allied, to varying degrees, with the mullahs of Iran. As the election neared, the Administration repeatedly sought ways—including covert action—to manipulate the outcome and reduce the religious Shiite influence. Not everything went as planned.
…
The goal, according to several former intelligence and military officials, was not to achieve outright victory for Allawi—such an outcome would not be possible or credible, given the strength of the pro-Iranian Shiite religious parties—but to minimize the religious Shiites’ political influence. The Administration hoped to keep Allawi as a major figure in a coalition government, and to do so his party needed a respectable share of the vote.
The main advocate for channelling aid to preferred parties was Thomas Warrick, a senior adviser on Iraq for the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, who was backed, in this debate, by his superiors and by the National Security Council. Warrick’s plan involved using forty million dollars that had been appropriated for the election to covertly provide cell phones, vehicles, radios, security, administrative help, and cash to the parties the Administration favored.
…
As the campaign progressed, Campbell said, “It became clear that Allawi and his coalition had huge resources, although nothing was flowing through normal channels. He had very professional and very sophisticated media help and saturation television coverage.”
…
Warrick was not operating on his own, the State Department official said. “This issue went to high levels, and was approved”—within the State Department and by others in the Bush Administration, in the late spring of 2004. “A lot of people were involved in it and shared the idea,” including, he claimed, some of the N.G.O. operatives working in Iraq.
…
Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added, “because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster.”
…
I was informed by several former military and intelligence officials that the activities were kept, in part, “off the books”—they were conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress. Some in the White House and at the Pentagon believed that keeping an operation off the books eliminated the need to give a formal briefing to the relevant members of Congress and congressional intelligence committees, whose jurisdiction is limited, in their view, to officially sanctioned C.I.A. operations. (The Pentagon is known to be running clandestine operations today in North Africa and Central Asia with little or no official C.I.A. involvement.)
b:
Thanks for posting the Hersh article. I have two thoughts on this. One is that the media will eagerly jump on it to stop talking about Rove-Plame. The second is that it will fall into the anals of history with other great magazine pieces from Hersh and Suskind. I guess we’ll see. Maybe the greatest indications is to go see what the conservosphere is saying about it.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 9:03 utc | 6
After reading the article, I guess it should be unsurprising that wherever Negraponte is, democracy is being subverted.
I guess the next question is what the hell is he doing right now as NDI? On second thought I don’t think I really want to know because it would make me sick.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 9:07 utc | 7
Another thought I have re: Hersh is that I really believe right now that one of the significant reasons for chaos in Iraq is that the US Govt is intentionally allowing it to happen.
This article gives me reason to believe that the WH wants the current govt to be discredited in the eyes of average Iraqis and blamed for not being able to provide security and basic services, such as sanitation, etc. Come to think of it, aside from some die hard conservative nuts, when was the last time you heard a prominent Republican or Administration officials push hard the issue of reconstruction? I would bet that all reconstruction projects beyond maintaining status quo services are being subverted by delays for this reason. If it is true that 14 of 18 provinces are secure, then why don’t they have regular power or potable water?
It is an interesting thesis and I don’t really know what is more correct. It could be that the insurgency is the only reason why, however there may be some assistance in the form of bureaucratic foot dragging.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 9:15 utc | 8
Much money also has gone missing in the New Iraqi Army, in all kinds of scams reminiscent of Boss Tweed.
Reminds me of the time Reagan cut goverment auditing positions to save money.
RayGun said the defense contractors could be trusted to police themselves. Auditors weren’t needed.
Posted by: Groucho | Jul 18 2005 11:35 utc | 9
Bubb Rubb, A provocative line of thought.
Couldn’t there be some assistance to the insurgency too? Surely the U.S. Authority has no intention of letting a dominant Shi’a govt with close ties to Iran actually take power.
Insurgency also provides some cover for the actions of the “elite” police Wolf Brigade and other paramilitary forces, whose modus is disappearance, death, and torture, and who operate with impunity. While some sources suggest that these special “police” are composed principally of Shi’a and target Sunni, others report that the special police may include some of Saddam’s finest, and that victims may be any unlucky Iraqi whom rumor names or who somehow arouses suspicion.
[In June 2004,] the same month as Allawi was accused of carrying out summary executions, outraged US National Guardsmen stormed the interior ministry headquarters after they saw prisoners being beaten in the courtyard. They disarmed the police and searched the building. An American officer, Captain Jarrell Southall, reported that dozens of detainees they found “had bruises and cuts and belt or hose marks all over. I witnessed prisoners who were barely able to walk …” To the shock of the Guardsmen, the US command ordered them to hand the prisoners back over to the interior ministry police and leave the facility. (*)
Certainly, it would be impolitic to record funding for special police activities according to generally accepted accounting principles. and thus leave an easy trail. Black financing for black ops.
Posted by: small coke | Jul 18 2005 11:47 utc | 10
Chaos is exactly what they wanted to happen. And civil war. Remember that unguarded cache of weapons? I always thought that was intentional so the Iraqis could help themselves. That’s ridiculous They knew they were there.
Same thing with no stategy, no exit plan, no armor, no interpreters, no familiarity with the terrain and culture, on and on ad nauseum.
PNAC.. perpetual war, perpetual chaos, so they could stay indefinitely.
However, it seems that their contrived pandemonium is not what they expected and I think they are out of control themselves.
Posted by: jm | Jul 18 2005 12:15 utc | 11
A LINK TO IRAQI MILITARY MONEY PROBLEMS AND CORRUPTION
Posted by: Groucho | Jul 18 2005 12:40 utc | 12
Prof. Beau Grosscup of California State University at Chico told IPS, “Like most politicians these days, the Bush-Cheney team campaigned with the promise to run government like a business. Apparently it is true. Unfortunately for the North American taxpayer, it is the Enron-Arthur Anderson business model.” (*)
Posted by: small coke | Jul 18 2005 13:13 utc | 13
Josh Marshall, in late 2003 or 2004, published a piece in The Washington Monthly speculating on the possibility that a failed state was just fine with the neoconservatives like Wolfowitze, Feith, and the rest. Perhaps not so awfully failed, but a state that can maintain a seed of civility, export the mineral resources, and demand the continued intervention and presence of the United States. Given that Iraq wasn’t likely to turn into Switzerland, the possibility that a functioning New Iraq would be best buddies with Israel and stand against Iran as firmly as did Saddam was pretty low, too.
As I mentioned on another thread, during the Iraqi election, a Fox News buddy of Chris Bertram or David Sirota send a photo of American helicopters ferrying Allawi from campaign stop to campaign stop. Jokingly, the Fox guy was pointing out exactly how uninvolved the US was in supporting the Allawi slate.
Why is this coming out now? In part because the campaign failed, as it was almost sure to do. Sistani wields so much more influence in Iraq than the Americans dream of doing.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Jul 18 2005 13:35 utc | 14
The Iraq funding would provide a per capita of $30,000 per year for Iraq.
Consider the fate of Dale Stoffel:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.roston.html
Posted by: ! | Jul 18 2005 13:57 utc | 15
“Perhaps not so awfully failed, but a state that can maintain a seed of civility, export the mineral resources, and demand the continued intervention and presence of the United States.”
Isn’t that SOP for all of Latin America?
Posted by: ! | Jul 18 2005 13:58 utc | 16
Josh Marshall, in late 2003 or 2004, published a piece in The Washington Monthly speculating on the possibility that a failed state was just fine with the neoconservatives like Wolfowitze, Feith, and the rest.
Why is this coming out now? In part because the campaign failed, as it was almost sure to do. Sistani wields so much more influence in Iraq than the Americans dream of doing.
Posted by: Brian C.B. | July 18, 2005 09:35 AM | #
I think I remember that article. I think to the neocons, the failure to plan for the post-war was probably a win-win strategy. If they “treated us like liberators” and there war an orderly transfer of power to our designated prefect, then good. If there was destabilization, then good too. They probably had a wager on it, like perhaps an autographed first edition copy of Fukiyama’s “End of History” or something like that.
I have a feeling that the “treated as liberators” group were probably loathe to give up any Fukiyama first editions, and tried to hold it together by tossing Garner and getting a new head coach. The other side however wanted to get their hands on their prize and forced them to take their guy, Bremer, for the job and had him dissolve the Iraqi Army fueling the insurgency and the chaos.
It seems like we have been dealing with the back and forth tug of two opposing sides intent on both destroying the validity of the others policy position by destroying Iraq. The side that thought we could install a puppet regime won out leading to the fake transfer of sovereignty to the Governing Council. Then they couldn’t rig the elections enough and the other side said okay, back to the destabilization plan, which I can assume has both the prospect of preventing Shia influence in Iraq, but also of potentially spilling over into Iran. Can you imagine that they were not hoping that more al Qaeda Sunni oriented foreign terrorist may come to Iraq, stay a while and hopefully use Iraq as a staging area to launch cross border terrorist attacks on Iran?
Remember the bus boming in Tehran the week of the election? I suspect that may have been a test run. I have a feeling that if this plot works, there may be much more ahead. And what better justification could there be for a US attack on Iran than if Iran violated Iraqi territorial sovereignty by crossing the border to go after terrorists in Iraq?
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 18 2005 14:21 utc | 17
I think the answer to the question posed at the beginning is simple: the only group that has credibility on wasteful spending, so far as the media is concerned, are the Republicans. The media was concened about Democratic administrations paying for $200 haircuts and $300 toilet seats. If Republicans do the same and worse (much, much worse), the only people complaining are those nasty partisan Democrats, and the media just ignores the story.
I’m not so sure. I think the more likely answer is that the vast sums being stolen / wasted / whatever by the Cheney administration are just too large for the average joe to wrap his mind around. Almost nobody in American society knows how much it actually costs to fight a war or to rebuild a country – so when they read about so many billions of dollars being squandered on Project X, they just shrug their shoulders and put it out of their minds. For most people, the war and its cost are just too big to really see at once – so they don’t look.
Conversely, everybody knows that $300 is too much to pay for a hammer, or $680 is too much to pay for a toilet seat, or that $200 is too much to pay for a haircut. It’s well within the range of experiences of the man on the street, which is why it resonates more than the actual important stuff.
Posted by: spencer | Jul 18 2005 14:24 utc | 18
@! Stoffel was most probably CIA
The Josh Marshall article was Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario–it’s their plan.
Best piece Josh has ever written.
It might work better if the huge sums were divided across the US population, or number of taxpayers, etc, to create a per captia cost of this orgy of corruption and waste. People can relate to that. There are too many layers to it.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 18 2005 14:50 utc | 20
Don’t you see? Americans LOVE thieves! Jesse James, John Dillinger and Al Capone all have a romanticism and envy attached to them. Americans are thrilled with the knowledge that they too can get wealthy without any of the education, hard work, morals and ethics required to achieve it. Even though it is their very own money being wasted it doesn’t matter, just as it didn’t matter it was their banks being robbed by Dillinger. Secondly, it is friends of Republicans getting rich. Roughly half the populace now has a cultivated, encouraged and managed hatred of Democrats (I’m a uniter, not a divider—-HA!). Most on the right figure the funds are better in the hands of those beholden to Bush. Better still at least a small percentage of that money makes it back to the RNC through contributions, and all the better arriving there than the clutches of Hillary, the ACLU, Greenpeace and all the godless Jews, faggots and darkies. Another magical convergence making the theft acceptable is it is committed in the midst of a war on a people of different religions, color, race, language and culture. Americans love killing foreigners, especially if they’re not white and Christian. If a few people make a little, or a lot, on the side what the hell. In Republican-speak it’s called “The Cost Of Doing Business”.
Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 18 2005 15:08 utc | 21
annie, of course not ALL of us. Just enough of us to give Bush carte blanche for what he’s doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also enough of us desirous of attaching electrodes to Muslim testicles to give Bush a free pass on torture. How else to explain nobody above the level of sergeant is rotting away in jail for doing just that or worse. Hell, we can kill prisoners with impunity if we’re seated at a desk or work at a Cabinet level job.
Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 18 2005 16:31 utc | 23
Mighty High-Priced Dogs of War in the U.S. Kennel:
LINK
Posted by: Groucho | Jul 18 2005 18:19 utc | 24
See Saddam has been charged with taking revenge on a village for an assassination attempt. Our taking revenge on Faluga for the killing of four contractors was completely different.
Posted by: ken melvin | Jul 18 2005 18:26 utc | 25
For awhile I was willing to believe Marshalls theory, and to a certain extent I still do, but only as it (perpetual war) is preferable to outright loosing the whole thing. Its pretty pathetic to gather, judged by the factual actions and results the US has demonstrated on the ground in Iraq — that the maddness we see is a deliberate construction in favor of all other outcomes.
On the whole the US seems to be saying ; if you dont allow us to be your shadow government, and control the distribution of your resources along with the total restructuring of your economy to our favor, then we will allow the latent forces of secretarianism and chaos (perpetual war) to emerge and infiltrate every pore of your civil life. At best this is a simple Mafia protection racket, that has run amuck, both in terms of the cost (5bill@month), diminishing political returns(in US), and last and least the cost in lives lost. The US has failed especially to consider the effects that they have put in motion that go beyond the more abstract political restructuring, and have through massive economic restructuring, put into effect policy that effects every Iraqi as a fundamental economic fact. Call it the Naomi Klein effect . And I think this effect has been undervalued and underestimated in understanding the verocity of resistance that lies deep in the heart of anyone that daily can compare the rhetoric with the explicit facts on the ground so intimately.
So as usual, the US all along has had its real intentions in Iraq slathered in the expected rhetorical bullshit frosting — that has no lived everyday” facts on the ground” indice (a failing of the press) here in the west.
So its right to assume that perpetual war is part of the equation, but primarily as a “punishment” tool for goals not acomplished through policy, calling their ability to create perpetual war as the dominate policy directive is mostly sarcasm, in that it is in denial of the real prize, which is control.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 18 2005 22:02 utc | 26
IIRC, one of the things that came out in watergate was that CRP was collecting kickbacks on US foreign aid: S. Korea springs to mind but I am pretty sure there were other victims/contributors as well. Whatcha think the chances of that sort of thing happening this time around? Nah: I can’t imagine Karl or Grover stooping to that, can you. Well, so much for that thought.
Posted by: paul | Jul 19 2005 10:39 utc | 27