One of my favorite films of all time is Good Fellas. It stars Robert DeNiro (left), Ray Liotta, and Joe Pesci....directed by Martin Scorsesse. The film is essentially a history of the Mob from the 1950s to the 1980s, as seen through the eyes of Henry Hill, a real life mobster turned informant.During one scene, a restaurant owner goes to Paulie, the mob boss, and asks for financial help with his eatery. Over the next few minutes, we see, very clearly, how the mob operates. Once they get their hooks into an establishment, they can do whatever they want. If the owner can't come up with the monthly kickbacks, it's time to bust the joint out, which basically means they run up a tab n the restaurant's credit, spending as much money as they can before they burn it down for the insurance money. Sometimes they run up the credit even if the guy does makes his payments.
Over the last 45 years this has been the modus operandi of the United States government when it comes to smaller countries. We loan them money and if they can't pay us, we bust the joint out, which, in geo-political terms, means we get to dictate its policy....a policy which is, of course, favorable financially to US corporations. We also get to take whatever goods we want. If the country decides to not listen to us or fuck us over, well....then you get Iraq.
And, if you are a defense contractor who has helped to buy off an entire administration, you can make some serious coin....
Last Thursday, Mary L. Ugone, the Pentagon’s deputy inspector general for auditing, submitted an internal auditing report of 8.2 billion dollars of taxpayer money to a Congressional oversight committee. According to the report, virtually all of the contracts did not follow ANY of the federal rules regarding contract payments and many of them had little or no record of what, if anything, was received. In addition, the report says that there was no accountability in nearly 2 billion dollars of Iraqi assets that were seized and distributed in pallets of cash. No records were kept of these disbursements and no one knows if this figure of 2 billion is even accurate.
As examples of this financial mismanagement, the report offers:- a document identified at the top as a “Public Voucher for Purchases and Services Other Than Personal.” It indicates that $320.8 million went for “Iraqi Salary Payment,” with no explanation of what the Iraqis were paid to do.
- A payment of $11.1 million was paid to IAP, an American contractor, on the basis of a voucher with no indication of what was delivered.
- a US Treasury check for $5,674,075.00 to pay a company called Al Kasid Specialized Vehicles Trading Company in Baghdad for items that a voucher does not even describe.
- $6,268,320.07 went to the contractor Combat Support Associates with even less explanation than the item above.
- a scrawl on a piece of paper says only that $8 million had been paid out as “Funds for the Benefit of the Iraqi People.”
The report also notes that the preparers were unable to find a clear set of records of payments, by the American Military to its allies, in the amount of 135 million dollars. These payments include 70 million to the UK, 45 million to Poland, and 20 million to South Korea. The auditors made repeated requests to find out what these payments were for and their requests were left unanswered. As the chairman of the Congressional committee Henry Waxman said, " “It sounds like the coalition of the willing is the coalition of the paid — they’re willing to be paid."
Bear in mind that this report, the first of its kind to come directly from the Pentagon (which means it is a primary source-unfiltered by the media), is in ADDITION to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report which could not account for 9 billion dollars in cash, last seen on these pallets. Remember this video from a while back?
Of course, this isn't even the best part. Because there were so many contracts to be examined, the auditors only took a representative sample of.......702 of them?!!? Just exactly how many defense contractors are there? And much taxpayer money has actually been wasted if 8.2 billion dollars is representative? Good grief....
I submit that Bush Co has busted the joint out and, stunningly, 28 percent of the voting public think he is an honest guy. I have spent a lot of time over the last few years wondering why this is and then I realized, after spending way too much time getting into the conservative mindset, that the reason for this is so many of them love to show the rest of the country how government is fucked up...even if it is done on purpose! Because then they get to point to reports like this and say, "See? This why we need less government and we need to privatize everything" while quietly masturbating (balls gently cradled of course) at the thought of a small government that lets US Corporations do whatever they want with no oversight.
Isn't that what we fucking have right now?
Apparently, the truth has been ignored or lost to them as this war has largely been run by private industry. There are just as many contractors in Iraq as there are soldiers. And there are private militias (Blackwater) running around doing whatever they want because they aren't accountable to the same laws that our armed forces are.
Take a look at these numbers. Go read the report. It is on the defense departments web site. Do any of you still think that we are in Iraq to "protect freedom?" It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened to this money. It went to our very own little version of the Mob-US Defense Contractors-and President Bush gave them his blessing to do it. This was the plan all along, folks. They knew there was a ton of money to be made in Iraq and they seized the day. Our CEO President really wanted to show, once and for all, that he can be successful in business and make money for his friends, even if it involved fraud. As with the Mob, Bush wanted to be "made."
We are at the point, folks, where we need to protect the government from corporations and not corporations from the government. This report is an excellent example of the sad state we are in. If anyone thinks that the last eight years has seen more government control and that's the problem (as some have intimated to me), they clearly have their heads so far up their ass that they won't need to get their annual colonoscopy this year.
25 comments:
Nice one. The analogy to Good Fellas is dead on right. This administration will go down as the most corrupt in history.
Tut Tut, now, downtown. Remember you have to look at things from all sides. You're just being partisan and in now way telling anything close to the truth, you yippy dog, you!
There could be a perfectly logical explanation for why billions of dollars are unaccounted for and why hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq. Just like there are perfectly good reasons why people commit crimes on our streets everyday. It really wasn't their fault...it was society's fault. We need to see all sides of the story of someone like Jeffrey Daumer, for example, right righties?
Oh, oh. I think I just got torched! It burns! It burns!
I think you may have your analogy a bit mixed up there Torch. I know very few - if any - conservatives who would try to explain away violent crime by saying "it was society's fault" and not the individual's. But maybe I run with a different crowd of conservatives than you do.
Hey, I you all want to sit and commiserate about how much money and how many lives were wasted in Iraq, I'm not going to stop you. If you come across evidence that money was misappropriated I'm all for stringing up those responsible. I'm not sure what part of anything I've ever said would have given you an impression otherwise. I would only caution that there is a distinct difference between money wasted/lost and money stolen. Not to schmucks on this blog who live in fantasy land, mind you. But to those of us who see that the world is an imperfect place.
I think you misunderstood the torch's saracasm, pl.
Many conservatives talk a good game about being tough on crime but with the various criminal acts of the Bush administration, they suddenly begin to sound exactly like that which they criticized...it's always someone else's fault or something is to blame...the liberal media, the liberal colleges, partisan politics etc.
Sometimes a murderer is just that
What did I miss Elizabeth? I freely admit to not being that bright.
i spoke to a major in iraq who in 2004 told me coalition partners were all paid (specifically the countries named by mark all came up in conversation) he told me to speak to the Major-General in charge of his division who knew the facts and would corroborate them. This was in an on camera interview. The Major said every coalition military member he came across was equipped and full salary paid by the US, the Poles & Italians were pissed and 'unwilling' (he said at the time) because they knew they were receiving lower salaries than their equal peers in the US military -- it was hardly a secret 4.5 years ago and it's good (but ridiculous) that it's coming out NOW as a revelation, how conveniently, at the END of the crappiest mob rule in recent history. Iraq is also the first time ever that there are more contractors in a US taxpayer-funded war (now numbering many more than 150 thousand & accountable to ZIP) than actual military service employees. The Mafia is taking notes and learning a thing or two from this Administration's ultra-corrupt myopic & inhumane operating procedures. Joanne.
Right on, Joanne!
PL, I think the torch was trying to show the hypocrisy of conservatives by comparing one criminal (Jeff Dauhmer) to another criminal (George Bush) or in this case, criminals (the Bush administration and the Iraqi War Machine). Everyone in the right mind knows that Daumer was a criminal. He and he alone is to blame for his crimes with the possible exception of his parents if the stories about them are true.
But when it comes to the Bush Administration free passes are doled out all around and NONE of the things they do could possibly be considered criminal and they are simply the victims of partisan politics and a rampant spread of liberalism throughout all outlets of information.
Jeff U is correct in his post above and I would echo that. They act like the very people they criticize.
Funny how George the Incompetent is also George the Incomparable Criminal-Genius in Chief. It's a breath-mint, no, it's a floor wax, WAIT, it's BOTH!!!
Now, do you believe that all of those DoD bureaucrats are in on the scam, or could it be that just having HUGE FUCKING piles of taxpayer money laying around, some of it is bound to get lost or stolen? If you believe there is a significant portion of the civil service that is as corrupt as the administration, how do you plan to remedy that? If you believe that fraud, waste and abuse are just part of what happens (even though we should minimize it as much as possible), then why do you think healthcare will be any different from defense?
Hey juris, good to hear from you again. I miss our debates.
Working backwards...
I think health care will be different for a couple of reasons. First, we are not and should not have a single payer system. That would, in fact, be just as corrupt as our current "single payer" defense system. If you look closely at Obama's plan you will see that is offers an alternative to those who can't afford or don't want private insurance. So, US Care will be one of many choices, not the only one, and thus will have a much smaller budget and less money to keep track of.
Second, I think there is better oversight with Medicare and Medicaid right now than there is with defense spending. Certainly, it isn't perfect and I'm sure there is fraud that goes on but not at the scale over at the DoD. That has been going on for quite awhile...November of 1963 IMHO. Remember the 900 dollar hammers?
The culture of corruption has been encouraged by this president and if you elect someone who is not corrupt, there will be less. We also have to elect a president who doesn't appoint his pals to run things but appoints competent people, regardless of political alliance, to oversee the various aspects of government. You will be surprised at who Obama appoints:)
And, yes, I'm sure some of it has to do with incompetence. But that's a great way to abscond with money...put a bunch of people in charge who don't know what they are doing, pull the wool over their eyes with some blind patriotism, and presto...here's some free money.
President Bush is, in fact, not very smart. You don't have to be intelligent to rip off the American public. All you have to do is come up with a good enemy, have a daddy complex that pushes you to prove to his all too willing business pals that you are cool, blow some shit up, wave the flag, and, surprisingly, no one asks too many questions.
And those that do...well...they're traitors, right?
how can you SAY that? how can ANYONE justify the situation using THAT ridiculous argument?
Oh.... i STOLE 8 billion or 241 million or 3 million or 76 million (GIVE ME A BREAK, like it's all just LOST millions in the system...especially the suitcases full of cash mention in the LAST comptrollers' report.. and neither the government nor the corporations nor the iraqi leaders are accountable or KNOW what they're doing when they leave an invoiceless, paperless trail?)
or OH, i LOST 8 billion....
Either way, it's totally unacceptable and CRIMINAL -- whether you're that unbelievably INCOMPETENT, or more likely, that unbelievaby powerful and CORRUPT? You're in GOVERNMENT and you don't give a **** about the peoples' money or lives, only about you or your cronies' profits & bank balances!! Joanne.
Elizabeth, based on your response, I read Torch's posting exactly the same way you did and responded in kind. As I said, if there is proof that someone(s) in the administration stole money, I'm all for stringing them up. Undoubtedly there are people who give GWB a free pass on issues such as these, but if you've been paying attention you've certainly noticed that number is dwindling to the point of being insignificant. And it certainly doesn't include most of the conservative voices on this blog.
I would only add the following (and admittedly it's not much) - there is a nontrivial distinction between:
** Money wasted/lost and money stolen.
** Money made by contractors as a result of the war, and starting a war for the express purpose of making money for those contractors.
There is a great deal of anger in this country over these issues, and rightfully so. But extending the argument from "you are incompetent for wasting/losing that much money" to "you are a criminal for stealing that money...and, oh, by the way, you are a murderer" is where most of us are drawing the line.
Let's get the people suspected of stealing the money and let's put them on trial. Personally, I refuse to accept the verdict of public opinion, when that opinion is led most loudly by people who spout opinions like "You're in GOVERNMENT and you don't give a **** about the peoples' money or lives, only about you or your cronies' profits & bank balances!!"
Color me cynical, but I suspect such a voice is not assessing the situation with the utmost in impartiality.
And if "You don't have to be intelligent to rip off the American public. All you have to do is come up with a good enemy, have a daddy complex that pushes you to prove to his all too willing business pals that you are cool, blow some shit up, wave the flag, and, surprisingly, no one asks too many questions" is the new era of politics starting in '09, man are we in trouble!
If PL actually thinks that wars are not started or prolongued for billions of dollars, by a relatively tiny percentage of people in power who would never attain or remain in power otherwise, in Iraq, in the US, who deal in war and war contracts including the sale of arms and its commissions, incorporating thousands of lobbyists and their protectors and allies in government in washington, then great and good luck.
Because this is giving the benefit of the doubt to professional (i would say criminals, but for the sake of argument let's just say) failures who, despite all the evidence and results of mass corruption and dishonesty at home and abroad over 8 years, who despite all the insider revelations including the very latest one of deceptions by Scott Mclellan (loyal Whitehouse spokesman for 4 years) actually want NOT to be judged on their record and given another free ride.
Pl says convict any criminals. Cool. But it's suddenly party-political or beyond the realm of conceivable that the criminals are actually the nation's leaders. Joanne.
by the way pl, i didn't clarify but i want to, that i fully respect your right to believe in this administration, to believe their intentions are decent or at heart correct, that their judgements are not corrupt but maybe, visionary. i respect your right to GIVE them the benefit of the doubt and say the corruption buck doesn't stop at the very top but with individuals, who should be held accountable. I respect any person's right to believe in the War on Terror and the reasons given for the invasion of iraq and the increased tensions and fighting in the middle east, i just happen to have a completely different perspective, based on experiences and observations.
the fact that two people or sides don't see eye to eye about issues is human and natural and doesn't mean that there can't be dialogue, open minds or mutual respect (or - otherwise.)
i know you already know that, i'm not saying anything new at all, i just wished to clarify that -- because in today's political climate or, i always get the impression, that somehow diasagreeing is personal. If i gave that impression myself with the above, that's wrong and wasn't my intention. Joanne.
The Mclellan book is going to be very interesting. Will it be the tipping point or just another toothless tell all book?
No need to follow-up Joanne. I understand and appreciate your point of view. For what it's worth, it's far from beyond the realm of possibility that our country's leaders are actually the criminals that you and Markadelphia make them out to be. In my mind, anyway. Others of the conservative bent are perhaps not open to that possibility, but if you look back over the years of discussion here you will find that I don't give GWB a pass and, in fact, have only supported a handful of his initiatives. One of which is the war in Iraq. Of course, my support for the war in Iraq materially differs from the official party line, so perhaps I shouldn't be the one attempting to defend GWB here.
I also appreciate the fact that you raised the issue of "wars being started or prolonged..." I'm not naive enough to believe that's not the case. To the contrary, I've made the argument that human history shows us that this sort of thing always occurs and, if anything, the naive line of thought is to think that placing somebody in the White House who professes to be opposed to this will change that reality. Obama has not gotten to where he is without cracking a few eggs. If/when he is elected he will not finish his term without making decisions that result in people's deaths - deaths that are viewed as unjustifiable in the minds of many others. He will make decisions that end up with $$$ in the pockets of those around him and perhaps even his own. So what will make him less of a "murderer" or "thief" than GWB is? Popular opinion? Your/Markadelhpia's opinion? That's not a very compelling argument to me and, in fact, it's the argument moreso than the message that I reject.
At this juncture I'm convinced that GWB is guilty of nothing more than being President in an era when people are hyper-sensitive to so many issues, probably because they have access to so much more information (factual or otherwise) than people did before. Should the evidence ultimately prove otherwise then I'm on your side. Until it does - and yes, I believe the verdict is still out - then I reject the inflammatory rhetoric of "worst President ever" and "murderer" and "thief", etc. I hear so many theories about GWB has done this, is responsible for this, etc., etc., that it's really hard to keep track of what people are trying to pin on him these days. To piggy-back on a point juris imprudent made above, I think this is clearly a situation of guilt-by-inundation. If GWB is accused of enough things that could even remotely be true, many of them are going to stick (true or not) and the Presidency will be destroyed. As a quick side note - it's going to be ugly to watch that process start-up in reverse in '09, and it certainly isn't going to help the disconnect in communication between the parties. A sad reality of the political arena, I suppose.
In the end, as I've said before, I don't know what part of human history makes Markadelphia that we'll all be sitting around holding hands working for the betterment of each other if only we had the right person in the White House. If that's the biggest selling point of Obama, and from the reaction of many of his supporters it seems to be, then I'm not buying.
i like your logic pl, i respond to logic :)
i think the thinking is (& i'm just talking off the top of my head here) that leadership and example comes from the top and if there is 'CHANGE' or a fresh start, it should not only be sincere but walk the walk.
Even Scott McLellan a longterm Texan ally and Governor Bush friend, who blasts his former boss referred to occasionally as merely 'Bush' and specificaly his inner circle of Advisors, calls the President nonetheless authentic and likeable.
I believe a true leader is not just authentic, likeable and well-meaning, but should to a large degree actually be uncorruptable, principled and responsible, someone with a will of steel and the opposite in humanity: unhardened. An exceptional individual can turn things around -- but NOT ON THEIR OWN. They will very much need a 'clean' team dedicated to public service and the will energy and support of the public, whose unity and trust is vital.
It's an extremely tall order. I can't think of a President in recent history who's filled it, without falling into major traps. In my view, Obama is deeply promising but there is a difference between promise and fulfilment. I think the country needs unity, an honest fresh start and most importantly, fulfilment of the promise. The fact that he has not been involved in any of (as i see it..) the devious policies or unintelligent decision-making of the past few years, is at least, a reason for being hopeful. But you are certainly right. Hope isn't enough, sometimes though it's a great and necessary start. Everything starts small. No president or presidential candidate however, including Obama, should be given a free pass. This President has been given the benefit of the doubt way too many times. I think those who believe in Obama's promise, including myself, feel so far, he's earned respect and some slack. Joanne
Fair enough. As in '04, I don't see myself voting Republican this year, because were McCain to be elected President I see 4 more years of the same shit that we saw these past 4. For the record...you probably read into that statement "corruption, etc., etc.," whereas I'm referring to the phenomenon where everything that comes out of the President's mouth would be considered vile and incorrect by a large % of the population. So in a sense, for different reasons, we would both view an Obama Presidency as a chance at a fresh start. A McCain Presidency is a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned, and not necessarily through any fault of his. It would simply result in 4 more years of nothing getting accomplished and, like most of you, I am sick of that.
Having said that, I unfortunately don't think it will be all that different with Obama as President. Part of it is due to the fact that there are as many petty people on the conservative side as there are on the liberal side who will be looking for any and every reason to tear him down. Part of it is the fact that Obama is revealing himself (in my eyes) as just another politician. I would respectfully venture the guess that a great many people who support him are unwilling or unable to see that, which is too bad because it makes for some less-than-truthful discussions. Which is too bad, because without an honest reckoning of what is wrong we're never going to better our situation. It doesn't matter who is occupying the White House.
As an example, health care. Personally, I don't believe that everybody is entitled to health care. If you don't agree with that, great. But it's when my viewpoint - which I consider to be perfectly valid - is swept aside in a wave of "health care for everybody NOW!" my kneejerk reaction is to lash out at those delivering that message. Those who are shouting the "health care for everybody" message are more often than not doing so with nothing but the best of intentions, but I also have nothing but the best of intentions. So where does that leave us? In today's environment that leaves us with you labeling me a Nazi/racist/greedy bastard (only some of which is true) and with me labeling you a hypocrite/Socialist. Doesn't seem to be a very productive way to solve the problems with health care. Having Obama in the White House doesn't change any of that, which makes the promise of a "fresh start" ring a little hollow for me. So again, when I hear Obama speak, I'm pretty much only hearing the one message - I'm not GWB.
that was really nicely written and expressed pl. i will leave your cool comments to speak volumes for themselves. i pretty much think everything you said above rings true & makes a lot of sense. i don't have a solution to the pettiness that you very correctly diagnose. i hear & see it a lot. i think communication and honesty, rather than political tribalism, are probably the key. if we can see ourselves first as humans in the same boat rather than enemies to be obliterated. i think that humanising and objective diagnosis of the problem/s and situation works equally well for a lot of situations in the Middle East :) joanne.
That would, in fact, be just as corrupt as our current "single payer" defense system.
It isn't that it is inherently corrupt (unless you are taking an extreme free-market viewpoint), it's really more about incompetence due to scale. A lot of DoD stuff works well, if it's small and focused. It's the humongous stuff that ends up wasting so much money. Those $900 hammers (and the toilet seats too, remember) were 'specialized' components of a much bigger system - not just stuff that coulda been picked up at Home Depot. Yeah, it was stupid and un-necessary, but it really wasn't corrupt. Although I appreciate your point about avoiding single payer, I still see the risk in ANY very large govt effort.
We also have to elect a president who doesn't appoint his pals to run things but appoints competent people
No argument with that in and of itself. But, most of the bureaucracy is pretty well insulated from the politicals, so "pals" can only do so much (for better or worse), and they cannot force CS personnel to do illegal things. The CS folks know that they will still be there after the appointees are long gone. Civil service is in that sense a wonderful check against administrative corruption.
That's why I'm skeptical of govt spending on ANYthing and prefer to see a more limited govt.
"A lot of DoD stuff works well, if it's small and focused."
I agree. I think there are a great number of heroes in the DoD who keep our country safe and do their job well everyday. To me, the problems begin with the leadership and when they are corrupt and push an agenda that is depraved, then the good guys are heavily marginalized or sidelined.
I hear stories about hundreds of DoD employees who work on finding bin Laden or Zawahari and are constantly hamstrung by leadership. Why? Isn't bin Laden supposed to be a central part of the agenda?
To me, the problems begin with the leadership and when they are corrupt and push an agenda that is depraved, then the good guys are heavily marginalized or sidelined.
But M, and not to minimize your concern, that isn't my point. The problem isn't one of that type of corruption. The DoD does waste a crapload of money - but not because of the few overtly political and "evil" types at the top. What you said above is pretending that changing a few people at the top will magically fix everything. It won't, and not because better people wouldn't be an improvement over the current administration, but because the problem is bigger then just what a few people, no matter how brilliant and pure, can accomplish.
I saw a very interesting article today on the problems an Obama administration is likely to face with Congress; and it wasn't about Republicans. The article pointed to the Carter administration and the inability of that admin to line up the Democratically-controlled Congress.
"changing a few people at the top will magically fix everything. It won't"
I agree. There is always going to be some sort of waste but do you really think it will be at the same level we have now? Plus, we have waste and actual war profiteering going on which makes the waste of taxpayer money even worse. We could, at least, work to minimalize the waste of taxpayer money.
Obama is going to have a real problem with the Democrats...especially the old ones. His candidacy is not about left versus right, a point the right misses every single day, it is about old versus new. The Democrats are used to the pork and their special privileges and are really going to be in for a rude awakening in an Obama administration. I predict he will get along better with the Republicans in Congress than the Democrats.
There is always going to be some sort of waste but do you really think it will be at the same level we have now?
NOW you are asking the right question - which is quite different from where you started. If you think of it as an 80/20 problem, I'm betting you think the 80% is what could be reduced. I on the other hand think it's probably the 20% part that is due to bad leadership. Which means you can't get much traction on saving taxpayer dollars, and is why I'm skeptical of creating a govt(tax)-paid healthcare system.
in for a rude awakening in an Obama administration
No, I think those, like yourself hoping for a great change in DC are the ones most likely to get a rude awakening. There is more power in Congress then in the Executive, and that is as it should be in a democratic republic. If Obama was going to be Prime Minister it would be a different story - but that's not our system.
"I think those, like yourself hoping for a great change are the ones most likely to get a rude awakening"
Sure, it's possible. That's why I am an idealist without illusions :) My main point is that it is the Democrats who Obama is going to have a bigger problem with than the Republicans. There are a lot of problems with Democratic Party and he is not going to be able to change it overnight or alone.
Post a Comment