Walter Pincus = total baloney

From the be careful what you wish for files:

Cheney resigns under a cloud of suspicion. Condi Rice appointed to VP.

"Walter Pincus = total baloney"

Walter Pincus was one of the few who called it right in the leadup to the war.

Judith Miller was a Bush tool.

Wilson thought it might be Hannah. Looks like he was probably right. Why oh why did the Bush WH gang think they could take on a well-connected guy like Wilson?

Interesting speculation about Bolton.

Reminder that the bigger picture is the Bush WH pushing lies and punishing truth-tellers.

22 indictments predicted.

Where's Jeff Gannon when we need him?!

Why oh why did the Bush WH gang think they could take on a well-connected guy like Wilson?

Um, 'cause he's ultimately a publicit-seeking moron, who's general perfidy is well documented by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report? Because his piece in the NYTimes and his writings for the government contradict each other? Because he himself admitted that his "research" consisted of "sipping mint tea" by the pool and hobnobbing with a few government bigwigs? Because he misrepreseted his connection to the office of the Vice President? Because, however "connected" he might be, his wife got him the job, and then he lied about the connection?

Look, if Fitzgerald is able to prove that someone broke the law, then they should go to jail, if for no other reason than the integrity of the law needs to be maintained. That someone did break the law, however, is far from a foregone conclusion, simply because it is a weak-assed law, which appears to have been designed to make it very hard to convict, absent some very strict and specific mens rea.

Once the "leaker" is either convicted or exhonerated, can we please have the long-overdue discussion about the professionalism and integrity of a CIA employee using her dipshit husband and government resources to do a hit-job on the president via the NYTimes? Shouldn't that at least be a firing offence?

Ouch! Tubby tubino is down for the count! LOL!

Well said Holdfast. Here, here.

But, what I really wanted to say was, 'I question the timing,' before Dave at Garfield Ridge beat me to the punch. And if he posts first before I hit the post button, I'm going to be pissed! At any rate, I think Rove is using this whole kerfuffle to draw attention away from our successes in Iraq. Either that or he is using it to suck the unwitting democraps into the honey pot of a possible embarrassment of the president, only to watch them squirm in the goo when the indictments are all handed out for Wilson himself who is the idiot who published his wife's name and occupation before anyone in the Whitehouse ever heard of the nepotistic little twit or her media-whore husband.

George Bush is an evil space alien out to eat your brains!

Look at the evidence for yourself.

And tell me this isn't proof, hmmmm?

My objective sources say all of this is true. The man is EEEEVIL!!!

Mmmmhmm...this kool aid fucking ROCKS!

In case you missed the subtle point I was trying to make in my first post, allow me to expand on it with this follow-up post where I say the same fucking thing, except this time I use lots of impressive words.

Oh, and I have to post a long excerpt from a lefty blog to prove my point:

"Wow. This Filet-O-Fish sandwich is good, but it's not quite as good as the egg mcmuffin I had this morning. I refuse to eat the hamburgers at this place, though, because that Hamburgler thing is obviously a super-coded racist message. And speaking of racists, that Clarence Thomas sure is a Republithug dick, isn't he?"

That was Mr. "Like Kryptonite to a good point" himself commenting on the social issues facing us these days.

By the way, Bush is not only going to be indicted, he's going to be impeached and then made to move his own furniture out of the White House, right before he's arrested.

Frog walk here we come!

TooBeano's sources are unimpeachable.

Wasn't that punny!

Yo, tubino! I've got a good-faith offer/integrity check for you! Unlike so many issues we wrangle over, this one is going to have a yes-or-no answer, and in a very short time. That gives us an unusual opportunity to broker an honest test.

How's this: if Fitzgerald's decision is that a crime has been committed, and one (or more) of the Bush team or any other righty is indicted for it, I lose. And I will give you public cred from here on, and follow your links and stuff. I'm good for it, I promise.

If, however, he says no crime has been committed, or it has and it lands one any of the lefties in this mess, I win. And you promise to dial it down a notch and admit your post-prandial tipple just might be kool aid.

For clarification: I won't accept Judity Miller as one of ours. However, if the crime turns out to be something lame like not cooperating with the panel quick enough and a righty is indicted for it, I'll take that as a loss for me.

Deal?

Judity! Pfff! Who the hell recommended this ValuRite shit to me, anyway?

"Public challenge?" thoughts Symes. "Weasal v. Tubino? People love challenges. Is there any way I could wangle a post out of this?"

The Doctor crossed his thickly muscled legs and leaned back, unsure. More thoughts troubled his brow.

"Perhaps I could sell tickets?" he wondered. "Something. I gotta find an angle"

I wager fifteen quatloos on the Weasel.

"...and why is there a rhino horn stuck up my ass?"

Weasel proposes a deal. His end sounds fine to me. A real crime and an indictment, I get a little credibility. Sure, sounds plenty fair.

And if no indictments, or an indictment of a "lefty", I lose. Okay, I guess, but I'm not accepting Judith as one of ours either!

Tim Russert? Novak? I honestly don't know who the possible lefties are here. Wilson? Hardly. Served under repubs, stood up to Saddam, donated to repubs in the past.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, sure, I'll agree to that, Weasel.

I'm not at all sure Fitz can make a prosecution stick, and there are probably pardons down the road anyway. But as I keep saying, whether the traitors get nailed or not, I think the best part is uncovering how the slimy bit about how pro-war stories got in the MSM. And that it wasn't just Judy, it was the NYT editors. For months. LONG after they had no excuse.

Remember way back when this broke, one of the first stories said 2 senior WH folks brought the story out. Between that and the CIA referring the case, I always thought we were talking real crimes here.

But Fitz has kept such a lid on the leaks that really NO ONE KNOWS yet. Guy seems like a real serious prosecutor to me. How the hell did THAT happen, anyway?!?

I'll put a sawbuck on the Weasle.

Weasel, throw in Delay and you may have a deal with Toob.

P. S. Let's say Rove and Libby get indicted.
So what?

Wouldn't bother me none.

"Um, we have a deal? Do both sides agree on terms? Weasal will "give public cred" and follow Turbino's links v. Turbino's "toning it down a notch" and admitting he can't handle the hard stuff?

Is that it?

Perhaps we should name the lefties specifically. Don't want any post match "nu-uhn!", "uh-hunh!" shit.

I will second the good Dr. Symes in this matter: ground rules. We need ground rules. And who will be the referee in the event that the "end result" is ambiguous?

Oh, yeah. It's absolutely a deal! A conviction is way more than I'm asking here. A mere indictment will do.

This isn't to be taken as an expression of confidence. I am totally bumfuzzled about this whole thing. Plame wasn't undercover enough recently enough to make outting her a crime according to the statute. So what has Fitzgerald been investigating for two years? It doesn't add up. None of it adds up; not the lefty version, not the righty version. Either there's nothing there at all, or there's something there so out of left field (if you'll excuse the expression) that it hasn't occurred to any of us on the outside. Or it's something stupid, small and off-pissing.

My bet represents my opinion that Rove, Libby and Cheney are, if nothing else, too smart to perjure themselves or form a conspiracy over a non-crime, so I'm going to hang my ass out the passenger window and take my chances. Woohoo! Here, hold my beer!

Definitely name the lefties. Tubino is making squeaking noises like he wouldn't even take an indictment of Wilson himself as a hit on his side.

Tim Russert? Novak? I honestly don't know who the possible lefties are here. Wilson? Hardly. Served under repubs, stood up to Saddam, donated to repubs in the past.

Well not Novak, obviously. I also doubt Russert, since he's a pretty good guy, for an MSM-lefty, but I don't see any way that any journo except maybe Miller could be indicted, and both sides have specifically disclaimed her. Wilson though - sorry, but after his work for Kerry, you lefties have got to take him. He was a career state department official - that practically makes him a lefty all by itself - and he worked for Bush I in non-political posts. I don't know about his campaign donations, but there's no way he's not on your team. Just because, like Wesley Clark, he claims that he once liked some Republicans does not make him any less a lefty.

I'm not at all sure Fitz can make a prosecution stick, and there are probably pardons down the road anyway. But as I keep saying, whether the traitors get nailed or not, I think the best part is uncovering how the slimy bit about how pro-war stories got in the MSM. And that it wasn't just Judy, it was the NYT editors. For months. LONG after they had no excuse.

Pretty bold use of that word Turbino - I wouldn't think that the party of Sandy "Sticky Pants" Bergler would be so keen to classify any sort of national security violation as "treason"..... We might think that you were actually questioning someone's patriotism.

I think the loser should have to shave Lipstick Dynamite's feet.

And wash compos' shorts.

And the winner gets to be Michael's pool boy for a night.

Marquis of Queesnbury rules.

dammit

And Toob has to admit that he is Canadian and his best friend is Kathy, from around the way.

I've got a post up on my site regarding a US News & World Report article concerning increasing "Cheney Resigning?" rumors in DC.

If anyone wants to drop by and play a game of "Who should replace him if he goes", feel free to click on my name to get there.

I think the obvious first choice, of course, is Harriet Miers.

(j/k)

test -- won't let me post?

Oh, you didn't get the memo? We decided to ban you. Sorry.

Glitch surely, tubino. If that ever happens to you for real, shoot me an email (the address is real, if seldom used) and I'll post for you.

See? I'm a weasel of good faith.

"Plame wasn't undercover enough recently enough to make outting her a crime according to the statute."

I don't think you're right on that, and I think it's just the rightwing noise machine putting it out. But all I've got to go on is the CIA referral, and quite recently the WINPAC-Libby stuff in Judy's notes that have the double-twist reversal-denial that's oh-so-spy-novel.

That WAS a generous deal, Weasel. Fun, too, whatever happens. I gotta say, I wouldn't call perjury or obstruction of justice just lame charges -- not when the stakes are so high here... of the alleged crimes, not the friendly wager!

I still ain't heard who the lefties are. Wilson, Plame are givens, anyone else? .

Also, as I understand it, if just one lefty gets hit with a felony(no misdemeanors, right?) then Weasal wins. Tubino wins if no lefties and a single Bush admin gets felony indicted (let's include Ari Fleischer too).

Is that it? Any other lefties? Goin once, twice...

You know, this habit of posting links to lefty blogs and calling it proof of your various theories regarding Bush, the Republicans, etc?

Not really all that effective.

On "Billmon's" blogroll:

Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Daily Misleader
Damfacrats
David Corn
The Decembrist
Brad DeLong
Demagogue
Demosthenes

And to top it off:

Juan Cole

Do they pay you to link to their sites, or do you just do it for love?

Well, now, as a point of clarification, I don't believe any lefties will be indicted, either, so naming them isn't hugely pointful. I'm thinking: if any righties are indicted, I lose; all other outcomes, I win. Shoot, I'll take the burden of misdemeanors, condemnatory resolutions...the lot.

I just don't see a significant crime to pin on anyone here.

It's pretty easy to at least get an indictment for obstruction - people lie to the cops for all kinds of stupid reasons.

Indeed it is, holdfast. The question is, is that what Fitzgerald is trying to do?

I don't have answers. I have great big hairy questions.

So what has Fitzgerald been investigating for two years? It doesn't add up. None of it adds up; not the lefty version, not the righty version.

Obsruction of justice, that's what. So maybe you didn't actually commit a crime, but you got scared and started shading the facts or getting forgetful when you were talking to the FBI or the grand jury. If you want more information about this dynamic, talk to Martha Stewart.

I hate to say this, Weasel, but you are in trouble. A righty is going to get indicted. Fitzgerald has to justify his budget.

"I still ain't heard who the lefties are. Wilson, Plame are givens, anyone else?"

So... if you put your life on the line for your country, or believe in the rule of law... that makes you a LEFTY?

WTF?

Ah for the old moral clarity when it took some Marxist bent to qualify... Now driving a hybrid or rejecting moral relativism on torture makes you a leftwinger?

Maybe so, Michael. Maybe so.

I've been online for twenty years and I've eaten so much crow, I know which wine suits it best (thy name is Pinot ValuRité).

"...and why is there a rhino horn stuck up my ass?"

One of the great things about this blog is that you can say anything, and someone will remember it.

I mean, I made one fucking innocuous joke about Mrs. Michael and the pool boy, and it just goes on and on and on . . .

Tubby, don't get emotional on me. Your respect for law and moist-eyed concern for true patriotism is duly noted. As for being of the left, they staunchly supported Gore as I recall. Even no, as far as this contest goes, they're the heroes of the left.

Weasel, I wish you luck. I fear you're gonna need it.

This has been going on for so long that, frankly, I just don't care anymore. If Fitzgerald doesn't come out with positive proof that Valerie Plame is actually a space alien who is the source of all Devil Rove's mind control powers, I'm going to be royally pissed.

Off topic, but related to post above: one of the more amazing aspects of the Iraq occupation is how the rightwingers continue to insist that ONLY those pundits and bloggers who were COMPLETELY WRONG have any credibility, while those who were basically correct in predicting what happened are of course "completely discredited."

And another amazing thing about the Iraq occupation is that I'm calling it an "occupation." Did you notice that? I got that from Kos. The man's a fucking genius, he is. Like the time he told those contractors who died "screw them."

That was cool.

Those are the same ones that predicted 10k US casulties in the initial war? The brutal Afghan winter? The millions of starving refugees? The use by Saddam of Chem weapons (which he didn't have)? The ethnic explosion among Kurds in Turkey? The general uprising by the "Arab Street"? The brutal, Staligrad-type defence of Baghdad by the Republican Guard?

Or was it the ones who said that Ba'athists and Al Quaeda couldn't cooperate because one was secular and the other religious?

Probably the same ones that said neither of the elections would happen and that there would already be a civil war.

Hey success is still far from a sure thing, and without a doubt mistakes were made - but no matter how it turns out, I'm still glad that the US tried - that they are trying to do the hard things instead of running away at the sight of a little blood. The US under bubba lost its nerve when less than 20 soldiers were killed. It has now taken the death of almost 2000 in order to buy back the credibility that was so casually tossed away by the spoiled teenager in chief. When everyone from Saddam to Ward Churchill calls for more "Mogadishus", you know they're just saying that uncle Sam is a paper tiger. Well, I'm pretty sure that the residents of Falujah don't believe that.

I'd rather be loved, but if I'm going to be hated (and the Islamists seem to do nothing but hate everyone) then I goddamn want to be feared as well.

Nah, holdfast, I'm sure he actually meant the ones who still believe the Lancet's 100,000 body count (with another few hundred thousand thrown in to account for the passage of time between here and now).

Also of note is that tubby will also tack the word "illegal" onto the war. Now, despite the ravings of the UN's resident expert on criminality Kofi Annan, the war on Iraq was quite legal if only for the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf War that Iraq had been casually violating ever since.

But tubino is not the sort to let facts get in the way of his adjectives.

I can only imagine prosecutors and IRS auditors as being people who WILL find something on you no matter how innocent you actually are...

How did Sandy Berger manage to become only a blip while this Plame kerfuffle is still big news boggles my mind.

Wow, sure doesn't take much to have folks try to stuff words in your mouth. Or is it my keyboard?

Topic? Plame! Update? HERE!

Jane Hamsher has been following this case with incredible detail for weeks, maybe months. She links to Waas' latest, a story with a rundown of the discrepancies between Libby and Judy.

From that angle, it looks bad.

Wow, sure doesn't take much to have folks try to stuff words in your mouth.

Are you disavowing your characterisation of the war as illegal or your use of the word occupation?

holdfast wants to know who was fairly accurate about how it has gone after the US invaded Iraq.

Looking at SluBlog's list, I can't think of any place where Juan Cole was off. He predicted the divisions, the role of Sistani, the likely election outcome favoring SCIRI. The analogies he used for the US in Iraq included the Israelis in Lebanon, and so far he's been pretty right there too.

Juan Cole thinks that a civil war leading to a regional war is UNLIKELY -- but that is the nightmare scenario.
-------------
holdfast reveals his delirium: "It has now taken the death of almost 2000 in order to buy back the credibility that was so casually tossed away by the spoiled teenager in chief."

Can you say 'North Korea'?

Jeez, with the US forces tied down completely and the war (and much more) financed completely by borrowing, even Venezuela is thumbing its nose at the US. Bush did exactly what he accused Clinton of doing: overextended the US military.

The US forces were asked to do something impossible, and have done a heroic job, but Bush and Rumsfeld have put them in a position where they will have to draw down significantly within a year -- regardless of the situation in Iraq. When that happens, enemies of the US will have a propaganda coup handed to them, no matter how effectively the WH spins it as a victory. The US forces have ceded large portions to the enemy, and have not had the forces to retain areas they have (re)taken.

The point is simple: with the most expensive war-on-the-cheap in history, Bush and Rumsfeld have pissed away enormous amounts of military credibility, as well as pissing away huge amounts of trust of our allies -- and that's without even mentioning the photos and video that will eventually come out.

And that is Bush's legacy.

---------------
Sortelli: members of the US military started calling it an occupation a long time ago. Bush did too, in a now-famous Bushism: "I wouldn't like to be occupied either!" Care to join the real world?

Back on topic, in 3 consecutive posts Josh Marshall links you to lots of hot sites with rundowns on the Plame case.

Cool list of those testifying.

HOT CONJECTURE: What if Ahmed Chalabi was Judy's source on Plame?

Speculation and WAGs are fun, for a while. But eventually the moment passes. Right now I just want this to wrap itself up already. Indict someone or not.

EVEN HOTTER CONJECTURE: What if the recent hurricanes were caused by a weather machine, most likely paid for by Scooter Libby?

HOT OFF THE PRESSES: Joseph Wilson is a shameless attention grubbing whore.

Harmless animation? This means something. I know it.

I've been wondering what it was about tubino's writing style that bugs me so much (beyond the content), and I think I finally figured it out: it's the kind of stuff Chomsky would write if all he read was People and US magazine. The same breathless tone of voice, the almost-sexual thrill of "hidden secrets of the celebrities" vibe...

"OMG! Cheney is going to jail. Can you believe it? This is so, like, unbelievable! Plus I hear he's triangling with Ashton with Demi. That's why he hasn't been around lately! Isn't that a scream? I could die!"

Tubino writes politics like a thirteen year old girl. The only thing he's missing is all-caps screams and lots of exclamation points. And maybe "hugs and kisses!!!" sign-offs.

He does point us to an interesting article from Newsweek, which explains (so good to get this cleared up) Judy Miller can't remember her other source cause she takes crappy notes.

Well. That sounds plausible.

The point is simple: with the most expensive war-on-the-cheap in history, Bush and Rumsfeld have pissed away enormous amounts of military credibility, as well as pissing away huge amounts of trust of our allies -- and that's without even mentioning the photos and video that will eventually come out

Is the US heavily committed to Iraq? absolutely. Did the Clinton Admin leave a legacy of "military credibility" Not Fuckin' Likely. His only "military legacy" was an abject cowardice in the face of America's enemies but a cheerfull willingness to act as garbageman for the Euro-pussies who couldn't even clean up their own backyard.

And the very notion of a lefty brining up North Korea is so gobsmackingly vile as to make my head hurt - hello! the "Framework Agreement" was just another case of Clinton calling a surrender a victory and kicking the can down the road for the next administration to deal with (he sure didn't like Al Gore did he?) - either that or Clinton was the most credulous fool since Carter (and even I don't believe that). The reason that Hugo Chavez can cock his snooks at the US is because he knows that lefty losers like you would screech like a gelded cat if we were actually to give him the Noreiga-treatment he so richly deserves. You and your Democrat buddies work overtime to discredit and undermine US foreign policy and then whine because "they don't like us" - after you pour all your efforts into spreading the message that we're scum and they shouldn't like us. Thank god Bush has realized that the left has nothing worth hearing on foreign policy and has stopped listening all together - would that he would do the same on domestic issues.

and that's without even mentioning the photos and video that will eventually come out

And I suppose you and your buddies will make sure that they do? And that they get prominent airplay on Al Jazeera/ I guess that's your new amped-up version of patriotism? I guess we can't "question your patriotism" when you've re-defined it to mean "acting like a fuckin traitor by helping the enemy in a time of war" - and remember, you're the one who hauled out the T word in this thread.

Go back to the DailyKos or TPM little (wo)man - you're out of your league here and it isn't even fun any more.

The last was me.

Tubino,

I'm in the military and I can say for a fact that the only people who say we're overextended are people who have never worn a uniform, or wore it so long ago they're daft.

I hate to burden you with facts, but look at the troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq and the trend over the last 12 months. Also, our biggest issue right now? Any guesses? Nope, not Iraq, it's earthquake relief efforts in Pakistan. Not a lot of troops involved and zero coverage in the MSM (no 5 star hotels to report from).

Over extended my ass. It's 10:00 and I'm on my third beer!

Tubesteak thinks the National Guard is for cleaning up after Earth Day and shit. Those guys think Clinton's service record trumps Bush's because Clinton was honest about his feelings. That's because even though Bush never brings up his Guard service, he's lying about it.

These guys think the Rather documents were probably authentic but the Swiftboaters have been discredited. There's no talking to people like that.

Cheney is going to jail. Can you believe it? This is so, like, unbelievable! Plus I hear he's triangling with Ashton with Demi.

As I have made abundantly clear on my own blog, Cheney is only banging Cokie Roberts... and once in a while, Maya Angelou.

And the very notion of a lefty brining up North Korea is so gobsmackingly vile as to make my head hurt - hello! the "Framework Agreement" was just another case of Clinton calling a surrender a victory ....

That's exactly what the Bush admin just did. Project much?

"acting like a fuckin traitor by helping the enemy in a time of war"

No one in the US has helped al Qaeda more than George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. The failure to prosecute any OFFICIALS over the photos is a gift to our enemies. Allowing corruption and incompetence so that electricity production is far below promised levels, and one in three Iraqis STILL lack access to drinkable water... all have been recruiting causes for the insurgents. Failure to account for billions and billions of Iraqi dollars which were supposed to HELP Iraqis has only hurt our cause and helped our enemies.

I have zero power to conceal or reveal all the remaining photos and video, but it WILL come out, and it WILL show that the govt did NOT take the actions it should have, and that hurts our cause. What's YOUR solution?
-----------
As for writing style, when I first posted on here I used lengthy quotes and lots of sourcing. Then I was told the style here is all spiced up with ad hominem attacks, and indeed an actual argument is a rare thing here. (Favored is the foaming-at-the-mouth crazy attribution, like Well YOU believe that Michael Moore is GOD!!!)

The one time I really went to the mat to make a point (about the improperly-accounted-for $8.8 BILLION), the sore losers just gave up with only a meek "well maybe" for a response.

I posted a link to a serious 20-page paper backing up my claim about the unemployment rate, and there was no response.

I have pointed out the simple unambiguous fact that Judith Miller promoted dubious WMD claims for weeks on the front pages of the NYT prior to the invasion, while Pincus and others (who were proved right) got their more skeptical views buried. I don't recall ANY of you showing the capability of confronting what that says about the MSM. So who is out of what league, holdfast?

Whatever. I can be just as cool and factual as anyone, even while the silly resident idiots call me a fascist, and make up stuff rather than address anything I write. No big deal.

I'm in the military and I can say for a fact that the only people who say we're overextended are people who have never worn a uniform, or wore it so long ago they're daft.

I'm relying ONLY on the words of military planners and higher-ups. They all say the same thing: it will break the military to maintain same troop levels in Iraq after next summer. Anyone can what happens when Natl Guard are not available in the US. If aid to Pakistan is enough to task the allocable resources, what does that say about US readiness to face a real danger somewhere?

-------------------
Back to the Plame topic: check out DeFrank's article. Josh Marshall breaks it down for you.

Sounds like you're accusing Wonkette of lying about her pearl necklace collection.

By gum, if Joshua Micah Juan Moishe Alonso Jingleheimer-Schmidt Marshall says it, that's good enough for me!

I posted a link to a serious 20-page paper backing up my claim about the unemployment rate, and there was no response.

Oh, dear. This is so funny, I had to repeat it. Honestly, tubino, do you not see the problem? You aren't building arguments, you're giving fucking homework assignments. Seriously, when people complained about your "lengthy quotes and lots of sourcing" they weren't asking for links to even longer papers from dubious sources.

Look, it's true. Left and right can't have a substantive discussion if we can't even agree on the basic facts, so in one sense I can sympathize with your mania for sourcing. Even if I'm unimpressed by your sources. But you can build a mountain of documentation to support a butt-load of facts and still not have an argument.

Like, okay. Let's say there really is $8.8 billion gone missing in Iraq. Might be true. Wouldn't surprise me. Some very loose shit indeed happens during reconstruction. But what's your thesis? Who's got it? Why? You're showing up with huge, boring suitcases full of data but you aren't telling us a story.

It's like the scene at the end of Team America where the Alec Baldwin puppet melts down screaming, "Corporate America! Global warming!" just before Kim Jong Il blows his head to pieces. Damn, I love that movie.

The one time I really went to the mat to make a point (about the improperly-accounted-for $8.8 BILLION), the sore losers just gave up with only a meek "well maybe" for a response.

I posted a link to a serious 20-page paper backing up my claim about the unemployment rate, and there was no response.

Well, that's not quite fair, is it? You made it impossible to continue the discussion in both cases through your typical barrage of off-topic asides, shifting position, and use of very shoddy reference material, most of which you handed read thoroughly. Don't blame me for not continuing.

Claiming that we're unable to engage in debate on these issues is dishonest . Back to ignoring the troll . . .

Whatever. I can be just as cool and factual as anyone, even while the silly resident idiots call me a fascist, and make up stuff rather than address anything I write. No big deal.

In other (shorter) words: Dude, I just totally called you a dick in my head! And you didn't even get it! OMG!! I gotta call my best gf Cindee right now and tell her I just totally called you a dick! Tee hee! Oh: and whatever! We are just so gonna bust on you tomorrow in Mrs. Grimson's homeroom....

Let's say there really is $8.8 billion gone missing in Iraq.

Just to keep the record straight, the $8.8 billion was not missing - the criticism was that the $8.8 billion was delivered to the Iraqi government without sufficient controls to verify that it would be used properly. The CPA said that it had no idea how to implement those controls, and none of the critics have offered any suggestions as to how it should have, or even could have, been accomplished.

Thanks, geoff. I was going to guess accounting error, but I know better than to shoot my mouth off on the interweb with a wild guess that looks like a butt-munch.

I can never resist the lure of this particular flavor of conspiracy theory, though: the one that says Bush and friends are getting rich off the war. They can't mean that America is profitting by it, because that would actually be a good thing for us Americans (at least on some level). They can't really say corporations are doing well out of it, for a similar reason. Corporations are large entities employing and benefitting thousands of people. So they must mean individuals are getting rich, I figure. So, who? How much? And how are they getting away with a giant income spike without anyone noticing?

Tubby,

Post the link to the military planners you cite. I happen to be one and I would be very interested in where the tinfoil crowd is getting their info.

Also, I didn't say that Pakistan relief efforts were overextending us, I said that was our current priority (at least in my segment of the military). Big difference.

"Oh, dear. This is so funny, I had to repeat it. Honestly, tubino, do you not see the problem? You aren't building arguments, you're giving fucking homework assignments. "

Point taken -- except that geoff specifically said he couldn't find a credible source for the claims. So I found him an EXTREMELY credible one, well-sourced.

Yeah, credible to you.

Speaking of cred -- Your wager with the Weasel is a win-win scenario for you, Toob.

If you win, Weasel annoints you with cred and takes you seriously. If you lose, you cut the crap with the DU-mania/Lisa Simpson posts. In a way, you'll win with your loss.

Toning your rant down and leaving the outlandish claims where they belong, at Mother Jones and DailyKos, will Earn you cred with your political opponents.

My daddy told me a long time ago, "Act like an asshole, you'll be treated like an asshole." Sound advice, really.

Unlike the fear-filled and self-loathing crowd you're used to, we're a happy bunch, here. If you are sincere, honest, and stick to the facts when arguing, you will be well-received. And you'll find that it is true at most Righty blogs.

Bart,
I know facts are oh-so out of fashion, but I never linked to DU. Interesting that so many of you merely fabricate. Can't address what I post, so you have to come up with straw men instead, eh?

The credible report on unemployment stats was just that: credible to an economist, social scientist, etc. with sources given.

Just to keep the record straight, the $8.8 billion was not missing - the criticism was that the $8.8 billion was delivered to the Iraqi government without sufficient controls to verify that it would be used properly.

That is not true. It is not true that that was the criticism. When contractors are paid by the CPA with duffle bags of cash from the back of pickups, the criticism is not that the $ was delivered to the Iraqi govt. The CPA paid out most of the money itself.

The CPA said that it had no idea how to implement those controls, and none of the critics have offered any suggestions as to how it should have, or even could have, been accomplished.

Again, that is absolutely not true. The requirement was that the CPA engage an independent auditor for the task. The CPA made a mockery of this requirement by paying funds to a virtually non-existent outfit that could barely handle an accounting task 1/100 this size.

All this I cited, passage by passage. From the report I cited, one can read the testimony of war-supporting Republicans, and even THEY did not defend what happened, as geoff does now.

Even now, these simple points are twisted around 180 degrees.

So who is being honest here?

And BTW, who is being honest here (back on topic!):
--------------------
Now, don't lose sight of the fact that we're stacking a lot of 'ifs' on top of each other here. But we do have two articles from well-credentialed journalists pointing to two alleged facts -- one, that President Bush knew in late 2003 that Rove was involved and that Rove had told him he was involved; two, that a year later President Bush denied Rove had told him he was involved in an interview with the special prosecutor.
If both those 'facts' bear out, someone's in a lot of trouble, no?
Source

Arg. Here's the Source, namely Josh Marshall, and yes he gives the sources for what he's talking about.

Sigh. It's so sad that so few of you can distinguish between just another rant, and a reasoned piece with sources.

Up above I was challenged on who was right about the Iraq debacle.

Here's my challenge to you wankers. Give me the names of pundits or bloggers who YOU think were right IN ANY REGARD of the war. Cost, duration, whatever.

Can you do it?

tubby,

just wanted to let you know when they pick my numbers in the PowerBall drawing tonight I'm going to make a down payment on that 8.8 billion Rumsfeld stole so you can maybe get the Thorazine dose lowered a bit.

You right wingers are all the same. All I've done is present simple facts from honest guys like Joshua Micah Marshall. Guys like him have no political agenda whatsoever, and don't slant the facts at all to fit that agenda. They're like reporters in that way - completely objective.

Like Pierre Salinger said, if you can't trust information from the Internet, what can you trust?

Please, insert a condescending sigh here, and read this with the knowledge that it's written with infinite sadness at your inability to understand my genius.

tubino (I think I'll just start calling you "bean-o" given the gas your spreading around):

You might want to consult actual military historians in your research instead of the usual lefty know-nothings like Kevin Drum and Josh "Bow Before Me Ye Mighty" Marshall at TPM.

I'd recommend reading the following books before you embarass yourself further:

Anthony Cordesman's The War After the War. Cordesman's critical of the war effort, so this is a good place to start if you're wanting to make intelligent criticisms of the war and the aftermath.

Donald Kagan's one-volume treatment of the Peloponnesian War. Absolutely the gold standard, but also a great treatise on how and why great powers go to war. Very relevant to the Current Situation.

Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture (you might also want to pick up A War Like No Other while you're at it; it's a good companion to the Kagan book mentioned above).

John Keegan's The Second World War. About as good a one-volume treatment as you're likely to find, and also a good primer on the tactics, strategies, and aftermath of the conflict.

Finally, I'd dip into Robert Leonhard's book The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and Airland Battle to understand basic tactics and theater strategy that US forces are using. (Familiarizing yourself with US military orders of battle and chains of command wouldn't hurt either.)

In short: school up before you spout. You're just parroting shit you read, or overheard; you obviously have not understood much of the underlying theory. Go away, spend some time in a library, and do what you keep telling us to do -- read your frigging source material first.

Again, that is absolutely not true. The requirement was that the CPA engage an independent auditor for the task.

The requirement was issued by the CPA itself, and the CPA later determined that they did not feel the independent audit was necessary - at least within the scope of the North Star work.

That is not true. It is not true that that was the criticism. When contractors are paid by the CPA with duffle bags of cash from the back of pickups, the criticism is not that the $ was delivered to the Iraqi govt. The CPA paid out most of the money itself.

Read this passage from the Waxman report (your source) and decide which of our descriptions is the more accurate.

CPA officials transferred $10.9 billion in DFI assets to Iraqi ministries. Of this amount, the Special Inspector General tried to audit how $8.8 billion in cash was expended. The Inspector General reported that these funds were transferred to Iraqi ministries without proper oversight or accounting controls. This large-scale transfer of funds to agencies with no capacity to efficiently administer them violated the CPA’s obligations to “ensure DFI funds were used in a transparent manner,” according to the Special Inspector General’s report.

Okay, you don't like sources like your own president's words, or the WH spokesman, or congressional testimony. Apparently KPMG isn't up to snuff either.

Also, anyone who was at all accurate in predicting what has come to pass in Iraq is automatically discounted as a source.

And at least most of you can't distinguish between partisan hackery (which can certainly come from right or left), and an honest attempt to consider facts and how to interpret them. And because you cannot confront arguments, you just smear the source. Any source. Even if the source is merely reproducing the president's words, congressional testimony, etc. Now that's sad.

I kept my thesis on the $8.8B very simple: the misappropriated and improperly accounted for funds have squandered Iraqi reconstruction, was predictable from the PLANNED lack of oversight, and Congressional Republicans are complicit by failing to investigate, based on congressional testimony and Waxman’s report.

So. How's about you smart alecks provide me with the names of some folks who were at SOMEWHAT accurate about the troop levels, WMD, cost, duration, strength of insurgency, etc. in Iraq.

Meanwhile, back in the Plame investigation... lots of great stuff on sites that you deride. You can find where folks have dug up Judith Miller's past stories, and how they illustrate the pattern of her deceptions and outright lies about Iraq. Based on her words, as published, with links to the original sources.

I could post that. But half a dozen morons will whine and squeal that the blogger who compiled it just might be someone who believes in the rule of law, might not vote like you do, and so it's absolutely OUTRAGEOUS for me to link to it and expect you to use your own heads to evaluate the recent past based on original sources.

I could do the same to show that the Joe Wilson smears have no basis in fact, and the reaction here would be the same.

Okay.

As I've said all along, the real story of the Plame outing isn't just the heinous act of exposing a CIA asset. The real story is the WH manipulation of the MSM in the build-up to war, and the silencing of dissenting voices.

Even now, I don't think there is one among you who has managed to admit that the NYT was tossing journalistic principles out the window to promote the WH spin on invading Iraq. Yet the record is laid out, and Judith Miller's role, and that of her editors is only looking worse as still more details come out.

But hey, that's just too hard to think about. Let's take cheap shots at each other instead!

Let's take cheap shots at each other instead!

Okay.

You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

wOOt!

geoff,

Nice selective quoting. I already pointed out the problem with Stuart Bowen, IG -- another Brownie-style crony appointment.

"The Inspector General reported that these funds were transferred to Iraqi ministries without proper oversight or accounting controls"

Yes, he reported that. But ... he had no evidence, did he? The point is that there is NO AUDIT TRAIL to show that that happened.

Witnesses reported that bags of cash were distributed without receipts, to contractors. To say that the money went to Iraqi ministries is based on nothing but faith in the incorruptibility of those who stood to gain.

I don't know if you're being exceedingly dense or you just think it's fun to blow smoke.

And you're one of the better ones here.

Okay, let's try this. On the Plame investigation I'm finding a gold mine of original sources through my favorite liberal blogs. The mere mention of these irritate some of you quite distressingly.

So guide me to some rightwing approved sites with good detail on the Plame investigation. Put up. Or shut up.

geoff,

What part of this do you disagree with (from Waxman report):

"The report has three principal findings: (1) unprecedented sums of cash were withdrawn from Iraqi accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York and transferred to U.S. officials at the CPA; (2) CPA officials used virtually no financial controls to account for these enormous cash withdrawals once they arrived in Iraq; and (3) there is evidence of substantial waste, fraud, and abuse in the actual spending and disbursement of the Iraqi funds."

How about this:

• CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries that had no internal or financial controls in place to handle such an influx of funds. The Special Inspector General found significant funds that appeared to be paid to “ghost employees” and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.

Need for Further Investigation
The findings in this report underscore the need for a comprehensive investigation into how the United States spent and disbursed billions of dollars in Iraqi funds. There is substantial evidence of widespread mismanagement, waste, and corruption in the spending and disbursement of over $19.6 billion in Iraqi funds during the period of U.S. control. The full extent of the waste, fraud, and abuse will not be known without additional investigation.
---------------------

If you basically agree with those points, then we don't have a disagreement.

I think selective quoting and mixing of facts is more your specialty. The fact is that there were receipts for the money transferred to the ministry - as you'd know if you read the report. The books in that regard were fine.

The money without receipts is described in the original audit report:

Of the $400 million available for disbursement in the field, as much as $50 million was cleared without proper receipts to validate payments.

to which the disbursing office replied:

We concur that some documentation and receipts provided by paying agents were lacking. In fact, some of these problems were highlighted to the CPA IG. Nevertheless, oversight of these funds was always known and tracked to the disbursing liaison agent.

You really need to stop confusing the $8.8 billion given to the ministry with the $50 million that had a questionable paper trail.

The overview comments in the Waxman report are not precise, but I'd be happy to discuss the specific allegations within the report.

CPA officials gave over $8 billion in cash to Iraqi ministries that had no internal or financial controls in place to handle such an influx of funds. The Special Inspector General found significant funds that appeared to be paid to “ghost employees” and billion-dollar discrepancies in some expenditures.

But this is exactly the point - the complaint is that after the money passed into Iraqi hands, the CPA had no means to ensure that it was properly spent. The complaint is not that the CPA itself misspent the money. That has been my point the entire time.

As far as the call for additional investigation, I'm all for it. I don't think it'll come up with much, but there's never harm in taking a close look where enormous amounts of cash are involved.

So guide me to some rightwing approved sites with good detail on the Plame investigation. Put up. Or shut up.

I think Tom Maguire at Just One Minute owns the Plame story on the conservative side.

Monty suggests, "Anthony Cordesman's The War After the War. Cordesman's critical of the war effort, so this is a good place to start if you're wanting to make intelligent criticisms of the war and the aftermath."

I cited Anthony Cordesman's here a few weeks ago, to contradict what was the prevailing view here about US progress in Iraq.

phat: "I'm in the military and I can say for a fact that the only people who say we're overextended are people who have never worn a uniform, or wore it so long ago they're daft."

Okay, I'll come back (be patient, I do a lot of other things) with mil citations, but here's what I ask of you: are you saying that the US could maintain current troop deployment levels indefinitely, without substantial change?

Is that your view, and can you back it up with any mil citations? Because I've not seen any mil citations (not PR, but from planners) to that effect.

geoff, as we both agree there is enough to warrant an investigation, I'm willing to call it a draw. Where we disagree is that you have -- to me -- an inordinate amount of faith in an extremely sketchy paper trail on the transfer of billions to Iraqi ministries.

Sure, there exists a claim about where funds went. No, the CPA did not just say to Waxman, "Ha, well you finally caught us. It was fun while it lasted. Please don't put the cuffs on too tight, mmkay?"

What DOES NOT exist, apparently, is anything like the two-sided accounting (itemization of deliverables via contract with named authorization for spending on recipient side) that is SOP for oversight.

And Bremer's excuses do not hold up. Why, if the system was inadequate, did he insist on the transfer at the rate he did, and why didn't he engage adequate oversight through a third party in advance? Why did this happen:

The documents from the Federal Reserve indicate that the United States shipped nearly $12 billion in U.S. currency to Iraq between May 2003 and June 2004, an international currency transfer of unprecedented scale. The cash was drawn from accounts containing revenues from sales of Iraqi oil and frozen and seized assets of the former regime.

Nearly half of the currency shipped into Iraq under U.S. direction — more than $5 billion — flowed into the country in the final six weeks before control of Iraqi funds was returned to the interim Iraqi government on June 28, 2004. In the week before the transition, CPA officials ordered the urgent delivery of more than $4 billion in U.S. currency from the Federal Reserve, including one shipment of $2.4 billion — the largest shipment of cash in the bank’s history. In total, more than 281 million individual bills — including more than 107 million $100 bills — weighing 363 tons were shipped to Iraq.

As an aside, the way I've heard it, Bremer wanted VERY much to fully privatize the oil assets of Iraq, but was unsuccesful. Why? Because he needed the money. He could not afford to cut off the spigot of funds it made available to him -- and neither will his successors. I heard this from a well-informed insider, but can't source it yet. Call it gossip if you want. It's an interesting idea that is consistent with what else we know about Bremer.

So your whole deal with the $8.8 billion, tubino, boils down to: you think money is being spent without proper oversight in Iraq, and there's way too much waste? You don't have any broad conspiracy or underlying theme or anything?

And your deal with Judith Miller is that she was either gullible or duplicitous and reported a bunch of articles about Saddam's WMD in the runup to war that was advantageous to the White House and turned out not to be true? And the Times ran with it?

And your deal with the military is that we can't keep the present troop strength in Iraq forever?

I don't need twenty page papers to support any of that. I would agree that it's more or less true.

As to the first point: I don't know how much money will go missing in Iraq, but reconstructions are expensive, and some of the expense is always embezzlement. In a place like Iraq, I would expect a fair bit of it will be. It's off-pissing, we should probably try harder to keep track, but I'm not surprised. Are you?

As to the second: yes, looks like it. Perhaps if WMD were my main reason for supporting the war, that would make me crankier. In fact, I think the administration made a mistake leaning so heavily on the WMD issue as justification. They must've thought it was the item that would most motivate people. While I thought Saddam had them, I didn't think he'd even want to aim them at the West. He wasn't that sort of dictator. So making such a fuss over that issue was too much of a bogeyman and I don't like to see us push people's buttons like that.

The real justification for the war, of course, is: the Middle East is a giant shit-hole and we've got to at least try to fix it, because their shit-holiness has spilled over to endanger us on home soil. So let's pick out a country, break it and see if we can fix it better than it was before. Why not Iraq? We've got an open war there already. You can't really say thing like that on the floor of the UN, though.

As to the third point: no, we probably couldn't keep this up forever. But we can keep it up for quite some time, so I don't see any reason to get wadded up about it now. Especially when constant talk about stretching our military too thin is probably stretching them thinner by encouraging the opposition to keep opposing. If the insurgents were certain they were throwing away resources against the unmovable resolve of the US, I think the home-grown Ba'athists would give in and cooperate, and the imports would go elsewhere.

I'm really disappointed, though. You sound like a fiscal conservative, not a moonbat. No "Impeach Chimpy McBushitler!" or anything? No public nudity or papier mache puppet heads? You've let me down :(

an inordinate amount of faith in an extremely sketchy paper trail on the transfer of billions to Iraqi ministries.

The SIG reports focus the bulk of their criticisms on the lack of oversight *after* the money was transferred. There are specific instances where the CPA was slammed for not maintaining adequate records (the $120 million in South Central Iraq and the $50 million above), and there are a number of cases of embezzlement and theft, but a conservative estimate is that at least 95% of the transfers were documented correctly.

What DOES NOT exist, apparently, is anything like the two-sided accounting (itemization of deliverables via contract with named authorization for spending on recipient side) that is SOP for oversight.

In the field there were certainly many corners cut, but the largest transfers were directly to the Iraq ministries. The problem is that the Waxman report is stirring many separate complaints into a single pot, and you're applying complaints about one type of spending to a completely different type.

So, for the last time, the much-touted $8.8 billion number is based on the money delivered quite appropriately to the Iraq ministries. There were no documentation problems or discepancies with these deliveries. The problem is that there were no controls after it got to the Iraq ministries.

Which I said at the outset.

This is textbook lefty trollery. I think Tubesteak's jukeboxgrad from McGuire's site--all full of links to crap that doesn't even come close to backing up his arguments and in some cases flat contradicts them.

The tipoff is the reluctant climbdown from overblown claims--i.e. $8 billion is really $50 million--that soon will reappear as $8 billion. Watch and see.

This particular troll wastes your time by actually seeming to care about the facts, but it lies, it does, and laughs at you when you feed it.

We should have had tighter controls on our money, but if we learned anything in Afghanistan, it's more important to show up with the suitcase of cash than it is to account for every penny of it. We're leaving this to the discretion of our people there and we're going to lose some of it that way. But that's a long way from helping KBR or Chalabi steal it.

And for the record, Miller was writing about WMD's and Iraq during the Clinton Administration. You can look it up.

In fact, I think the administration made a mistake leaning so heavily on the WMD issue as justification.

Actually if you look at the 2003 SOTU where Bush lays out the case for invasion, WMD is the third rationale discussed, and it doesn't receive any more attention than the other two (UN resolution violations and humanitarian reasons). It was certainly the most sensational, though, and was the one picked up by the press and the public.

Actually if you look at the 2003 SOTU where Bush lays out the case for invasion, WMD is the third rationale discussed, and it doesn't receive any more attention than the other two (UN resolution violations and humanitarian reasons).

If I'm not misremembering, it was Tony Blair who decided to thump the WMD theme above all others, and the White House ultimately went along in deference to the political difficulties Blair was having selling the war. As I said, I thought it was clumsy at the time...even though I was convinced we were going to find Iraq stuffed with WMD's. I suspect most people in this country absorbed the broader point.

it was Blair, he needed more cover than Bush did

Toob, I tried to emulate one of your heroes, Arafat, by extending the olive leaf. What do you do?

You take my olive leaf and wipe your ass with it!

Below is the kind of dribble that makes you look poorly --

most of you can't distinguish between partisan hackery (which can certainly come from right or left), and an honest attempt to consider facts and how to interpret them.

Got news for you, Noam Chomsky, for example, is a partisan extremist. You and circle of pud-pullers in Canada may like and respect Noam, but others don't and never will. Noam and your other "sources" are not credible to all people. Chomsky, Drum, Marshall, MoveOn, Jaun Cole,etc., are all Fringe. They are not universally respected by a longshot. They are respected by the academic elite, pinheads, and Ward Churchill. There is nothing factual about their ranting and raving. Nothing.

Toob, you're convinced that you know exactly what happened in the Plame/Wilson affair. How?
Nobody knows what happened. You have no indisputable facts backing up your claims. No, really, you don't. But you read your favorite liberal bloggers, like your retarded friend, Kathy, and it all makes sense to you. Conjecture and speculation is fine by you as long as it is from on of your credible sources --then it is fact. Especially if the author includes a paragraph or two of, say, Rumsfeld, to show how it proves their thesis.
It's called manipulation.

Anyone can do that. I can easliy go back and read all your comments on AoS and "prove" you support Bush and want to have his babies. Which brings us here:

And because you cannot confront arguments, you just smear the source. Any source. Even if the source is merely reproducing the president's words, congressional testimony, etc.

Merely reproducing the words. (You mean like how Michael Moore made Farenheit 911?) Toob, you've got to do better than this. I know it's difficult for you to hide your contempt for us, but to expect anyone to accept such an intellectually immature statement -- a statement that shows how willing you are to believe and defend the most outrageous and outlandish claims by your fellow ideologues -- makes you look disingenuous and foolish.

We just smear the source if it disagrees with us!

There you go again, repeating the old classic --liberal deflection. It is utter bullshit. Since when is defending yourself against your accusers considered smearing? Joe Wilson, for instance, torpedoed the Bush administrations efforts in Iraq. They had every right to say Wait a minute, Wilson has a personal, partisan agenda here. And that's a fact!

The question is, Tubino, can you have a serious, honest debate without exaggerating, cranking it up a notch (or ten), or by citing shrill lefty sources and repeating unsubstantiated rumors?

If you lose your wager with the Weasel, are you prepared to fulfill your end of the bargain?
What will you do differently? I ask this because you present yourself as a big jerk. Don't take that too personally -- maybe it's just how you are. But ever since you agreed to the bet, you have ramped up your shrilling and shrieking and have gone on a linking bender. And your comments addressing us personally have extra-bitter and contemptuous.

Are you blowing your last load on the board because you feel it may be your last chance if there are no indictments?

On a side note, I'm going to ask you a direct question to which I want a direct answer --

Do you really believe that Farenheit 911 was an honest documentary based on facts and do you believe George Galloway is a credible person?

If you answer Yes, I'll know that you and I can never have honest debate.

I gotta say, you guys do keep coming back to the old threads... probably a lot longer than I do...

where to start... Weasel, sorry if I'm not as entertaining as I would be if said Chimpy McHalliburton or whatever... as I said, I don't link to places like DU because chatter is just chatter.

Bart, I do NOT know what happened in the Plame case! You're right, almost no one can! What I actualy wrote was that I think a crime was committed because both the CIA and Bush said so, and I can't think of reasons for them to exaggerate on this. Well, and I think I know a bit about the lies that sold the war, and to me that's the big stinking pot under the specific Plame case.

When spongeworthy says, "And for the record, Miller was writing about WMD's and Iraq during the Clinton Administration" he is absolutely right. Miller was doing the neocon jive from way back. I have no problem recognizing that.

About all this waste in wartime: yes, it always happens. The difference is that THIS time, instead of just doing nothing pro-active to stop it, or just doing nothing after the fact to minimize, we have an administration and legislation that has teamed up to enable it, hide it, and discourage or prevent investigation.

Geoff thinks I'm conflating the small clear thefts with the much larger supposed transfers of billions. I can see why it appears I do that. But he misses the point, still. He is going completely on the highly questionable and incomplete bits from Stuart Bowen, who has his own conflicts in the investigation. Geoff says, oh they say the billions were transferred, but... GEOFF, why oh why if the spending could not be monitored did Bremer DEMAND that so many record billions be delivered in the last months and weeks? How could it be URGENT to blow the bucks, how could there be urgent bills to pay when there is no indication of what was paid???

I can't make heads or tails of it, and nothing in Bowen's or Bremer's accounts helps explain the incredible urgency in blowing the billions. And that is why it is NOT just a hundred million here, 500 million there. The criticism is about the absolute lack of evidence that the billions really went to Iraqi ministries for legit expenses.

Geoff says trust them. The farthest I could go is TRUST BUT VERIFY.

I think an investigation is absolutely necessary.

Also, the $8.8 Billion is in fact less than half of the money allocated by the CPA, and the problems occur with each bit and piece. See next post -- this one's too long.

Holy fuck! This thread is still alive?

I must not be doing my job!

October 19 Article from Knight Ridder. I put a couple passages in bold -- MY emphasis.

U.S. cuts back on rebuilding Iraq

By Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration cannot fulfill all its grand promises to rebuild Iraq because soaring security costs, mismanagement and poor planning have cost billons of dollars, federal auditors said Tuesday.

Some projects — including those to provide clean water for Iraqis — have been cancelled as a result.
In one case, security costs for a U.S. Agency for International Development program on economic reform increased from $894,000 to $37 million, an auditor told Congress. And hundreds of millions of dollars is being diverted to pay for training for Iraqis and for the maintenance of new facilities — expenses overlooked in the initial U.S. planning for the reconstruction, auditors said.

Add to that the rising prices for materials, cost overruns and delays, and there’s far less money to rebuild Iraq as the Bush administration envisioned, said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. He called the shortfall “the reconstruction gap.’’

“Though the causes may be numerous and valid, the existence of the gap simply means that the completion of the U.S.-funded portion of Iraq’s reconstruction will leave many planned projects on the drawing board,’’ Bowen told the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

Bowen said he’d know how big the reconstruction gap is in two weeks.

A 2003 World Bank estimate said it would cost $56 billion to rebuild Iraq’s aging and war-damaged infrastructure while the U.S. government committed to spend $29 billion, Bowen said. But he added that the estimate didn’t take into account rising security costs or “losses from mismanagement, corruption and general inefficiency.’’

The Bush administration expected Iraqi oil revenues to help foot the bill. Instead, Iraq is spending $300 million a month to import refined gasoline because it doesn’t have enough refineries, Bowen said. One potential pot of money — the $30 billion United Nations Iraqi oil-for-food program — is about $8 billion short because of thievery and poor recordkeeping, he said.

Fixing Iraq’s oil infrastructure will cost $30 billion more than originally thought, said Joseph Christoff, the director of international affairs for the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Security costs continue to be a major problem.

In July 2005, 34 percent of reconstruction spending went to pay for security, up from 23 percent a year earlier, Christoff said. Two power generation programs — worth about $15 million — were cut, and sewer repairs in central Iraq were stopped for four months because of security cost overruns, according to the GAO.

The U.S. government has scaled back spending to provide clean water from $4 billion to $1.2 billion, Bowen said. Three of the four major clean-water projects were cancelled.

The Bush administration also didn’t plan or budget money for maintenance or for training Iraqis on the new high-tech equipment the United States bought, Bowen and Christoff said.

In June, more than a quarter of the large new sanitation projects — worth $52 million — weren’t working because of a lack of training and maintenance, Christoff said.

More than $350 million has been diverted from reconstruction to maintenance, and that’s merely a start, Bowen said.

“What we hand over has to endure for democracy to endure,’’ Bowen said.

In a related development, congressmen from both parties blasted the Department of Defense’s acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, because his agency quietly pulled all its auditors and criminal investigators out of Iraq a year ago, a fact Knight Ridder reported on Monday. Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays, R-Conn., called it “a bad decision.’’

“You’re not fulfilling your responsibilities,’’ Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Gimble. “You’re not doing what you’re supposed to be doing in protecting the troops. You’re not doing what you ought to do to protect U.S. taxpayers.’’

Gimble said much of the work is done in Washington and by other agencies, including Bowen’s office and the GAO.

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said that when he visited Iraq, he found too many auditors, saying “there seems to be inspectors general just about everywhere.’’ He said there was one auditor for every 1.5 contracting official.

Bowen said the actual ratio was 16 to 1, with 44 auditors and 715 contracting officials. Dent, he said, was repeating “a myth surfaced by the companies that would rather not have oversight.’’

"I gotta say, you guys do keep coming back to the old threads... probably a lot longer than I do..."

Well, we like talking to you. You're articulate, and you enjoy the rough give-and-take. (*Viking* rough). You keep coming back too, so you must be getting something out of it.

*

"Miller was doing the neocon jive from way back. I have no problem recognizing that."

This troubles me. You're saying Iraq *never* wanted to reconstitute its WMD programs? That after 1991 Hussein just went "Okay, you're right, my bad, no more regional aggression and international skullduggery ... I'll take up gardening! Maybe kite-flying!"

I just want to be sure I've got you pegged right. Are you in the (serious, legitimate) "Ba'athism is seriously creepy, but Iraq was contained and posed no threat in 2003 or thereafter" camp?

Or the "Iraq wasn't really as bad as the 'neocons' say" camp?

If you're in the second, may I make a reading suggestion? It's called "The Republic of Fear," by one Kanaan Makiya (though the first edition was published pseudonymously). Is he a neocon shill? Just another Chalabi?

How about "The Demonic Comedy," by Paul William Roberts, a good lefty who seems to believe that the Bushes pulled off 9/11? Published in the mid-90s, it's as gripping an account of modern totalitarianism as I've ever seen, despite being laugh-out-loud funny - sort of Hannah Arendt by way of P.J. O'Rourke.

I want to know. Give me the straight dope. Are you one of those people who will say dismissiviely "sure, Saddam was a bad guy, *but* ..."?

Or are you one of the honest people who recognize what Iraq was - not just Hussein, that's like saying Hitler was the sole determining factor for Germany's Follies - but dislike the method of dealing with it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Of course, in the interests of balance, you could always check out "Saddam Hussein: The Man: The Cause: And The Future." pub. 1990, IIRC.

The author's name, sadly, eludes me.

"Are you in the (serious, legitimate) "Ba'athism is seriously creepy, but Iraq was contained and posed no threat in 2003 or thereafter" camp?"

A little while ago I posted a piece (article from early 90's) that may set a record for length, but there was a point to it. I was trying to counter this ridiculous revisionism that tries to paint the republican right as opposing Saddam when they supported him, and tries to paint the left as an ally of Saddam's when it was trying to promote democracy there and oppose US support of Saddam. I remember those days.

Bush I supported Saddam right up until April Glaspie wired Saddam with the information that the US did not have an stake in Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and Saddam invaded.

The 90's sanctions took a terrible toll on the Iraqi people, esp. kids 1-5 yrs old. Recent analyses have shown, though, that the tweaks on the sanctions were working, and the effects were getting better each year: depriving Saddam of opportunities to act on his megalomaniacal wishes, while becoming less punishing of ordinary people. The Republic of Fear aspect is well documented, though, and Christopher Hitchens makes a living now reminding people of this side of Iraq.

But as a danger to the world? Condi and Colin and many others in a position to know were telling the truth in 2001 (pre 9-11). Saddam was contained.

What was learned after the invasion has only confirmed that. Really galling to some neocons is that some of Clinton's tactics did work, and this was only confirmed due to the invasion.

What you have to recognize now is that Iraq is again a republic of fear, with many afraid to venture out, afraid to let their kids go to school, afraid of kidnappings, snipers, car-jackings, retribution, etc.

About the same electricity production, but available only intermittently. As many as one third have no access to drinking water. And now gas has to be imported to the country.

-----------------

Anyone paying attention could see that there was no new evidence to describe Saddam's capabilities as increased from early 2001 to late 2001. There was only the neocon push to manipulate us into a new fear. And of course to convince a majority of the citizenry that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. It worked, they pulled it off, though you can hear a tape of Bush admitting no evidence of a connection a couple times/week on Randi Rhodes' show. (how long till someone here slams the source as leftist, as if that invalidates the actual source, the TAPE?)

I HOPE you wanted to know.

"Bush I supported Saddam right up until April Glaspie wired Saddam with the information that the US did not have an stake in Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and Saddam invaded"

*

So Saddam interpreted "we don't have a position on your dispute over slanted drilling" to mean "hey, go ahead, help yourself to another country ..."

That's what you're saying, right? IOW, Saddam took a bizarre, impulsive risk. (If it's really true that an insult to Iraqi womanhood some Kuwaiti made at a conference is what made Hussein finally snap, as popular legend has it, that's even worse.)
Much of the neocon argument was based around Saddam's being sui generis - if he were a serial killer, he'd be "disorganized". I kind of see their point.

You are convinced that containment was working, and would have continued to work - that "smart sanctions" or whatever would have kept the no-no stuff out of Iraq indefinitely ... that the situation in spring 2003 was indefinitely prolongable.

Maybe so. I disagree. I like to flatter myself that I disagree because I'm looking at other evidence, thinking about historical parallels, aware of the ominously changing nature of Iraq's policies and rhetoric (the "secular" label only applies up to 1990 - after that things got medieval real quick).

IOW, we end up making different judgements, but we're both making judgements.

Something tells me you can't accept this, though. Based on your past comments, there are simply no legitimate grounds for disagreement with you. This makes you an exasperating troll.

Please prove me wrong.

*

These arguments about the 80s irk me. I can't claim to have been a steadfast defender of the oppressed Kurds back then, because I was more concerned with Thundercats and Encyclopedia Brown.

But I don't understand this line of argument: we "created" Saddam (bullshit), or the weaker version, we supported him - which is true, and, as you like to point out, well-documented ...

... so therefore he gets a pass?

Doesn't this make us (and can we please start including France and Russia in this indictment? coz they did as much, if not more, Saddam-supporting back in the realpolitik day) *more*, not less, obligated to do something about it?

*

"Iraq is again a republic of fear"

A lot of this comes down to irreconcilable differences. Which is better, anarchy or totalitarianism? I've never had to experience either, so I can't personally say - and neither can you.

So ask those who've lived under both - the Iraqis. Most want us the hell out of their country as soon as it's feasible, *but* significant majorities are glad Saddam is in the dock, and don't want to go back to the ancien regime.

*

" Recent analyses have shown, though, that the tweaks on the sanctions were working,"

I'd like to see a link or two. Maybe I'll learn something.

*

I did want to know. That clears things up. You're in the first camp, which is, as I said, legitimate. Serious. I might disagree with you, but I respect your honesty about where you're coming from.

I'm sure that makes your night complete.

Monty, in case you return to this thread:

"Donald Kagan's one-volume treatment of the Peloponnesian War."

Why not the 4-volume original?

Oh, right ... it's mind-numbingly boring to anyone who's not a professional ancient historian.

Makes a good doorstop, though.

"IOW, we end up making different judgements, but we're both making judgements.

Something tells me you can't accept this, though."
---------
Sure I can. I have no problem with this. I have friends I disagree with, and we get along fine. I'm fine with robust debate, giving people a chance to make their best argument, explain what their source is.

I expect to get the same opportunity, and to get taken to task for mistakes.

I explained to geoff that if I'm wrong on the $8.8 billion, I'll admit it. So far, though, I can't see it his way. I agree his is a judgment based on a reading, as is mine.

No big deal.

Spoken like a gentleman.

Well, typed like a gentleman. Whatever.

Oh, and as a reminder that NOT all journalists were as wrong as Judith Miller, see this post by Huffington. The alternate stories are there.

Short version: it was pretty obvious to a lot of folks that the WH line on WMD was crap, and here's what people wrote at the time to show that.

Jesus Christ, you guys are still here?

Eh, anyway, from my last post way back up in the thread--

Wow, sure doesn't take much to have folks try to stuff words in your mouth.

Are you disavowing your characterisation of the war as illegal or your use of the word occupation?

Sortelli: members of the US military started calling it an occupation a long time ago. Bush did too, in a now-famous Bushism: "I wouldn't like to be occupied either!" Care to join the real world?

Okay, now that we've settled that, will you walk back from claiming that TooBeano was cramming words into your mouth under false pretense? Moron.