Iraq Contractors

Bush/Cheney and special contracts with Big Oil in Iraq - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

seandiego — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:32:23 -0400

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE TODAY (7/2/08). THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST UNITE TO SHOW THE WORLD WE DID NOT SUPPORT OR APPROVE OF THE INJUSTICES OF THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE CRIMES IT COMMITTED AGAINST IRAQ, THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD. TO REGAIN OUR STATURE IN THE WORLD, WE MUST CHARGE BUSH AND CHENEY WITH WAR CRIMES BEFORE THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES IT FOR US. CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSPERSONS TODAY!

Opening Iraq's oil fields to Big Oil

By Bob Herbert
THE NEW YORK TIMES

July 2, 2008

It's getting harder and harder to remain deluded. With each day comes new facts to drag our heads out of the sand.

Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that four Western oil giants were on the verge of signing no-bid contracts that would return them to Iraq, the third-most bountiful petroleum playground on the planet. It was the kind of news that big oil lives for.

Giddy executives singing “Oh Happy Day” could be heard in the corporate offices of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP, which had been shut out of Iraq for three and a half decades.

We also learned this week that a group of American advisers, led by a team from the State Department, played a key role in drawing up the contracts between the companies and the Iraqi government. Chevron and several smaller oil companies also got contracts.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney, both former oil company executives, have long tried to tell us this war was about terrorism, about weapons of mass destruction, about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, about anything but oil.

Said Bush: “We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

He didn't wait. It didn't matter that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. Or that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The troops were sent into battle in early 2003 and there is still, after more than five years and more than 4,000 American deaths, no end to the war in sight.

One of the starkest examples of U.S. priorities came during the eruption of looting that followed the fall of Baghdad. With violence and chaos all about, U.S. troops were ordered to protect one particularly treasured target – the Iraqi Oil Ministry. As David Rieff wrote in The New York Times Magazine in November 2003:

“This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry – not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry – probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil.”

How convenient that the peculiar perspective of the oil-obsessed Bush administration can now be put to use advising the Iraqi government on its unusual no-bid contracts with big oil.

The contracts themselves are not huge. They are like the keys on a coveted ring that will begin opening the doors to Iraq's vast oil reserves. As the Times reported Monday, “At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world's largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry.”

A prize, yes. But at what cost?

In addition to the terrible toll of Americans and Iraqis killed and wounded, the war in Iraq has diverted attention and resources from critical problems here in the United States, where the housing market has been crippled, the stock market has tanked, gasoline has soared past $4 per gallon, unemployment is increasing and an extraordinary number of debt-ridden working families are staring into a financial abyss.

Even as oil companies are enjoying staggering profits, many Americans – in July! – are already worried sick about the potentially ruinous cost of heating their homes next winter.

And then there's the so-called war on terror.

The latest news is that al-Qaeda, the terror network that actually did attack the United States, has successfully regrouped in the tribal areas of Pakistan and has reconstituted its ability to institute terror attacks from the region.

For an administration joined at the hip to the oil industry, the lure of Iraq's enormous reserves was stronger even than the impulse to conquer an enemy that murdered more than 2,700 civilians on Sept. 11, a toll greater than the number of Americans killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

Referring to al-Qaeda members who regrouped in Pakistan, the Times reported on Monday:

“Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.”

Who knows how long it will be before the United States disengages in any significant way from Iraq. What you can take to the bank is that this country will not make any major advances in energy policy, in health coverage, in rebuilding its infrastructure, in improving its public schools or in curtailing runaway public and private debt until our open-ended commitment to this catastrophic multitrillion-dollar war comes to an end.

How long will it take before that finally sinks in?

Bush's Legacy Leads to Iran: Will Clinton or Obama Make Any Difference? Will You?

Heather Wokusch — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:22:17 -0400

The lack of oversight characterizing both the Bush administration and crony capitalism have bankrupted the U.S. and created the need for perpetual war. With Cheney stirring up trouble over Iran, we can't wait until November 2008 to fight back.

Toxic economy

Take the Fed's recent $30 billion bailout of Bear Sterns. Why throw taxpayer dollars at a company with massive amounts of "toxic waste" on its books, created largely through reckless behavior chasing short-term profits?

Reigning in Wall Street would make more sense. Force investment banks to disclose off-balance-sheet risks and put aside substantial reserves, at minimum.

But no, the Fed instead hands Wall Street taxpayer dollars. Moral hazard be damned.

Bear Sterns won’t be the only bailout - the precedent has been set. We are looking at the start of a wealth transfer from normal Americans to large and unaccountable financial institutions.

And the cancer is spreading. In the same way that subprime mortgages have become toxic for major investment banks, the U.S. dollar has become toxic for overseas creditors.

The greenback has been falling against the euro and other currencies since 2002 and is widely expected to plummet further this year. Doesn’t help that the Fed stopped releasing M3 money supply data in March 2006, making it impossible to tell how many dollars are being dumped on the global market.

The Bush administration's irresponsible fiscal policies have led central banks abroad to see "coupling" with the US as a moral hazard. It’s no surprise that, for example, Japan's war chest of treasury securities fell $40 billion from January 2007 to January 2008.

Bottom line, the U.S. public's lack of trust in Bush's economic policy (if he even has one) is shared by global creditors.

And that leaves just one area of influence for this administration: war, war and more war.

All roads lead to Tehran

In the past two weeks, the White House approach to Iran has become increasingly schizophrenic. While Bush gave two radio interviews emphasizing the possibility for a US-Iran reconciliation, Cheney crisscrossed the Middle East pushing for war.

Maybe they're playing good cop/bad cop. Or else Cheney's taking matters into his own hands.

As The Global News Service of the Jewish People (JTA) observed, a U.S. strike on Iran is unlikely unless, "the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be far ahead of their Republican rival and Bush senses a 'now or never' strike option." Since even that scenario may be doubtful, " the Israelis are hoping that the hard-line Cheney will push the envelope - a role he reportedly played vis-a-vis the U.S. invasion of Iraq. One official said Cheney is seen as 'a significant player' who could influence 'serious issues that cannot wait.'"

Meanwhile, the Jerusalem-based site DEBKA reported that "at the last minute" before Cheney's recent visit, the White House asked Israel to prepare for "exhaustive and lengthy discussions on Iran." As a result, ministers were convened to decide which of Israel's military plans of action were to be presented to Cheney."

DEBKA also noted: "The vice president's choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. America will need the cooperation of all four – Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey - to mount a military attack on Iran."

Intriguingly, Cheney's visit to the Middle East coincided with a U.S. nuclear submarine crossing the Suez Canal to join the massive Navy fleet already stationed in the Persian Gulf.

As the Russian news service RIA Novosti reported this weekend, "the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003." RIA quoted a high-ranking official as saying, "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran."

Here we go again

True to form, Cheney made numerous unfounded allegations against Iran during his Middle East trip. Contrary to U.S. intelligence reports, for example, he declared that Tehran is "heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels."

Interesting coincidence that the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni just wrapped up a U.S. speaking tour beating the same war drum.

In a phone call to Barack Obama, for example, Livni stressed that "there is a direct connection between terror and Iran" which requires the "firm steadfastness of the international community against terror and against Iran." Obama reportedly reassured her that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.

Just last week General David Petraeus claimed that Iran was behind a rocket attack against the US-controlled Green Zone in Iraq. Petraeus insisted that the rockets "were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made" and that Iran's actions were "in complete violation of promises made by President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

We've been down this road of trumped up allegations before.

So what happens after November 2008?

It's obvious that McCain would be a foreign policy disaster. His "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" performance speaks for itself, as does his claim that it "is fine with me" if the US stays in Iraq for 100 more years.

He's also dangerously uninformed. Just weeks ago, McCain told reporters that Iranian operatives were "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back." He said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

Small problem: Shia Iran does not support Sunni al-Qaeda. You'd think that after five years of war in Iraq McCain would have figured that out. Only when Sen. Joseph Lieberman quietly corrected him did McCain say: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." Whatever.

McCain will keep the US at war indefinitely.

So why, for the first time in 14 years, are defense contractors throwing their money behind the Democrats? Since 2000, for example, they've given roughly 63% of their election contributions to Republicans, but in the 2008 election cycle, a full 52% of defense industry funding has gone to the Dems.

Maybe it's because Clinton and Obama can also be expected to keep defense contractors happy. Both speak of peace but have repeatedly voted to fund war. Both have plans for limited troop withdrawal once in office but neither has strongly argued against keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come. Neither has fought to stop construction of the gigantic US embassy in Baghdad or to scale back the heavily-fortified Green Zone.

Perhaps more importantly, both Clinton and Obama have said that all options (code language for nuclear weapons) must be on the table for dealing with Iran.

Shadow economy, shadow government

So who would profit from broader-based war? Weapons manufacturers for one. In fiscal 2006 alone the Pentagon was involved in arms sales agreements of $21 billion. And from 2001 to 2005, the US provided developing nations with 2,099 surface-to-air missiles plus ten "major surface combatants," including aircraft carriers and destroyers.

Of course, taxpayers fund the bulk of many of these weapons agreements, through direct corporate subsidies or foreign military aid linked to weapons purchases. Yet defense industry profits remain private. Another wealth transfer.

Having apparently done quite nicely in Iraq, Big Oil could also profit from further unrest. The Iraqi government is soon expected to sign "technical support" contracts with five major oil companies (BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Total and Chevron). Iraq will not only pay the five up to $2.5 billion to increase oil production but also fast-track them for bidding on future oil contracts. The oil majors might be hoping to pull off a similar coup when the smoke eventually clears in Iran, or at minimum, to scuttle the proposed Iran-Russia gas cartel.

The Republicans would clearly benefit from a wider war come November. McCain could flash his military credentials and emphasis would be taken off issues most likely to garner Democrats votes, such as the economy.

While the American people have no stomach for further conflict, it's debatable if their opinion even matters any more. In the same way that Wall Street's shadow economy is now sticking US taxpayers for billions in bailouts, the shadow government is setting us up for war.

No one really knows, for example, what Cheney is cooking up or what new justification for an attack on Iran will be thrown at us next. False flag perhaps?

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans against "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power" from the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower said: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Now is the time for an alert and knowledgeable citizenry to take action.

Now is the time to dump the hero worship and ask very tough questions of our presidential candidates. Some basics include:
- Will you commit to never using the so-called bunker-buster or any other kind of nuclear weapon against Iran? Will you take that option "off the table" right now?
- Will you insist on a full briefing to the US public and congressional approval before any attack on Iran?
- When will you stop funding the war in Iraq? In Afghanistan?
- When will you bring all troops home? Will you commit to removing Blackwater and other private security companies too?

Now is also the time to ask a very tough question of ourselves. If there is some kind of attack on US interests and the administration insists Iran did it, yet supplies little in the way of viable proof, will we take action? If so, why wait?

Action Ideas

1. Have Fallon testify before Congress

Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Central Command, left his job recently over differences with the White House regarding an attack on Iran. As CODEPINK notes: "The Bush Administration will not let Admiral Fallon testify before Congress in April; it only wants Congress to hear the voice of General Petraeus, the 'feel good' military man who says the surge is working. This is a travesty. Congress needs the perspective that Fallon's deep and reasoned knowledge of the situation in the Middle East brings. During a time when military endeavors in both Afghanistan and Iraq have failed miserably, we can't afford to let our President start a third catastrophe in Iran."

Call Senator Biden (202-224-4651) or email the Foreign Relations Committee today to urge them to have Fallon testify.

2. Learn more about Iraq Town Halls and make your voice heard.

Democrats.com has an important initiative called Iraq Town Halls : "In April, Congress will vote to give George Bush another $102 billion blank check for Iraq - unless we finally persuade our Representatives to Just Say No. One of the best ways to persuade a Representative is to hold a Town Hall Meeting and fill the hall with people who care and are willing to speak passionately. That gets their attention!"

3. Impeach Cheney

Do you think Cheney should be impeached? The People's Email Network has made it easy for you to take action. The one-click form on their site "will send your personal message to all your members of Congress, with your vote on the question 'Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?' At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below."

While you're at The People's Email Network site, consider creating your own issue action petition. It costs nothing and enables you to start your own movement using their dedicated submission server.

4. Find out if there are WMD facilities in your area

Weapons manufacturers have had a bonanza under Bush, and often the public isn’t aware that a domestic WMD lab is nearby.

Curious about where the nation's nuclear weapons plants are located? Then check out the Federation of American Scientists at: "Where the Bombs Are"

Is a university or military facility in your area involved in biological weapons research? One resource to help you locate biodefense projects is Project Sunshine's "Map of High Containment and Other Facilities of the US Biodefense Program," under "Biodefense" on the Project Sunshine site.

If your group would like to conduct its own PR-generating "inspection" of a domestic WMD facility, check out the Citizen Weapons Inspection Teams site for materials, pointers and a 5-page Citizen Inspection Team Event Checklist, covering everything from budgeting resources to issuing a declaration.

5. Put the media to work

Progressive Democrats of America has put together a terrific resource to help you contact the media with your comments, complaints and suggestions.

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series and can be reached at heatherwokusch.com

DIANE FEINSTEIN

marjorieann — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:52:05 -0400

Disturbing news, news to me that is - because counterpunch did an article on this over a year ago which I was unaware of. I am not seeing any coverage of this issue anywhere. If this is true, which I suspect it is, we can no longer just point the finger at the Bush crime family. And, if it is true that Pelosi accepted this blood money, or any other Democrat, they need to come clean, tell the truth, and return it.

The first link is to today's article:

Democratic Blood Money

by, Joshua Frank:

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank04042007.html

The next link is to the investigation, you will need to scroll to;

"Diane Feinstein: A question Of Ethics"

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/diane-feinstein-resigns-0712.html

This is OUTRAGEOUS people, and I am particularly upset because I voted for Diane.

What's good for Halliburton (and Cheney) is good for...Dubai

dlindorff — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:54:01 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I for one am not going to fuss about Halliburton moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai on the sunny coast of the Persian Gulf.

It makes sense, and it makes things so much clearer, too.

Halliburton, recall, is the company that has made the most money of any private enterprise off of the Iraq War--$27 billion to date, most of it in the form of extraordinarily profitable no-bid contracts (the company earned a record $2.3 billion last year alone). It is also Vice President Dick Cheney’s company. He headed it for five years before deciding to go into “public service” as President Bush’s regent in 2001, and he continued to receive compensation from the company, and to hold options for Halliburton stock well into his vice presidency, refusing even to put his holdings into a blind trust, as wealthy political figures normally do to ensure that they don’t make decisions based upon considerations of personal gain.

Before, there was always the old argument that "what's good for Halliburton is good for America." That line may have been hokey when it was first uttered with regard to General Motors by then GM chairman Charles Wilson, and it is surely hokey today, but it can lead to some confusion among Americans still in thrall to the corporate creed.

But with Halliburton now a Dubai corporation, with its tax obligations now owed to the Dubai Revenue Department instead of the IRS, that deception is gone.

We know now that when Dick Cheney makes a foreign policy or war policy decision regarding Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is really thinking about what it will do for Halliburton and Dubai--and for Dick Cheney.

Remember the big brouhaha that arose when a Dubai-based company was in line to take over the operation of several major U.S. ports last year? Members of Congress were in high dudgeon over that and in the end the plan was abandoned.

So how do we feel knowing that virtually the entire supply line for our over-extended troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is now in the hands of a Dubai corporation, and that it has its hooks into the central policy arm of our government, Blair House and the Office of the Vice President?

Next time Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary serves our troops toxic, bacteria-ridden food, or puts untreated Euphrates River water into their canteens, maybe we should look harder to see if this was just another case of corporate corner and cost-cutting, or whether something more sinister was at work.

We--and members of Congress, if they still remember how to do their job--ought to be asking whether Halliburton's move to Dubai has anything to do with anticipated business should Cheney get his way and the U.S. attacks Iran this spring. Since such a war would inevitably include the destruction of much of Iran’s state-owned oil industry, it would represent a huge new business opportunity for Halliburton, which first and foremost is an oil-services company.

Seeing all this is much easier with Halliburton based in Dubai, rather than Houston. Especially when you also consider the new oil law written by America and passed by the Iraqi parliament, which opens Iraq's oil reserves to American oil companies.

The American soldiers and marines stuck in Iraq, who have long been led to believe that they are over there fighting to defend America, should have little trouble these days seeing that they are really fighting and dying for Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil and Chevron…and Dubai.

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

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006).

Going Broke Under Bush - How the US Sent $12 Billion in Cash to Iraq, and Watched it Vanish

CactusPat — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:58:43 -0500

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish - Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone

An armed guard poses beside pallets of $100 bills in Baghdad. Almost $12bn in cash was spent by the US-led authority...

The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent... (more)

The staggering scale of the biggest transfer of cash in the history of the Federal Reserve has been graphically laid bare by a US congressional committee.

In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover.

Details of the shipments have emerged in a memorandum prepared for the meeting of the House committee on oversight and government reform which is examining Iraqi reconstruction. Its chairman, Henry Waxman, a fierce critic of the war, said the way the cash had been handled was mind-boggling. "The numbers are so large that it doesn't seem possible that they're true. Who in their right mind would send 363 tonnes of cash into a war zone?"

The memorandum details the casual manner in which the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority disbursed the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, surplus funds from the UN oil-for-food programme and seized Iraqi assets.

"One CPA official described an environment awash in $100 bills," the memorandum says. "One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency. Auditors discovered that the key to a vault was kept in an unsecured backpack.

"They also found that $774,300 in cash had been stolen from one division's vault. Cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck, and cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices. One official was given $6.75m in cash, and was ordered to spend it in one week before the interim Iraqi government took control of Iraqi funds."

The minutes from a May 2004 CPA meeting reveal "a single disbursement of $500m in security funding labelled merely 'TBD', meaning 'to be determined'."

The memorandum concludes: "Many of the funds appear to have been lost to corruption and waste ... thousands of 'ghost employees' were receiving pay cheques from Iraqi ministries under the CPA's control. Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States."

According to Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, the $8.8bn funds to Iraqi ministries were disbursed "without assurance the monies were properly used or accounted for". But, according to the memorandum, "he now believes that the lack of accountability and transparency extended to the entire $20bn expended by the CPA".

To oversee the expenditure the CPA was supposed to appoint an independent certified public accounting firm. "Instead the CPA hired an obscure consulting firm called North Star Consultants Inc. The firm was so small that it reportedly operates out of a private home in San Diego." Mr Bowen found that the company "did not perform a review of internal controls as required by the contract".

However, evidence before the committee suggests that senior American officials were unconcerned about the situation because the billions were not US taxpayers' money. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that "the subject of today's hearing is the CPA's use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people."

Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver, is even more direct. The memorandum quotes an interview with the BBC World Service. Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important."

Q: "But the fact is billions of dollars have disappeared without trace."

Oliver: "Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money, yeah I understand. I'm saying what difference does it make?"

Mr Bremer, whose disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces and de-Ba'athification programme have been blamed as contributing to the present chaos, told the committee: "I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently. Our top priority was to get the economy moving again. The first step was to get money into the hands of the Iraqi people as quickly as possible."

Millions of civil service families had not received salaries or pensions for months and there was no effective banking system. "It was not a perfect solution," he said. "Delay might well have exacerbated the nascent insurgency and thereby increased the danger to Americans."
David Pallister
Thursday February 8, 2007
The Guardian

Also see the original Guardian report from March '06 - 'Iraq was awash in cash. We played football with bricks of $100 bills' and one of my earliest blog posts here at democrats.com - "Dem. Policy Cmte. Exposes "Wild West" Fraud in Iraq Reconstruction". Now let's see if any indictments flow...

Counting Beans and Benjamins

CactusPat — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:40:04 -0500

There's been a lot a big numbers floated by the past few days. Let's review, first the really big one, Smirk's Three Trillion Dollar budget which includes $719 BILLION for the starving military, including almost $300 billion for ongoing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. So how does he plan to pay for this obscene increase in US global military domination? By cutting the budget for Medicare, Medicaid, education, health care and children's programs. What a mean heartless little tyrant our illegitimate Dear MisLeader... (more)

Yes, that's right, pay for increased US global fascism on the backs of the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the young while making the Bush tax cut's for the rich permanent. If this proposed budget and military spending increase at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society isn't evidence of outright insanity, they'll ne'er be another.

"The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction. This administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that. It clings to the same misguided policies: costly tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest, cuts in domestic priorities and more fiscal irresponsibility." _ Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

On to more beans and benjamins. The CBO released an analysis that indicates Smirk didn't tell the whole truth about his escalation of the Iraq War. According to the CBO estimate, the total troop "surge", w/supporting personnel, is likely to be in the area of 48,000, not the advertised 21,500... while low-balling the projected cost, $20-27 billion for a one yr. deployment according to the CBO.

Final beans and benjamins. Bush has doubled outsourcing to private contractors from $200 billion to $400 billion a year. An unbelievable privatization of government functions. For profit... by sleazoids who've already defrauded the taxpayers repeatedly.

Washington - In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government's reflexive answer to almost every problem.

They hired another contractor.

It did not matter that the company they chose, CACI International, had itself recently avoided a suspension from federal contracting; or that the work, delving into investigative files on other contractors, appeared to pose a conflict of interest; or that each person supplied by the company would cost taxpayers $104 an hour. Six CACI workers soon joined hundreds of other private-sector workers at the G.S.A., the government's management agency.

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000... (full article)

Someone needs to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove their greedy little paws from our purse strings before we, and our great-grandchildren, end up in never-ending servitude.

Impeach, indict, imprison...

As The Anti-War Protestors March On Washington, All Hell Breaks Loose In Iraq

Chris Elliott — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:34:52 -0500

In scenes reminiscent of the 6th Armies assault on Stalingrad, president Bush’s “surge” appears to be a last ditch, all or nothing attempt to bring a military victory in Baghdad that it cannot realistically achieve.

Battle for Baghdad: City braces itself for US surge
Urban fighting amid the ruins
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 28 January 2007

Lina Massufi, a 32-year-old Iraqi laboratory assistant with two children, is a widow - her husband was killed by US troops when he accidentally drove down a closed road in 2003. In the past three months she has seen her house raided and her furniture smashed 12 times.

"Every time they raid my house, they break down the door," she told a UN official. When she asked them why they did not ring the bell "they laughed at me and called me an idiot". Her brother Fae'ek, a pharmacy student, was arrested and held in prison for a week. "He returned with signs of torture on his body, and was crying like a baby because of the pain."

Her story shows why the odds are against what may be President George Bush's final gamble in Iraq: the attempt by US troops, now receiving 17,500 reinforcements, to regain control of Baghdad. The plan is for US forces, along with Iraqi army and police, to enter Sunni and Shia districts in the capital, cleanse them of insurgents and militia and then stay put, preventing their return. In his State of the Union speech last week Mr Bush told Congress: "With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads."

But the failings of this strategy become more obvious the further one gets from Washington and the closer to Baghdad. The insurgents and militiamen, both Sunni and Shia, usually have more credibility in their districts than Iraqi government forces. As for the heavily Shia police commandos, they are seen by Sunni in Baghdad as licensed death squads.

In recent days 3 helicopters have been shot down by anti-aircraft missiles proving that superiority in the air is now not so certain. Crew from one of the helicopters were all found dead, some reports claim they had been ‘executed’ with bullet holes in the back of their heads.

Carnage on Sunday in Iraq

Sunday: 373 Iraqis, 5 GIs Killed; 166 Iraqis Injured; US Helicopter Shot Down

US Embassy in Baghdad Green Zone hit by mortar/rocket fire

Hundreds killed in Iraq battle

US and Iraqi forces claim to have killed more than 250 armed men in a battle involving tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shia holy city of Najaf.

The US military said a helicopter has been shot down in the fighting, resulting in the death of two troops on board. An Iraqi military commander said the day-long battle was continuing.

Assad Abu Gilel, the governor of Najaf province, said US and Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 1000 fighters, including foreign fighters, holed up in orchards on the northern outskirts of the city.
According to one Iraqi political source, hundreds of fighters drawn from both Sunni and Shia communities were still fighting.

A Reuters reporter at the scene, 160km south of Baghdad, saw US tanks and heard blasts after dark and an Iraqi officer said F-16 jets were bombing the area.

Details of the day's fighting were sketchy. An Iraqi army source said some of the dead wore headbands declaring themselves a "Soldier of Heaven".

Continues

In another videotape, the Jaish al-Mujahideen group said that it has destroyed a US military vehicle in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra.

With sanctions now imposed against Iran and open talk of war coming from Washington and Tel Aviv there is a distinct risk that the ground war could spill over the borders and the US forces in the Baghdad “green zone” find themselves besieged by the Iranian\Syrian army as well as the Iraqi resistance.

Turkey could complicate the situation further by seizing territory in the northern region of Iraq.

Turkey mulls 'invading' Iraq
By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul

Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security purposes.

More than 30,000 people have been killed in the confrontation between the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Turkish army – about 400 last year alone, according to Turkey's Human Rights Association.

Onur Oymen, the deputy chairman of the Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said: "Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where a terrorist group can operate without being pursued."

"If the Iraqis and the US are not prepared to take action over this, then we must."

In Britain, Tony Blair is fighting for his political life as arrests of his aides in bribery, corruption and tampering with evidence charges, set against the backdrop of two failing wars and an army under manned and under equipped is putting huge pressure on the government to withdraw the armed forces.

US plea to Britain: 'Don't abandon main Iraq base'
By Raymond Whitaker
Published: 28 January 2007
The US is urging Britain to reconsider plans to close its main base in southern Iraq.

Since the 2003 invasion, the largest part of Britain's 7,100-strong force has been stationed at the Shaibah logistics base, in the desert south of Basra. The base is due to be closed within weeks as Britain prepares to slim down its Iraq commitment, with the main centre of operations bring transferred to Basra air station, on the outskirts of the city.

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said last week that Britain would be in a position to hand over security in Basra, the last province where it retains formal control, to the Iraqis "at some point this spring". This heightened expectations that Britain would cut its forces by up to 3,000 before the summer.

To make matters even worse, Israeli war rhetoric has reached fever pitch and Lebanon is once again being subjected to airstrikes by Israeli warplanes.

Israeli warplanes intrude on Beirut airspace
Jewish state claims to have uncovered, destroyed hizbullah bunkers

Israel planes dump "suspicious green balloons" on southern Lebanon

World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief

Dubya and His “Non-Accountable Hidden Army”

Bill Harding — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:19:16 -0500

Here is an article from MSN Money which details investment opportunities in the Iraq “war:”

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/InvestInTheNe...

By Jon Markman

Considering all the flak that President Bush has endured for ordering 20,000 more troops to Baghdad, it's a wonder that he didn't just pick up the phone and dial 1-800-MERCENARY.

That's what the Pentagon is likely to do anyway, as it has throughout the Iraq conflict. Thanks to loopholes in the law and budgeting process, upward of 20,000 private military contractors -- sadly, the term mercenary is passé -- are believed to be at work for the United States in the region, and their ranks are growing all the time.

We've outsourced airliner and parka manufacturing to foreigners, after all. Why not the messy job of fighting, not to mention translating and spying? Independent companies are now the third largest contributor of forces to Iraq, after regular American and British troops.

[Cont’d]…

The neocon state-of-mind: profits first – regardless of the cost in human lives and suffering.

Smirk's Mercenaries Pullin' Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

CactusPat — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:08:31 -0500

Little item via TPM almost slipped by.... Things have goten so BAD in Iraq and Afghanistan the mercenaries are pullin' out....

I think this is what's called a bad sign (from the AP) ...

Manhattan security company Kroll has withdrawn its bodyguard teams from Iraq and Afghanistan after it lost four workers in Iraq, its parent company said Wednesday.

Michael Cherkasky, president and chief executive of Kroll owner Marsh & McLennan Cos., told The Associated Press that the business in the two countries wasn't worth risking the lives of their employees.

Too dangerous for the hired paramilitaries.

Late Update: Apparently Bechtel has just announced they're pulling out too. -

Iraq: Not secure enough for mercenaries. Helluva job.

Yep, Mission Accomplished..... NOT!

The Industrial Services Complex Formerly Known as the Military

davidswanson — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:50:05 -0400

By David Swanson

"Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," by far the best film Robert Greenwald has created, is not about the military industrial complex. Rather, it is about the remaining shell of the former military, having embedded within itself not just the media, but numerous other corporate entities. The U.S. military no longer cooks its own food, washes its own laundry, repairs its own vehicles, or guards its own V.I.P.s. We've privatized everything, right down to the shooting -- mercenaries make up the second largest contingent in the Coalition of the Killing.

Private corporations cost more and provide less, or in the case of the reconstruction of Iraq: provide virtually nothing. There has been no reconstruction, and various corporations have provided literally nothing – at great expense. Halliburton has sent drivers to risk their lives hauling empty trucks back and forth across Iraq. And when a $75,000 truck breaks down, for lack of a spare tire or an oil filter, they blow the truck up or abandon it.

The absence of a reconstruction in Iraq is not the topic of "Iraq for Sale." Neither is the injustice of the war. "Iraq for Sale" is a film about how the war is being conducted, not whether there was any justification for beginning or continuing it at all. But the depiction of how the war is being conducted reveals in itself massive crime.

We meet in this film the families of two of the four Blackwater employees whose murders in Fallujah made big news, and we hear how Blackwater cut corners on arming their vehicle or including in it the proper number of personnel.

We learn about the employees of CACI who tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, but who – unlike some members of the old military – have not been held accountable in any way.

We also hear from former translators for Titan on how that company pocketed big bucks while providing incompetent translators.

We hear from drivers for Kellog Brown and Root (Halliburton) and their families. KBR has knowingly sent trucks into zones where there was a high chance they would be attacked. And they have been attacked. And drivers have been killed. The deaths are not counted in U.S. (old military) casualty figures. We hear from some of the drivers who have survived attacks.

We also see Halliburton provide contaminated water for service members, provide endless lines for food – and refuse to allow eating at any time other than scheduled meals, making it easier for resisters to attack. Halliburton overcharges, including charging $99 to wash a bag of laundry without getting it clean. The total of Halliburton overcharges is over $1 billion.

That's over $1 billion in pure waste as part of an already wasteful arrangement with Halliburton, a contract obtained with no competition or bidding and no expectation that the terms of the contract be met. Only in a field connected to patriotic music and flag waving would this level of corruption be so easily tolerated. No wonder corporations love war so much!

If the privatization of the military has a silver lining, it's this: should we ever be able to eliminate the privatized sections of the military, the remaining old military will be a more appropriately sized entity for defending a nation that does not launch aggressive wars. Let's make the Department of Defense a publicly run public service of a size that we can afford and the world can survive.

I highly recommend seeing this film: http://iraqforsale.org

If you're in New Jersey or Philadelphia this weekend, you should come watch it with me. Following the screening, we're going to discuss the ever-improving prospects for impeachment, including how we can persuade the New Jersey state legislature to send impeachment charges to the U.S. House. Sign up to join us:
http://iraqforsale.bravenewtheaters.com/screening/show/6223