Profiting at Taxpayer Expense

by Robert Scheer (Wed Jun 27, 3:00 AM ET)

As the Iraq war that Vice President Dick Cheney created continues to shred American — and many more Iraqi — lives, further documentation has emerged proving that, even during failed wars, the merchants of death profit. No company has profited more from the carnage in Iraq than Halliburton, which Cheney headed before choosing himself as Bush's running mate. One shudders at the blissful arrogance of this modern Daddy Warbucks, who sees no conflict of interest over the blood-soaked profits garnered by the once-bankrupt division of the company that left him rich.

This week's evidence of the continuing corruption of Halliburton and its subsidiaries profiteering from contracts costing American taxpayers an unbelievable $22 billion — stems from a report by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. The report, only one of many about Halliburton's recently severed subsidiary KBR, focuses on work done in Baghdad's super-secure Green Zone. While parent company Halliburton insults U.S. taxpayers by relocating its headquarters to the tax shelter of Dubai, subsidiary KBR has been spun off to focus more directly on the American military contracts that form the core of its operations.

Those operations have already produced a litany of condemnation by congressional and administration oversight bodies, and the June 25 report hardly details the company's most egregious activities. However, the Green Zone, the site of this latest instance of taxpayer fleecing, is instructive because, safely removed from the risks of battle, it deprives these war profiteers of their favorite excuse: that construction in a battle zone is inherently more costly. While KBR's Green Zone shenanigans covered by this report may seem small in comparison to the enormous waste attendant to the U.S. reconstruction program in Iraq, they are illustrative of the devil-may-care feeding frenzy that has fueled the American effort.

The corrupt reconstruction project has left a wasteland of failed energy, water, educational and political reform plans. As report after report details, garbage is not collected, hospitals are not staffed, schools close soon after they are opened, and factories sit idle in shocking refutation of the vaunted efficiency of the United States' political economic model.

KBR's role in this fiasco is easily exposed by a basic Google search, beginning with a stop at the Web site of Henry Waxman, the California congressman who heads up the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Waxman deserves a Medal of Freedom for trying to figure out what happened to the $22 billion that KBR received but are now lost to U.S. taxpayers, as well as to the once hopeful but now bitterly disillusioned Iraqi people. Indeed, six months ago, the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., termed the high level of official corruption in Iraq the "second insurgency," stating that the siphoning-off of U.S. dollars is a major source of funds for the anti-American fighters in the country. It was estimated that last year, upward of $100 million in stolen oil funds went directly to the insurgents. In the context of that horrid record of waste and corruption attendant to the destruction of Iraqi society in which "democratic nation building" transmogrified into fascist mayhem, KBR's antics in the Green Zone seem petty.

But the fact that KBR played loose with our tax dollars even in the safety of the Green Zone is evidence of the company's contempt for the sacrifice of U.S. taxpayers. For example, concerning KBR's mismanagement of the fuel distribution program, the inspector general wrote: "We found weaknesses in KBR's fuel receiving, distributing and accountability processes of such magnitude that we were unable to determine an accurate measure of the fuel services provided." Yet, it was paid for by American taxpayers.

Or, take the extra $4.5 million spent on the company's food service and the cost of billeting 90 percent of KBR personnel in single quarters, as opposed to the doubling-up practiced by regular Army folks.

That was chickenfeed, compared to other examples of taxpayer rip-offs, as revealed in one example by the Army reducing payments to KBR by $19.5 million following Waxman's first "fraud, waste, and abuse hearings." It is hoped that there will be other efforts at forcing accountability for the billions of dollars that have been spent to advertise the efficiency of the United States' free enterprise model to a skeptical Mideast public.

It is claimed by American officials that KBR's accountability issues are being addressed. In one instance cited, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad — a spiraling enterprise well on its way to become a nation-within-a-nation akin to the Vatican in Italy — announced that its personnel would no longer be allowed to bring large bags into the eating halls as a means of avoiding food theft. Such sacrifice for the mission of securing Iraqi freedom.

E-mail Robert Scheer at rscheer@truthdig.com. To find out more about Robert Scheer, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

Read more...

Independence Day, Really?

by Scott Paul - Wed Jul 4, 2:43 PM ET

While millions of American will be celebrating on the Fourth of July with parades, fireworks and picnics, we should know that the free market in which we live is not truly free, nor does it enhance the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. This Independence Day, take a look at the labels on your bikes, fireworks, grills and even your food, and consider what the future holds for this nation.

Blind faith in the free market has resulted in unsafe consumer products from China on our dinner plates, in our tubes of toothpaste and in our pets' food dishes. It has produced millions of layoff notices for manufacturing workers in our factories -- 49,000 per month since 2000. This blind faith has delayed getting domestically-made armor plating to protect our soldiers in Iraq. And it has piled up record trade deficits, leaving America with a massive debt that will limit the opportunities for our children.

But this isn't a rant against trade. On the contrary, it's a plea for trade that truly benefits everyone: workers, producers, consumers and investors. It's a plea for accountability and for enforcing the existing laws we do have to guarantee safe products and the opportunity for workers and producers in America to compete with those abroad.

Now that the issues of pending free trade agreements and presidential fast-track trade authority have been settled in Congress, the debate about a new trade policy needs to begin among our presidential candidates.

I'd love to hear just one question at an upcoming presidential debate about trade and manufacturing from Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews. But I'm not holding my breath. You are more likely to hear a question about Paris Hilton's jail time -- or Scooter Libby's lack thereof -- than anything focusing on our economic future.

Fortunately, some groups are finding ways to burst through this blockade. The United Steelworkers are hosting a presidential candidates' forum on trade and manufacturing in Cleveland on July 5 and 6. And on July 4, Stand Up For Steel will begin urging Iowa caucusgoers to ask candidates to consider the consequences of our flawed trade policies. Check out their new, amazing ad here.

The point of the Stand Up For Steel ad should resonate with citizens on Independence Day. The American people have become all too aware of the limitations that dependency on foreign sources of energy creates for foreign policy and national security purposes; it makes no sense to exacerbate that problem by depending on China and other nations to supply our critical defense needs. Just as our nation is seeking to achieve energy independence from the Middle East, we also should avoid becoming more dependent on others to supply our national and homeland defense needs.

Our Founding Fathers were visionaries. They shaped policies not only for their time, but for generations to come. All of us would profit if we could only harness that wisdom today.

Read more...

Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Curtain!

Anthony D. Romero Wed Jul 4, 1:27 PM ET

July 4th brings thoughts of fireworks, hotdogs, and cold beer, but as you see your ballparks and skylines light up tonight, take a minute to think about another July 4th tradition, the Freedom of Information Act. You might not know this piece of patriotic trivia, but FOIA has been in effect and lighting up our government for exactly 40 years today.

The Act can trace its origins to the time of Joe McCarthy. The relevant background is as follows: In March 1954, newsman Edward R. Murrow set into motion the downfall of the demagogue senator, using McCarthy's own words to show America his dark side. The centerpiece of the historic broadcast was actually a clip of McCarthy browbeating a witness over his one-time association with the "Communist-influenced" ACLU.

Before giving his signature signoff, Murrow warned that McCarthyism was a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. National security concerns about Soviet espionage and global expansion were building into wildfires of public hysteria. Farmers in the Midwest, socialites in New York -- all were terrified of the Red Menace, a terror made even more acute by the advent of nuclear weapons.

McCarthy was able to exploit the government secrecy that was at its height during his heyday to do his smearing. He could make wild accusations without official repudiation. Damaged by the Murrow broadcast, McCarthy then picked a fight with the Army and was later censured by the Senate. A wreck of a man, he died three years later.

McCarthy's crusade highlighted another creeping problem in post-war America: the dilemma of maintaining government accountability in the face of national security threats -- whether real or exaggerated.

The government was beyond tight-lipped about everything Soviet and everything nuclear. In 1950, G-men literally burned all copies of a Scientific American magazine with articles on H-bomb technology. And the ACLU recognized the danger in the lack of a formal mechanism to maintain open government, especially during times of public hysteria like the McCarthy years.

In 1954, we commissioned a report on the suppression of news and government secrecy, citing especially the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our report called for "greater legal sanction to the public's right of information" from the government.

We ultimately got our wish in the Freedom of Information Act, signed by a reluctant President Johnson on Independence Day 1966, and first implemented 40 years ago today. FOIA is essentially democracy's x-ray. It's the only way that the American people can look into the black-box of government policy making and make sure the government is doing what it says it's doing or should be doing.

FOIA's history is telling. It's the daughter of the Cold War, and McCarthyism's wiser, honorable cousin. It was vastly unpopular in the federal agencies and the White House -- the branch of government with the most to gain from keeping secrets -- and yet unanimously supported in Congress. It shows how a functioning democracy can institute appropriate checks on the government, even during a time of national security crisis.

FOIA's recent history is also instructive. In 1974, after Watergate exposed widespread civil liberties abuses by the intelligence community, Congress amended FOIA, over a presidential veto, to allow the public to request intelligence documents. After that, an additional load of illegal dirty laundry tumbled out of the CIA, the Pentagon and the FBI.

More recently, even with the Bush administration's new restrictions on FOIA requests, ACLU attorneys have aggressively and successfully used FOIA to produce documents on torture at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay. Just last week, we filed our latest FOIA lawsuit demanding information on the abuse of National Security Letters.

Despite these successes, on this Independence Day, FOIA's birthday, we must also be concerned about the health of our open government laws.

Today, the bureaucratic backlog for FOIA requests is crushing. Excessive secrecy connected to 9/11 and the Bush administration's ideological commitment to executive supremacy has rendered the Departments of Defense, Justice and the White House virtual no-FOIA zones.

Just as bad, some requests take decades to process, and agencies often force those requesting information into expensive court battles, only to have the documents released at the 11th hour to avoid losing a case.

Thankfully, a strongly bipartisan group of lawmakers, including notable conservative cosponsors Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), introduced the Open Government Act. Among other things, the bill would require the government to create a tracking system for FOIA requests and would provide greater specificity in how the agencies may redact or exempt documents from disclosure.

Unfortunately, a minority of one has placed a hold on the bill, indefinitely blocking it from further progress in the Senate. Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican with a voting record quite similar to Senator Cornyn, won't let the bill go to a vote.

Reportedly, he has "concerns" with its effect on the Justice Department. I would respectfully suggest that Senator Kyl take a look at the scandal-ridden Gonzales Justice Department.

And as I write this, the clock is also counting down on Senate subpoenas meant to finally shed some light on the executive branch's involvement in that same illegal NSA program.

You can learn more about FOIA, civil liberties and ACLU history in In Defense of American Liberties, the definitive history of the ACLU, written by Samuel Walker.

But the fundamental argument is simple. In the words of President Johnson, "democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation will permit." In times of crisis, the government tends to use "national security" as an all-purpose excuse to prevent the release of embarrassing or politically damaging information.

This is not how it should be. Open government is free government. On this Independence Day, Mr. Bush, tear down that curtain of secrecy.

Read more...

Dear George... Happy 4th! Wish You Were Here!

Michael SeitzmanWed Jul 4, 4:00 PM ET

"Instead of seizing this moment, the administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values to show we have grown up before we grow old. When the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

And now [they're party] comes asking for another chance, another shot. Our answer? Not this time. Not this year.

This is not a time for third chances, it is a time for new beginnings.

Greatness is found when American character and American courage overcome American challenges. We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more a commander in chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander in chief who earns their respect.

A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming. [My generation] never saw our nation's greatness in rising wealth or advancing armies, but in small, unnumbered acts of caring and courage and self-denial. Their highest hope, as Robert Frost described it, was 'to occupy the land with character.' And that, 13 generations later, is still our goal: to occupy the land with character.

Our nation's leaders are responsible to confront problems, not pass them on to others. And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible.

My fellow citizens, we can begin again. After all of the shouting, and all of the scandal. After all of the bitterness and broken faith. We can begin again.

The wait has been long, but it won't be long now. A prosperous nation is ready to renew its purpose and unite behind great goals, and it won't be long now. Our country is ready for high standards and new leaders, and it won't be long now. An era of tarnished ideals is giving way to a responsibility era, and it won't be long now.

The night is passing.
And we are ready for the day to come."

George W. Bush
August 3, 2000
Republican National Convention
Read more...

Two faces of the Arab street

By Hussain Abdul-Hussain,Tue Jul 3, 4:00 AM ET

Kamal is my Syrian cousin who lives in Damascus. He is a pious Muslim who keeps a low profile. When I decided to Google his name, I was surprised to see that he had made a statement in one of the newspapers denouncing the American war in Iraq and describing the US as a bully.

But I know Kamal, and I know that he admires the West. During our chitchats, his favorite description of the social and economic situation in Syria is "backwardness." He tells me that he would love to move to a "civilized" country where people stand in a queue, where drivers follow the law, and where everyone is "respected" and everything is "clean."

Kamal's statement in the newspaper does not reflect his thought. Rather, it reflects the double-faced character that most of the Arabs and Muslims have to put up, fearing the tyranny they live under.

During my years as a reporter in Beirut, whenever I covered an anti-US protest, I saw most of the protesters trying to hide their faces from cameras. Ask any of them about the reason for doing so, and they will tell you that they do not want to jeopardize getting a visa to the US or to other Western countries.

But those who don't want to risk their visas are the same ones who fear retribution of their ruling regimes, or even their militant peers, if they express any support of the West. These people walk a tightrope. On the one hand, they want to keep their visa prospects high. On the other hand, they want to look as anti-Western as their oppressors want them to look.

The double-face theory explains a good deal of the social behavior of many Arabs. It explains why, even though the majority of Arabs appear to hate America, American multinational franchises are booming in Arab countries.

Whether it is Starbucks, McDonald's, Burger King, or KFC, they are all in high demand in the Arab region. Hollywood movies are widely watched. American pop culture is as widespread in the Middle East as it is here in the US. Most Arabs know Ross and Rachel from the TV sitcom "Friends." Many of them know the rapper 50 Cent and often sing his tunes. Many of them strive to enter the US universities mushrooming across the region.

If you ask these Arabs about the dilemma of loving America and hating it at the same time, the most common answer would be: We love America, but we hate its foreign policy.

American foreign policy, however, does not always work against what many of these Arabs want to see. Only a few would oppose the removal of their tyrant.

When American troops first stormed into Baghdad, the most common footage on TV was that of Iraqis hailing the invaders and often praising President Bush. True, there was no throwing of petals and sweets on US troops. But there were no insurgents either. Violence in Iraq did not break out until the third month after the American invasion – once insurgents had grouped themselves and planned their action.

When jubilant Iraqis saw another form of tyranny, that of the insurgents replacing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, they put on their double-faced characters again.

How do we know what the majority of Iraqis and Arabs feel about America? It's simple. Take the number of insurgents and compare them to that of the Iraqi population. Insurgents are estimated at 15,000 militants, heavily supported and funded by intelligence groups of their neighboring countries. The number, however, is negligible if compared with Iraq's population of 27 million.

Even under Hussein and his 1-million- strong army and intelligence personnel, his entourage would not account for more than 1/27th of the population. That Iraqis hated Hussein is an undisputed fact. Yet they praised him, elected him (Hussein "won" 100 percent of the vote in 2002), and protested against America under him. It was all fear, and part of the double-face strategy.

In any given nation, it takes only a handful of troublemakers to bring everyone to their knees. Iraqi insurgents terrorize the people who are fleeing the country by the thousands. Insurgents coerce the population to look as though they are anti-American. Without them and the support of neighboring intelligence forces, Iraq could have been the strongest democracy in the region and perhaps Operation Iraqi Freedom would have succeeded.

My cousin Kamal loves America, but he is forced to hate her, just like the protesters who hide their faces. There are more than 300 million Arabs, yet only 19 of them were enough to show the world on 9/11 that Arabs and Muslims hate America, an impression that is not necessarily true.

• Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a media analyst, is a former reporter for The Daily Star of Lebanon.

Read more...

Ask the 2008 presidential candidates better foreign-policy questions

By Clinton Whitehurst, Thu Jun 14, 4:00 AM ET

When it comes to foreign policy, the 2008 presidential candidates have focused almost exclusively on the Middle East. Given the public debate about America's engagement in Iraq, that's understandable. But such myopia is also deeply regrettable. There's another world out there besides the Middle East, one with major problems and flash points that cannot be ignored by the public and a future US president.

It's imperative that voters and the media ask all of the candidates tough questions about issues other than the ones they already ask about the Middle East. Some of the important ones include these:

How should the United States (1) Maintain a balance of power in East Asia, (2) Respond if China tests a second anti-satellite weapon, (3) Respond to a Chinese military action against Taiwan?

If China does act against Taiwan, whoever becomes the next US president will have to respond in a matter of hours – not days – as to whether the US honors the Taiwan Relations Act and whether it becomes militarily involved in the conflict.

Looking elsewhere, we should also ask candidates how they intend to ensure that a politically divided Ukraine continues toward integration with Europe and not move closer to Russia. How should the United States respond to an increasingly authoritarian Russia, remembering that it has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, that Siberia is a treasure trove of minerals yet to be exploited, and that Russia is a military superpower? How should the US respond if Russia covertly threatens Poland for allowing a potential American anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory?

Should a conflict arise between Kosovo and Serbia – which could involve Russia – where stands the United States?

And what about NATO? Should the US insist on a greater European contribution in terms of personnel and funding? The same question could be asked about the United Nations.

What should be America's policy toward India, a nation with the second-largest population in the world, a fast-growing economy, and a military with an increasing capability, all the time remembering its contentious and continuing border dispute with Pakistan, an American ally in the fight against the Taliban?

If North Korea reneges on its promise to give up its nuclear-weapons program, should the US encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons? Should the United States continue a policy of downsizing the number of its troops in South Korea while, at the same time, South Korea is considering significant decreases in its active and reserve forces? Both nations insist the new force structure will be more capable than the present one. Will it?

Other areas of the world present their own share of tough questions. In the Western hemisphere, for example, should the United States lift its embargo against Cuba? Would such a move enhance America's image in Central and South America, or would it be seen as a sign of weakness? How should the US respond to aggressively populist/leftist movements such as the one in Venezuela? And will the US continue to spend billions to fight the drug trade in Colombia?

Those are just some of the critical issues that the next president must confront.

Some observers may claim that presidents today don't need to know such complexities because the White House has an abundance of experts on hand to advise the president on every possible foreign-policy scenario. That excuse, however, misunderstands the nature of real leadership. The commander in chief should have a basic understanding of all major foreign-policy issues, and then rely on advisers to discuss details and determine options. As has been frequently noted, American presidents can find themselves in deep trouble when they depend only on advisers with respect to unfamiliar problems and issues.

As long as the foreign-policy questions on the campaign trail – whether at televised debates or at diners in Iowa – don't extend beyond the Iraq war, the candidates themselves won't be inclined to discuss many of the other critical global issues that confront America.

That's why the media, the blogs, and the voters must challenge the candidates with non-Middle East foreign-policy questions. Imagine the expression on a candidate's face if he/she were asked, "What is your position with respect to the United States establishing air bases and stationing personnel in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?" A follow-up questions might be, "And what was the original rationale for the bases?"

The motivation here isn't to stump the candidates and make them look foolish. Rather, it's an effort born out of a desire to have better-informed presidential candidates and a better-informed public.

• Clinton Whitehurst is a senior fellow at The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University.

Read more...

Religious extremists in 3 faiths share views: report

By Claudia ParsonsWed Jun 13, 5:49 PM ET

Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- social, economic or political -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

The report was commissioned by security think tank EastWest Institute ahead of a conference on Thursday in New York titled "Towards a Common Response: New Thinking Against Violent Extremism and Radicalization." The report will be updated and published after the conference.

The authors compared ideologies, recruitment tactics and responses to violent religious extremists in three places -- Muslims in Britain, Jews in Israel and Christians in the United States.

"What is striking ... is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence," the report said.

It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as "the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity," there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

"It is, in each situation, a case of 'us' versus 'them,"' it said. "That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God's law supersedes man's law."

COMMON WORLDVIEW

This worldview was common to ultranationalist Jews, like Yigal Amir, who killed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, to U.S. groups like Christian Identity, which is linked to white supremacist groups, and to other Christian groups that attacked abortion providers, it said.

"Extremists should never be dismissed simply as evil," said the report. "Trying to engage in a competition with religious extremists over who can offer a simpler answer to complex problems will be a losing proposition every time."

Harvard University lecturer Jessica Stern, the conference's keynote speaker, spent five years interviewing extremists for her 2003 book "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill."

She said it was dangerous for U.S. President George W. Bush to use terms such as "crusade" or "ridding the world of evil."

"It really is falling into the same trap that these terrorists fall into, black and white thinking," Stern told Reuters on Wednesday. "It's very exciting to extremists to hear an American president talking that way."

Stern said to compare violent extremists from the three faiths was not to suggest that the threat was the same.

"These are not equivalent," she said. "The problems arising from Christian or Jewish extremism are not threatening to the world in the same way as Muslim extremism is."

Conference organizers say their aim is to develop a nonpartisan strategy to combat religious extremism.

The guest list includes representatives of the State Department, Homeland Security, the New York Police Department and the U.N. missions of Israel, Iraq, Britain and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Read more...