SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Srexley who wrote (690297)7/6/2005 4:06:57 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
GEORGE BUSH: A TEXAS SWINDLER IN IRAQ

Iraq reconstruction riddled with waste, audits find

By DAVID WOOD

Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq, a strategic cornerstone of the war on terrorism, has been badly mismanaged, according to a growing body of evidence compiled mostly by U.S. government auditors.

Billions of dollars — some of it in shrink-wrapped bundles of $100 bills airlifted to Baghdad from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York — should have helped pay Iraqi bureaucrats, fix power lines and build schools. Instead, much of it can't be properly accounted for and millions have been stolen, auditors say.

In a nationally televised speech Tuesday from Ft. Bragg, N.C., President Bush acknowledged that "rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made."

Bush did not offer a plan to get reconstruction back on track in the middle of a hot war. Nor did he offer to fix the U.S. administrative shortcomings or suggest how to tackle corruption in Iraqi government offices, a problem compounded by lax U.S. oversight.

On the streets of Baghdad, U.S. military commanders began complaining early that the money rarely seemed to trickle down.

"We're losing the peace," a frustrated U.S. Special Forces Maj. Robert Caffrey said in June 2003 as Iraq teetered between the euphoria of seeing Saddam toppled and frustration at a U.S. occupation that seemed to bring no benefits. At the time, Caffrey was furious that he could get no money to foster local government or pay for small clean-up projects and schools.

Now back home in Hartford, Conn., Caffrey wrote last week in an e-mail that "it doesn't seem that much has changed in the last two years. Much to my sadness, when I said two years ago that we were losing the peace, I was more right than I knew.

"I'm astounded they still haven't gotten it right."

A year ago, Iraqis stood in line to buy gas an average of six minutes; today they wait an hour. Eighteen months ago, electricity powered lights and air conditioning across Iraq an average of 13 hours a day. Today, the nationwide average has sunk to 9.4 hours, according to statistics gathered by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

It is difficult to track the precise amount the United States is spending on reconstruction.

The Pentagon has let contracts potentially worth $42.1 billion and currently financed at $25.4 billion for a mixture of military logistics and reconstruction. The U.S. Agency for International Development has signed reconstruction and development contracts worth some $5 billion.

In addition, U.S. occupation authorities in Baghdad spent almost $20 billion in Iraqi money, most from oil sales and formerly held by the United Nations. It was turned over to the United States in 2003 for humanitarian and development programs.

Auditors from Congress' Government Accountability Office, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the U.S. Army Audit Agency and the State Department, among others, have raised serious questions about how all this money was used.

Pentagon investigators, for example, found $219 million in "unacceptable" charges under a contract with Halliburton, the U.S. contracting giant, for the $2.5 billion "Restore Iraqi Oil" program to supply Iraq with fuel and rebuild its oil industry. An additional $60 million in claims were "unsupported" by documentary evidence — receipts, in short.

A separate program, the Development Fund for Iraq, was financed by $20 billion in Iraqi money. Between June 2003 and June 2004, nearly $12 billion of the money was shipped to Iraq in cash.

U.S. military auditors including Stuart Bowen, the Pentagon's special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, have detailed millions of dollars that are missing or not properly accounted for. Of $120 million sent to one region for use by U.S. authorities, $96.6 million couldn't be accounted for. In one case, $7.2 million in $100 bills simply disappeared in Iraq, according to Bowen. Two cases of alleged fraud — one involving $1.5 million, the other an unspecified amount — are pending.

Pentagon auditors found that one Iraqi ministry had been paid to hire 8,206 guards, but only 602 were at work; Iraqi Airways put in claims for a payroll of 2,400 employees when it could justify only 400. U.S. authorities, a Pentagon audit report said, "did not implement adequate controls" to prevent such abuse.

Of about $1.6 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that went to Halliburton, Defense Department auditors questioned some $218 million in apparent overcharges, including claims for labor, material, subcontracts and administrative expenses.

Although the United States had promised "transparency" in how it handled Iraq's money, the Pentagon has refused to give United Nations auditors full access to Bowen's report. Halliburton was allowed to edit the report before releasing a partial version to the U.N.

"This undermines our international standing and, even more seriously, harms our efforts in Iraq," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who chaired a June 21 hearing on waste and fraud in Iraq.

Cathy Mann, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said questions are "part of the normal contracting process" to be expected in a war zone. A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, said the Defense Department "is committed to an integrated, well-managed contracting process in Iraq."

Still, with billions of dollars cascading into Iraq, much of it in cash, "corruption thrives," concluded a study released by the U.S. Institute of Peace, the congressionally chartered research organization.

"We had great difficulties in monitoring" expenditures, said Sherri Kraham, a U.S. official who served in Baghdad in 2003. She said the occupation authorities needed "more people on the ground who were experienced, who knew Iraq, knew Arabic and could move faster."

Gen. John Abizaid, the senior U.S. military commander in the Middle East, was asked at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing June 23 whether these problems still hampered the U.S. effort.

"I believe there are clear indications we have got to do better in this," he said.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

seattletimes.nwsource.com



To: Srexley who wrote (690297)7/14/2005 1:53:39 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Mr. Bush, Pick a Genius
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 14, 2005
Mr. President, they must think you're head of programming at CBS. Some people are telling you to name a Hispanic as your first Supreme Court nominee. Others say, Pick a woman. Harry Reid says, Pick someone who's not too controversial. Arlen Specter says, Look outside the judiciary for a fresh face.

They must think you are picking a TV host to build ratings against Katie Couric and Matt Lauer.

But this is a Supreme Court pick, not a programming choice. Nobody will care about superficial first impressions or identity politics tokenism a few years from now. What will matter in decades to come is whether you picked a philosophical powerhouse. Did you pick someone capable of writing the sort of bold and meaty opinions that will shift the frame of debate and shake up law students for generations?

If you can find a philosophical powerhouse who is also a member of a minority or a woman (like, say, Mary Ann Glendon), so much the better, but picking a powerhouse matters most.

Look, for example, at how Michael McConnell, who is often mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, has already influenced American life through sheer force of intellect. First as a professor and now as a judge, McConnell has outargued those who would wall off religion from public life. He's a case study of the sort of forceful advocate of ideas you have a chance to leave the country as your legacy.

McConnell (whom I have never met) is an honest, judicious scholar. When writing about church and state matters, he begins with the frank admission that religion is a problem in a democracy. Religious people feel a loyalty to God and to the state, and sometimes those loyalties conflict.

So he understands why people from Rousseau and Jefferson on down have believed there should be a wall of separation between church and state.

The problem with the Separationist view, he has argued in essays and briefs, is that it's not practical. As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right.

In one case, a public high school allowed students to write papers about reincarnation, but a student who wrote on "The Life of Jesus Christ" was given a zero by her teacher. The courts sided with the teacher. In another case, a physiology professor at a public university was forbidden from delivering an optional after-class lecture at the university entitled "Evidences of God in Human Physiology," even though other professors were free to profess any secular viewpoints they chose. Around the country, Marxists could meet in public buildings, but Bible study was impermissible.

McConnell argued that government shouldn't be separated from religion, but, as Madison believed, should be neutral about religion. He pointed out that the fire services and the police don't just protect stores and offices, but churches and synagogues as well. In the same way, he declared in Congressional testimony in 1995, "When speech reflecting a secular viewpoint is permitted, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis." The public square shouldn't be walled off from religion, but open to a plurality of viewpoints, secular and religious. The state shouldn't allow school prayer, which privileges religion, but public money should go to religious and secular service agencies alike.

McConnell's arguments have had a profound effect on court decisions. In the 70's and 80's, Separationists were in the ascendant. But in the past decade, courts have returned to the Neutralist posture McConnell champions.

In short, McConnell is a perfect example of how a forceful advocate - a person who can make broad arguments on principle and apply them in practical ways - can have a huge influence on the law. This is the sort of person any president should want to nominate for the Supreme Court.

Yet presidents often make their Supreme Court picks on the most trivial bases: because so-and-so is a loyalist or a friend, because so-and-so has some politically convenient trait or ties to some temporarily attractive constituency. By thinking too politically, presidents end up reducing their own influence on history.

Mr. President, don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Ideas drive history, so you want to pick the person with the biggest brain.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com