It Ain't What You Do It's the Way That You Do It

When they elected him, I think the American people expected that their CEO/MBA president (yes, I'm talking Dubya here) would at least appoint competent people to positions of responsibility within his administration, despite any misgivings they may have held about his right-wing/evangelical beliefs. This, of course, would explain the public's reaction to his inexcusably poor response to Katrina and his extraordinarily low approval ratings ever since.

It does take one's breath away, though, to learn how the Bush administration filled positions within the Coalition Provisional Authority that were responsible for rebuilding Iraq (with $18 billion in taxpayer money). According to Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran in his article "Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq," the Bush administration vetted candidates according to their political beliefs and loyalty to Bush rather than their qualifications and real life experience:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.

"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."

To any sane person, it sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn't it? You'd think that the Bushies would have wanted their little experiment in Democracy to be a bright, shiny success (and you can only imagine how good their standing in the world would be right now if their reconstruction efforts in Iraq -- or New Orleans, for that matter -- actually had worked). But, that's the problem with looney ideologues like Bush and Cheney -- they believe that what they are doing is going to have a set outcome no matter what transpires in the real world.

In related news, for those of us not living in Bush's bubble, the UN reports that during the last two months, close to 7,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in sectarian and insurgency-related violence. In addition, the UN report indicated that many of the people killed had suffered horrific deaths:

Bodies found at the Medico-legal Institute often bear signs of severe torture, including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails.

* * * *

Our title is a song off Fun Boy Three's self-titled album, which also includes the ditty "The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum."

All Out to Get You

You may think I'm overly paranoid when I propose that US gas companies are lowering prices at the pump to help favor the GOP in the upcoming mid-term elections (which have been explained away as the result of decreased tensions in the Middle East -- I guess we're talking Lebanon here, certainly not Iraq and Iran -- a relatively quiet hurricane season, lower demand now that the summer travel season is over, etc.)...but then I read a story like this in the Times:

Four government auditors who monitor leases for oil and gas on federal property say the Interior Department suppressed their efforts to recover millions of dollars from companies [Shell and Kerr-McGee Corporation] they said were cheating the government.

The accusations, many of them in four lawsuits that were unsealed last week by federal judges in Oklahoma, represent a rare rebellion by government investigators against their own agency.

The auditors contend that they were blocked by their bosses from pursuing more than $30 million in fraudulent underpayments of royalties for oil produced in publicly owned waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

“The agency has lost its sense of mission, which is to protect American taxpayers,” said Bobby L. Maxwell, who was formerly in charge of Gulf of Mexico auditing. “These are assets that belong to the American public, and they are supposed to be used for things like education, public infrastructure and roadways.”

Of course, two former oil men like Dubya and Cheney wouldn't throw any favors to their Big Oil buddies, would they now?

* * * *

"All Out to Get You" is from the English Beat's "Wha'ppen?" album.

We'll Be Grinning in Heaven/When the Day of Judgment Comes...We're Going to Live for a Very Long Time

You have to wonder what the parents of a soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice in Baghdad were thinking when they heard Dick Cheney make the following declaration on national TV regarding our little war in Iraq: "It was the right thing to do and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing."

Really?

Iraq is the midst of a civil war. The country's infrastructure is in shambles. Thousands upon thousands of people have died after major combat was declared over -- several years ago. Our nation has spent billions in borrowed money to finance the whole thing -- much of it seemingly wasted, mismanaged, or outright stolen. Iraq has become both a magnet and training ground for jihadist terrorists. Pretty much the whole world -- especially the Muslim world -- is boiling mad pissed at us. Drug lords and the Taliban practically rule Afghanistan, and, oh yes, Osama bin Laden still roams free after murdering thousands of American citizens.

Bush recently was forced to admit -- once again -- that Saddam was in no way connected to 9/11, even though his administration spent years insinuating that he was the evil mastermind behind it all. So, even though there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on 9/11, Bush makes the following declaration on the fifth anniversary of Al Qaeda's attacks on New York City and Washington, DC:

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

So what was this "clear threat" threat to our democracy and way of life? We all know that there were no stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq (the UN sanctions and no-fly zones had kept him in check for years). And Saddam wasn't in cahoots with Osama (they hated each other) and Al Qaeda. So where's the threat? Iraq is a huge problem now (as a result of the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration -- they have grossly mismanaged the post-Mission Accomplished 'peace'), but Iraq clearly wasn't a threat to us back then.

How can any of this make sense to any rational, sane human being?

Only if you believe if you are right because you are leading the country on a mission from God...

(Albeit, a crazy religious supreme leader with a potty mouth.)

* * * *

The synth-electro-pop band Heaven 17 appropriated its name from a ficticious band in the novel/film "A Clockwork Orange" and wrote the wonderfully wry "We're Going to Live for a Very Long Time" (which is from their "Penthouse and Pavement" album).

Makes No Sense at All

As a resident of the city that was attacked on 9/11/01, and as an American who witnessed the black smoke pour out of the giant, crooked gash in the WTC’s North Tower first hand (and was almost dumbfounded by the realization that people were dying in there on such a beautiful, blue sky day), I find myself almost completely drained of outrage five years later. Don't get me wrong, the event itself still saddens me to the core, but all I feel is anger toward Bush and his henchmen for hijacking the real meaning -- the truth -- of that day for their own political, power hungry ends.

Let’s review some of what has transpired over the past five years: 9/11 has been used to justify our war in Iraq that has nothing whatsoever to do the 9/11 attack (or weapons of mass destruction for that matter), and the subsequent deaths of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; to justify the illegal torture and open-ended imprisonment of people who may or may not be terrorists (let’s put them on trial in a court under existing civilian or military laws if our case against them is so legit – and if our interrogation of them is not torture and completely legal, why did all of this need to transpire in secret CIA prisons overseas or on a military base in Cuba); to justify the suspension of the Bill or Rights and the Constitution in regard to domestic spying on US citizens; to justify the wholesale expansion of Presidential powers to such a degree that Bush can declare himself so above the law that he can choose to ignore part or all of any legislation that Congress enacts – and to act in direct violation of existing laws and declare what he is doing is completely legal (for Pete’s sake, he believes he can unilaterally declare a US citizen an “enemy combatant” and toss them in jail indefinitely, without any legal recourse whatsoever); to justify the run-up of unprecedented national debt (while slashing taxes for the richest of rich Americans and corporations)…you get the idea (and know all this if you’ve been diligently reading the papers all this time).

Even though I was unhappy with him for waiting three whole days to visit Ground Zero (Dubya didn't come to NYC until September 14th) -- Clinton or Gore would not have waited that long -- and I hated his politics, I was willing to rally behind him during this extraordinary national crisis. When Bush announced that he was attacking the Taliban for harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda, I remember telling my wife that Dubya should “bomb the sh*t” out them for their part in making 9/11 possible. This from a generally anti-war kind of guy. I also told her that I might make an exception to my anti-death stance for bin Laden. (Though killing him in combat or executing him after trial only will make him a martyr to the cause, so it’s almost better that he dies of cancer or some natural cause instead.)

I now find myself angrier at Bush for what he has done to our country in the name of protecting it than I am with Osama bin Laden for attacking the city that I love and murdering thousands of my fellow citizens.

And that’s not right.

* * * *

("Makes No Sense at All" is on Husker Du's "Flip Your Wig" album. The band's name comes from a Danish board game, "Do You Remember?')

Killing an Arab

More grist for the anti-American mill in countries around the world: "Senate Rejects Limits on Cluster Bombs".

Apparently, close to 40% of the cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon (many of which were supplied to Israel by the United States) during the recent Israel-Hezbollah war did not explode when they hit the ground. Tragically, even though the war is over, these cluster bombs (like land mines) continue to kill Lebanese civilians who are unfortunate enough to stumble upon them. Wouldn't it be a little more civilized (if waging war could ever be anything but barbaric) if we restricted our munitions to those that kill and destroy only during a war?

Of course, the Republican chicken hawks defend the maiming and killing of non-combatants (read: innocent children, women, and men) by insisting that restricting the use of cluster bombs will somehow hamper with the defense of the Republic (read: terrorists lurk everywhere! -- be very afraid! -- don't question what we're doing, it's unpatriotic and comforts the enemy!).

Does wrapping oneself in the flag keep the spray of innocent blood off one's fancy suit -- especially if the blood and guts are from brown-skinned, Muslim bodies? Most surprisingly, it's worked so far for Dubya with American soldiers (according to CNN, as of September 5th, 2,647 US troops have been killed in Iraq). The Israelis already are ready to dump Prime Minister Olmert for mucking up their war on terror (and he hasn't even bankrupted his country or trampled all over their nation's constitution yet)!

Certainly, the deaths of who knows how many thousands of civilian Iraqis in our effort to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East through wholesale death and destruction seems not to trouble many self-proclaimed Christians in the Bush administration and in Congress...they're too busy figuring out new schemes for cutting taxes for the rich and those lucky GOP-connected corporations!

* * * *
"Killing an Arab" refers to a song by The Cure, which is based on "The Stranger," by Albert Camus (Bush claims to have read this book over the summer at Laura's recommendation).

Ever Fallen in Love with Someone that You Shouldn't Have Fallen in Love with?

With all the crap that is heaped upon women (in our supposedly advanced and compassionate society) for not breastfeading or for being a working mom or [insert your sexist, patriarchal gripe here] and all of the supposed damage inflicted on their children as a result, I can't help but point with some glee in a culture wars type of way at the following headline from the Washington Post: Autism Risk Tied to Older Fathers.

"With every decade of advancing age starting with men in their teens and twenties, the new study found, older fathers pose a growing risk to their children when it comes to autism -- unhappy evidence that the medical risks associated with late parenthood are not just the province of older mothers, as much previous research has suggested.

Of special concern is the finding that the risk for autism not only increases with paternal age but also appears to accelerate.

When fathers are in their thirties, children have about 1 1/2 times the risk of developing autism of children of fathers in their teens and twenties. Compared with the offspring of the youngest fathers, children of fathers in their forties have more than five times the risk of developing autism, and children of fathers in their fifties have more than nine times the risk."

Trophy wives, you've been forewarned!

(And my apologies to anyone affected by autism, which I know is no laughing matter.)