Originally Posted By gadzuux Interesting article that shows how government contracts in iraq were distributed not on ability or qualifications, but on connections to GOP insiders. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14 868608/</a> Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Excerpts - >> 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. << It goes on to recount several tales of unqualified people being given critical postions in the coalition provisional authority because of their insider connections. One more excerpt - >>James K. Haveman Jr. was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system. Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions. Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war. He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government." But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president. <<
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Wow!! I was just going to post this and then I see it has already been posted. Some here talk about people having a visceral hatred for Bush. Baby, I'm getting there. The more I find out about what the Bush administration has done the more convinced I become that Bush has been the absolute worst President in the history of America. As far as I'm concerned, he and many members of his administration should be put in jail.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey look. Another story that is kinda, sorta, but not really very accurate. And look... there is RT buying it!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The more I find out about what the Bush administration has done the more convinced I become that Bush has been the absolute worst President in the history of America." He's at least in the top three. He's got a couple of more years to get to number one, and at the rate he's going, he'll likely get there. Remember after the Gulf War when his dad had such immense popularity and seemed unbeatable? Remember how he blew that and some redneck who couldn't keep his pants zipped was able to beat him just two years later? Junior has taken the immense suport he had after 9/11 and flushed it down the toilet, just like dear old dad. He was barely able to beat a second tier candidate with all the charisma of a department store mannequin, and now members of his party can't get away from his coattails fast enough if they themselves want to get re-elected. See the rejection of the tribunal bill for the latest example. What's incredible is that the brains behind the puppet think they can still fool the general populace whose sons and daughters are being sent off to be killed on a daily basis in a war with no end. The longer the war drags on, the angrier people get. Factor in blatant patronage like the above, and all it does is make things worse for them. Did they really think crap like this wouldn't eventually surface? Voters are going to show in a couple of months that they're tired of being insulted, literally and figuratively, by this Administration and its supporters. After the Clinton character debacle, Bush promised to restore integrity to the White House and a lot of us bought it. Well, it's time to return the purchase. People are fed up and angry with this good old boy GOP mentality that pervades D.C. Lame attempts to justify it by pointing out that "well, previous Administrations did it, Clinton did it, JFK did it, blah blah blah" won't wash. Not now, now anymore. When statesmen like Powell take stands and are then insulted by some third rate TV commentator turned press lackey by saying Powell is "confused", when we all know damn well Colin Powell didn't get stupid overnight, then you know this Administration has shot its wad and has nothing left. Throw the bums out.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Michael Moore, errrrr STPH, your last post sounds EXACTLY like some kook from democraticunderground.com Congratulations on being one of them. You are so off target in your little take on the president it is beyond amazing. <<Voters are going to show in a couple of months that they're tired of being insulted, literally and figuratively, by this Administration and its supporters>> When the GOP holds the House and the Senate are you going to finally just go away in shame? Or are you going to try and back out by saying " Look!! We gained a few seats!!! " Nope, you have said the GOP is going down for 2 years now. Tell ya what Mr. ACLU. How about this. If the GOP loses either the House or the Senate I will leave LP for good. If they hold power you leave for good. After all, you think Bush is a disgrace and the people are going to vote for the libs. You have said this since Kerry lost in 2004. ( With your help ) Come on, back it up. Loser leave town bet. You have been talking for 2 years about the GOP losing because you think people see the world like you and the ACLU. Back it up.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If the GOP loses either the House or the Senate I will leave LP for good. If they hold power you leave for good. After all, you think Bush is a disgrace and the people are going to vote for the libs. You have said this since Kerry lost in 2004. ( With your help ) Come on, back it up. Loser leave town bet. You have been talking for 2 years about the GOP losing because you think people see the world like you and the ACLU. Back it up. < ' I'll tell you what, I will take you up on that, as I don't think I can stand muchmore of the 'loser' rhetoric, or ' confused moderate' rhetoric if the GOP wins both anyway. I donot think they wilkl lose the senate but I think there is a chance they will lose the House to send a message. SO if you have the stones.. let's go. I will leave WE ( not LP) if the GOP retains both and you are gone for good from WE if the GOP retains both. A bet to STPH should be good for any of us even though I am not a lib, I am part of that gray area moderate clan.......awaiting your decision...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I will leave WE ( not LP) if the GOP retains both and you are gone for good from WE if the GOP retains both.> I think you mistyped there, vbdad. Beau's original offer was to leave LP (but WE makes more sense) if the GOP lost (not retained) congress- actually EITHER house of congress. SPP would only leave if the GOP retained both. How 'bout it, Beau? Is it on with vbdad (though I'd hate to see him go)?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Hey look. Another story that is kinda, sorta, but not really very accurate. > Very easy to say - but can you back it up? What part of the story is inaccurate? Is it the 24-year old with no experience re-opening the stock exchange? Is it Haverman replacing Burkle? What's inaccurate? I don't quite have you on "ignore" yet, but I'm getting close, and if you can't produce anything other than the usual twaddle, you'll be there.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Very easy to say - but can you back it up? What part of the story is inaccurate? Is it the 24-year old with no experience re-opening the stock exchange? Is it Haverman replacing Burkle? What's inaccurate?>> Nice post, but you should have added some smackdown - woodshed stuff. Beau likes that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<I will leave WE ( not LP) if the GOP retains both and you are gone for good from WE if the GOP retains both.> I think you mistyped there, vbdad. Beau's original offer was to leave LP (but WE makes more sense) if the GOP lost (not retained) congress- actually EITHER house of congress. SPP would only leave if the GOP retained both. How 'bout it, Beau? Is it on with vbdad (though I'd hate to see him go)?< good catch Dabob -- it is if the Dems win a majority in either the senate or house - Beau is gone. If the GOP retains both I will go back to WDW type threads only -- let's put up Beau....you have the poll leads, so you have the advantage as you say... You know us moderates can't make our minds up about anything...so I am calling you out on this bet to prove I and every other moderate here can work in black and white also.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I think what bothered me the most about the gop contracts with the gasoline refineries in iraq, were they sent our troops, americanc troops, paid for with our democrats tax money, cause republicans go out of their way to weazle out of paying their taxes, so the army, paid for by the democrats, for the republican exxon people, would accompany, and get blown up with the gop contractors, who were getting 100 times the profits from the sales, even before they started getting blown up.
