Thursday, October 07, 2004
I present the following tidbits for your consumption. First, an excellent question from Andrew Sullivan:
Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I've long pondered this, but Bremer's gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don't understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference. Am I somehow wrong? Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I'm still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?
Can anyone explain? I doubt it. Remember too that when Gen. Shineski told Bush et al. that they'd need a few hundred thousand troops, he was fired. Talk about willfull ignorance...
Then throw in this old story from MSNBC. It details how Bush had multiple shots to bomb Zarqawi and his terrorists well before he launched the Iraqi invasion. Yet he didn't. Why? Because killing Zarqawi would weaken his case for invading Iraq. Read that a few times to get the importance of it. In the war against terror, Bush let a terrorist live, because if that terrorist died, it would be harder for Bush to invade Iraq.
So how can invading Iraq be part of the war on terror if Bush had to let terrorists live to justify the invasion?! Answer: it isn't. A brutal truth, but the truth.
Then, as the kicker, the Washington Post reports that for every dollar of American taxpayer-funded aid that goes to Iraq (through payments to Halliburton, mostly) only 27 cents of each dollar benfits the Iraqi people. The other 73 cents? "Administrative and management costs." Which is just insane. If this were a charity, people would be getting arrested. Never should management and adminstrative costs consume almost 3/4 of the total funds. That's obscene! Compare this to The Red Cross. With all that they do, and the staff they employ, 82% of total funds go to programs. That the US government and Halliburton cannot match this level of compentency in rebuilding Iraq is pathetic. Hell, you could double their efficiency and they'd still fall short!
Oh ya, only two percent of the contracts were awarded to Iraqi companies. You know, those companies owned and staffed by the people we are supposed to be helping.
Gotta wake up and smell the coffee, people. Party loyalty doesn't trump common sense. I don't know if Kerry will do better. In fact, I know I'll disagree with a lot of what he does. But Bush has done nothing to deserve another four year term. And the fact he has an (R) next to his name shouldn't dictate a mindless pull of the lever for this walking popsicle stick.