Ahhhhhh.....the DailyKos...the epitomy of quality American journalism.
It describes military contractors as the fringe right and extreme conservatives. Of course this is coming from arguably the most liberal interest group/blog in the country. This is kinda like citing Rush Limbaugh as a news source, except Limbaugh is considerably more mainstream than the DailyKos.
They're going to spin anything they can find to put the military, businesses, and GWB in a bad light. Of course they offer no proof that family connections helped this company, they just assumed they helped. In their opinion if a military company (as well as pharm, energy, and healthcare companies) is making any money at all they are evil.
I watched a very interesting documentary on Discover Times the other day about security contractors in Iraq. In short, they play a much larger role than it was ever thought they would play (this is possibly where the increase in payments comes from) because of the Iran-funded and supplied insurgency. I give them credit. These are guys that are putting their lives in danger to make some money (typical worker makes $150,000/year) and complete an incredibly important task for the people of Iraq.
I especially liked the part about them blaming Blackwater for the deaths of the 4 men killed in 2004. Of course they would never blame the guys that pulled the trigger that killed them, but that wouldn't appease it's readers. What they conveniently left out was the fact that workers commonly choose to not use armored cars because they've actually found armored cars are more dangerous in certain situations. According to this documentary the employees choose which to drive depending on the situation. Maybe that's why the word "armored" was left out.
posted by HeyHey at 01:47 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Sigh.
It's a beautiful Sunday, and you'll catch bloody hell from conservatives and administration apologists for posting this, but this is what this war has become to be about, or, perhaps, what it was about all along.
Money and war profiteering. There should be subpoenas and hearings. Maybe there will be.
On a side note, the Bill Moyers PBS report last Wednesday on the cowardice of our national media on the run-up to the war was terrific and everyone should catch George Tenet tonight on 60 Minutes.
posted by McCaskey at 01:59 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
You're right, by the way HeyHey, about DailyKos representing the far left version of American journalism.
That doesn't make the accusations wrong, of course, but the Daily Kos slant is about as liberal as you can get, no question.
jr must be a fan; I remember he covered a book signing in Ann Arbor some months back by publisher Markos Moulitsas Zúniga.
Personally, I like Huffington Post better. I'm sure neither one is at the top of your 'favorites' list, LOL.
posted by McCaskey at 03:09 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Great article. Actually Don and I were going to cover this subject on our show (the connection between private school vouchers and private armies). Jeremy's Scahill's book debuted at # 9 on the NY Times bestseller list. This whole Blackwater thing is creepy--zero accountability to go along with war-mongering. War is profitable, and Blackwater benefits from going to war. Apparently business is good.
Chris
The Nookular Option
posted by Chris99 at 03:52 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
That doesn't make the accusations wrong, of course
You're correct. These accusations could prove to be entirely true. However, there isn't a shred of evidence that says it is. That's my hang-up over this "story." They've taken the fact that this guy is a relative of the Michigan GOP leader as proof that he used unfair connections to get the contract. That's a big jump, and it's one that reputable news agencies wouldn't take.
I personally think that the military-industrial complex isn't nearly as corrupt as this article portrays it. Reading this article I get the feeling that its authors have a "condemn first, get proof later" attitude toward military contractors. It's one thing to investigate potential corruption by these companies and another thing entirely to conclude that a company is corrupt because of its owner's family.
posted by HeyHey at 04:05 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Obviously, Blackwater would be paid more. It matches with the increase in the insurgency, thus the cost of victory. Remember, the enemy gets a vote in the outcome of any armed struggle.
I would rather not to have to rely upon indendent contractors to win the war, but the American public wanted the "peace dividend" when the Cold War ended. So, we did it to ourselves - look in the mirror. No military leaders who I know of are happy that we need Blackwater, but the "peace dividend" was the mantra in the 1990's, remember? So, in order to fight the war we needed the Guard, Reserves and, yes Blackwater. I hope that we stop whining about this soon, so we can focus on winning. Iran can be counted on to provide the focus with their huge involvement in Iraq. It's obvious that this very strategic area of the world will be the pivot point for future military actions.
There simply is no choice. We either secure the energy resources, drive hybrids and use windmills or the West will fall into the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, and a huge war will follow. A lot of people cry about what we (U.S. and Europeans) should have done to stop Hitler in the 1930s. Now, we are being proactive, and people can't see the large war we will prevent by winning this one. There were anti-war protests at U.T. in the 1930s. Those antiwar people were wrong in the 1930s and the antiwar folks in the U.S. are just as wrong now. I think that secretly, every American knows that we have to be in Iraq, but since we are so weathy and our military powerful, we can afford to be blind to what is really going on and whine to the President to withdraw.
Republicans are involved because they have the largest number of people with the courage to fight the war (international war on terror) in order to win it. Of course Senator Joe Lieberman is a very important exception, but he had to run as an independent.
Did you notice how nice it was today? Obviously that George Bush generated global warming is to blame. (sniff, sniff) That baaaad man!
posted by paulhem at 04:59 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
HeyHey, what about the "helped" link that points to an April 29, 2007 Grand Rapids Press story? What's that got to do with Daily Kos?
Some excerpts:
Prince, son of Holland industrialist Edgar Prince and an ex-Navy SEAL, tapped his inherited wealth in 1996 to found a little-noticed North Carolina security firm that would become Blackwater USA.
Family connections helped. As brother to former Michigan GOP chairwoman Betsy DeVos and brother-in-law to her husband, 2006 GOP gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, Prince had access to Capitol Hill power brokers.
But his business plan did not crystallize until the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With the U.S. decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a changing military looked to the private sector to complete a variety of missions. Blackwater was in prime position to capitalize.
According to government records, Blackwater has reaped more than $800 million in federal contracts over the past five years. [A] pair of lawsuits allege company negligence resulted in death. One of the suits stems from the grisly mutilation and killing of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.
Edgar Prince and his wife, Elsa, were committed to the Republican cause and a conservative social agenda that fit the family's Christian Reformed Church roots.
Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council and a 2000 candidate for president, credited Edgar Prince with a key role in getting the council off the ground. "I can say without hesitation that, without Ed and Elsa and their wonderful children, there simply would not be a Family Research Council," Bauer wrote. Prince was accepted into the Naval Academy after high school but dropped out after three semesters, enrolling at Hillsdale College, long considered a bastion for conservative values.
At age 19, [the Blackwater] Prince made his first political contribution: A $15,000 donation to the GOP. By 2006, his total contributions had swelled to more than $235,000 -- virtually all to Republican or conservative causes. After college, Prince re-entered the Navy in 1992 and was accepted into the SEALS, a special forces unit considered military elite.
In March 1995, employees found Edgar Prince slumped to the floor in a company elevator. He died a short time later at Holland Community Hospital. The company was sold the following year to Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls Inc. for $1.35 billion. Prince formed Blackwater the same year, teaming with his SEALS trainer, Al Clark, to build Blackwater. Clark has since left the company.
The election of George W. Bush in November ushered in a new secretary of defense -- Donald Rumsfeld -- who was bent on remaking the armed forces, in part by expanding the use of private contractors.
Even as its revenues mounted, Blackwater remained off the radar screen of most Americans until March 31, 2004. That day, four Blackwater contractors became icons for a war gone wrong. They were killed as they entered Fallujah, escorting a convoy of trucks. Their bodies were burned, mutilated and strung up from a bridge by an angry mob.
Ohio resident Donna Zovko, 54, lost her son, former Army Ranger Jerry Zovko, 32, in that attack. She is among survivors suing Blackwater.
[A]t a memorial later that year at Blackwater for the Fallujah contractors and those killed elsewhere, Zovko got a different impression of Prince. At the time of that service, Zovko pressed for answers about what had happened in Fallujah.
"Whenever we tried to ask about it, they said it was classified," she said. "They said if we wanted to know, we would have to sue. That's why I want to go through with this (lawsuit). It needs to be shown they are not above the law."
paulhem said : "Republicans are involved because they have the largest number of people with the courage to fight the war (international war on terror) in order to win it."
October 2, 2006 AP story conveniently ignored by conservative blathering blunderheads.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily. The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.
"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."
Did Republican Senator Bill Frist imply last fall that the military battle in Afghanistan was lost? Should we try tea and crumpet parties?
If the Afghan insurgency cannot be defeated militarily, why should we believe the Iraqi insurgency can be defeated militarily, based upon the words from the courageous Republican Senator and former Majority Leader?
When the new Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, said recently that the battle in Iraq was lost, conservatives dropped a lung and split their colons in a fit of convulsing rage over Reid's comments.
Yet, months earlier, Republican Frist said:
"Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won."
If not a win, then it's either a draw or a loss. Militarily. Isn't the military battle in Iraq more complicated than the one in Afghanistan?
In an October 2006 statement, Frist said:
"Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes."
In that same statement, Frist said:
"The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough."
But what about this USA Today story from last September?
The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
So where's the courage to fight? Who cares if the "murderous band of terrorists" are mourning the loss of one of their own?
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day
Frigging hilarious.
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
So I guess this is what Frist calls "winning the hearts and minds." Has it worked? Has not bombing a cemetery filled with murderous terrorists helped the coalition cause in Afghanistan?
posted by jr at 08:41 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
jr,
What are you saying? The wars that we are fighting are due to the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy?"
Just because you quote Bill Frist out of context doesn't take anything away from what I wrote - The MAJORITY, remember? Also, Gen. Petreas, and any other military officer is WELL aware that ANY insurgency has a political dimension to the conflict that must be won, as well. I wouldn't expect liberal dunderheads to get that either.
BTW, jr, you have been very clear in your directions that topics like this weren't to be started here. 'sup?
posted by paulhem at 09:04 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
I don't know why people continue to push the "War on Terror" myth. Bush is fighting a "War to Steal Oil" instead. That was more than apparent when he sent 10 times as many troops into Iraq than he sent into Afghanistan. That was also apparent when he accepted Pakistan's assurances that they were doing the right job of policing themselves domestically. The "911 Report" was more than candid about how Pakistan's efforts before 911 were tepid at best.
Almost 6 years after 911, Bush still can't find Osama bin Laden and still can't put a stop to Al Qaeda. The only logical conclusion is that he's not trying. There's no reason this farce persists other than Bush's treasonous failure to pursue a clear enemy of the nation. I wonder if that has anything to do with the business connection between the Bush and bin Laden families, as well as the ever-present Saudi Connection? Hmm!
None of all that matters anymore. America will have to retreat out of Iraq with its tail between its legs like it did in Vietnam. It's the same sad song of all Empires: good at conquering, terrible at ruling. Tens to hundreds of thousands will be dead just for a failed bid to secure an oil supply. And we really wonder why people in the Middle East hate America? It's not our freedom they hate, it's that we use that freedom to bomb the fuck out of them for sitting atop "our" oil.
posted by GuestZero at 09:22 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
We've been fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq longer that we fought the Nazis in WWII…
Bush Republicans would have us believe that America is fighting for its basic survival in Iraq. If we are truly fighting for America survival why only send 100k+ troops? Why not 500k+, why not a draft? It’s for our survival!
No, this is pure incompetence… Bush Republicans thought we could win this war on cheeps, get the oil and have our friends in Halliburton make a few bucks.
posted by SensorG at 10:14 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
Well, Sens, if the Bushtards thought it could be fast and cheap, I don't think the Pentagon was fooled -- they're calling it the Long War.
posted by GuestZero at 11:00 P.M. EST on Sun Apr 29, 2007 #
HeyHey, what about the "helped" link that points to an April 29, 2007 Grand Rapids Press story? What's that got to do with Daily Kos?
Then why even post the DailyKos link? If you're going after the substance found in the GRP story then why do you need the DailyKos to "analyze" the sitation for you?
Frist said we couldn't win the fight with only the military. Bush and Rice and even Rumsfeld have said this on numerous occasions as well. That doesn't mean we've lost the war militarily, it just means that you can't ignore the political tensions present in Afganistand or Iraq. The difference with what Frist and Reid said is that Reid actually said we've lost...the battles over...it's time to bring the troops home regardless of the consequences. (This is taking his words at the press conference and combining them with his actions on the Senate floor). HUGE difference between those two thigns.
Bush is fighting a "War to Steal Oil" instead.
Liberal talking points at their best! I've never understood this argument, probably because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If we went into Iraq for the oil then we're doing a horrible job of taking it. We've had one of the largest oil fields in the world at our feet and we're letting the Iraqi's have their will with it.
The only logical conclusion is that he's not trying.
You don't actually believe that because you think Bush is a whore looking to legitimize his misdeeds, right? What better way to legitimize the efforts in the Middle East than capturing Bin Laden? Why would Bush not try to get him? It's good for the country and it's good for his legacy...either way you view Bush you must believe he's trying his hardest to get him.
If we are truly fighting for America survival why only send 100k+ troops? Why not 500k+, why not a draft? It’s for our survival!
The fallacy in your argument is that just because something is for our survival doesn't mean it takes 500,000K troops. Israel acted against Iraq in 1981 because of the need for survival but only used a few planes.
None of all that matters anymore. America will have to retreat out of Iraq with its tail between its legs like it did in Vietnam.
We will if Reid has his way.
posted by HeyHey at 12:01 A.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
It isn't as though problem of corruption, greed and outright war profiteering is limited to Blackwater.
Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root, Custer Battles, Bechtel, various and sundry others have unclean hands and insider administration/conservative/Republican connections.
Heyhey, even if this thing started out with the best of intentions, which is arguably a stretch of large proportions, it has gone wrong--horribly, incompetently wrong--eight ways from Sunday--militarily, morally, ethically, you name it.
Blaming Harry Reid, Democrats, liberals, independents, middle-of-the-roaders, Republicans-turned-sour, any other group or faction or the majority of citizens of this country whose eyes have now been belatedly opened, just won't cut it.
posted by McCaskey at 01:28 A.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
Good to talk with you again, HeyHey. Now pick up that sword since it's on.
"Liberal talking points at their best!"
That doesn't deny the truth of my words. Oh, BTW, 2001 called and wanted its slogan back.
"I've never understood this ["War to Steal Oil"] argument, probably because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If we went into Iraq for the oil then we're doing a horrible job of taking it. We've had one of the largest oil fields in the world at our feet and we're letting the Iraqi's have their will with it."
The oil fields are quite simply not in Iraqi hands at this time, since the nation is being ruled by an occupying military (i.e. Americans) using "laws" passed by the American Proconsul, Bremer. Catch a clue. The American occupiers keep in Baghdad since that's where Iraq's oil industry is ruled. Bush got what he wanted from Iraq, and it's only costing a few dumbassed soldiers a day to keep ahold of it. Please note the warhawks in the US government have no intention of leaving Iraq. If they have their way, they'll continue to occupy Oil Platform Iraq until it's no longer economic to pump another barrel.
"You don't actually believe that because you think Bush is a whore looking to legitimize his misdeeds, right? What better way to legitimize the efforts in the Middle East than capturing Bin Laden? Why would Bush not try to get him? It's good for the country and it's good for his legacy...either way you view Bush you must believe he's trying his hardest to get him."
You must have trouble with English. I'll spell it out for you again. The Bush family is strongly connected with the Saudi Arabians, and we must note the bin Laden family is Saudi. The Bushtards took extra special care to spirit bin Laden relatives out of the nation a few days after 911, when the rest of the nation couldn't fly at all. Quite simply, the Saudis own too much of America and provide too much oil to ever be painted up as an American enemy, no matter how many of their native sons not only plan a terrorist attack like 911 but actually pilot the planes during it. The majority of the 911 hijackers were Saudi, with the remaining being Yemeni. Again, catch a clue. Like his daddy, Bush won't piss off the Saudi royals. Therefore, there's no serious effort to obtain Osama bin Laden. As I said before, Bushie Boy sent 10 times the number of troops into Iraq, where bin Laden has NEVER BEEN. Clear enough for you now?
Please note well and also that in Bush's own words in 2002, he didn't care about OBL any longer since he considered Al Qaeda to be some sort of annulled threat. He was direly wrong about Al Qaeda (which is not strange for him, since he probably snoozed through Rice's Aug 2001 briefing on how OBL was determined to attack America) and it only stands to reason that he's hardly trying to find OBL. After all, he's got oil to steal in Iraq, and having duly flanked Iran (another oily nation -- what a fuckin' coincidence!) he's probably planning to invade there, too.
"[America will have to retreat out of Iraq] if Reid has his way."
We will have to anyway since the Bushtards have had their "way" for 6 years and have essentially started Oil War One (OWI), which we must note we are losing. It's amazing how you Bush Apologists continue to cover for the staggering incompetence of Bush and his pack of Neo-Cons. The same script for Vietnam is being followed for slightly different resource reasons. The end result will be the same: the exhaustion of the Imperial war energy.
I'm sure you'll blame people like me for such a result, too. ("Careful of what you say!" "You're only helping the enemy!" And other such anti-American dross.) I don't really mind that, since I never lost control of my government no matter how many sick warfuckers tried to take it over.
P.S. McCaskey makes some salient points. Halliburton was making war profits during the Clinton Administration, too. The scale is different, but I'm sure the profit margins were still pretty good. Ike warned us about the military-industrial complex (MIC), but we didn't listen. Bechtel et al will make money regardless of which administration is emplaced since the warhawks rule the Congress, the thinktanks, the military, and the two major parties. Since the MIC now runs the government as a private game, for our citizen liberties, rights and responsibilities, it's our "game over".
posted by GuestZero at 03:25 A.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
BTW, jr, you have been very clear in your directions that topics like this weren't to be started here. 'sup?
Not that I desire or advocate any discussion or topics to be limited in scope and I don't agree with Paul on many issues (other than "24"--man, Paul, has that show gotten cheesy or what?), but I can understand why he would ask this question.
I was under the impression topics of this nature were asked to be taken over to Swampbubbles.
BTW, if that's NOT the case, I'm very happy, LOL.
posted by McCaskey at 10:51 A.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
No, this is pure incompetence… Bush Republicans thought we could win this war on cheeps, get the oil and have our friends in Halliburton make a few bucks.
I have to disagree wholeheartedly SensorG. It's not pure incompetence. It's how conservatives govern.
posted by Chris99 at 01:22 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
If we are truly fighting for America survival why only send 100k+ troops? Why not 500k+, why not a draft? It’s for our survival!
The fallacy in your argument is that just because something is for our survival doesn't mean it takes 500,000K troops.
But it clearly takes more troops than are committed now. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Guard units deployed for their third rotation. I agree with SensorG that if the war is truly as important as Bush says, reinstitute the draft. There is only one reason Bush hasn't proposed to do so: because he knows that the public has no stomach for it. The only reason Americans have tolerated it for this long is because it has no effect on their daily lives. But if a draft was proposed and it looked like their little Ethan would have to go to Iraq, you can bet those same conservatives who trumpet our need to "succeed" in Iraq would be whistling a different tune....
posted by Ace_Face at 04:16 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
HEY JR,
I'm with PaulHem
BTW, jr, you have been very clear in your directions that topics like this weren't to be started here. 'sup?
If it's open season on national issues, say so.
I've been respecting the rules for quite some time, and have been quite pleased to read everyone's thoughts with regard to local issues.
Is there one set of rules for conservatives, and a different (more liberal) set of rules for liberals?
Or is it open season on national issues?
posted by AirTrainer at 06:47 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
I am sorry to say I have to agree. You're either interested in doing community topics - or you do want political topics?
Clarify please b/c I have some info.
posted by katie82640 at 08:55 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
And watch that Bushtards crap. Some of us have studied world history.
posted by katie82640 at 08:57 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
And watch that Bushtards crap. Some of us have studied world history.
Why is a Bushtard some form of unintelligent bottom feeding pond creature? Because I love animals and I certainly wouldn’t want to insult or demean one by having it associated with GWB.
posted by SensorG at 09:37 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 30, 2007 #
IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!! :-)
posted by Darkseid at 12:13 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
Katie's right. I was too succinct. I was using "Bushtard" to indicate the lineup of Imperial officials like Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. who support the War Criminal I laughingly call a "President". The Bush VOTER is probably reachable, Bushapologia aside; the elite (Bushtards) are NOT. They are largely not the followers of orders but the producers of such, which is why I hardly accept the "just following orders" excuse.
posted by GuestZero at 05:22 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
Getting a bit back on topic, I disagree profoundly with PaulHem's statement here:
"I would rather not to have to rely upon indendent contractors to win the war, but the American public wanted the "peace dividend" when the Cold War ended."
More and more military operations and functions are being carried out directly by non-soldiers. I used to be a soldier and noted well that from the highest job to the low, most tasks were carried out by soldiers. Civilian contracting was kept to a certain minimum. I've been given to understand from numerous articles that that situation has changed across the armed services. Where before an E3 was cooking your meal on base, some civilian cook was now doing it. Base security? No, no more uniformed MPs or SPs -- a contract was made with a company like Blackwater or Wackenhut (among others) to guard the base and other sites. It goes on and on.
And you know what? We've chosen to let this sick "outsourcing" paradigm infect the armed services. It's hardly even cheaper considering what a company like BW charges (and more to the point: overcharges). The main point in all this is that the same money is going more to the benefit of a limited Crony Capitalist class, instead of in the pockets of small companies and a good number of career soldiers.
As for the mercs, an American BW security professional in the field in a place like Iraq can make $200-400/day, and sometimes they make more (up to $1000), depending upon job classification (like convoy guard). Considering what other personnel companies charge, the contracting company is probably charging 50-100% over that. That kind of money can buy 2-3 Marines for the same task. So, what the hell are we really doing, here? This is a Republican way to run a war, not a Democrat way. It concentrates wealth without getting the larger job DONE.
posted by GuestZero at 05:46 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
ticktockticktockticktock.......
While I'm waiting for JR to answer my questions, I thought everyone might like a recipe for potato roesti:
Potato Roesti
Recipe courtesy Alton Brown
Show: Good Eats
Episode: This Spuds for you too
1 pound Yukon gold potatoes, chilled and shredded
1/4 pound onions, shredded
4 teaspoons vegetable oil
4 tablespoons unsalted butter
Kosher salt and freshly ground pepper
Combine potatoes and onions in a tea towel. Squeeze as much liquid as possible from the mixture. In a large mixing bowl, combine this mixture with the oil and divide into four equal parts.
In a 10-inch non-stick saute pan melt 1/2 a tablespoon of butter. Season one part of potato mixture with salt and pepper and spread into a thin layer in the pan. Brown for 5 to 7 minutes. Invert the roesti onto pan lid and remove pan from heat. Add additional 1/2 tablespoon of butter to the preheated pan. Slide roesti into pan raw side down and brown for an additional 5 to 7 minutes. Remove to a rack and hold in a warm oven. Repeat previous steps for remaining potato mixture.
posted by AirTrainer at 10:02 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
This DailyKos "analysis" as well as the source material has no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. Instead, what it has are implications that are based on out of context and partial information designed to seduce those with an ignorance of business and economics, a pathological class hatred and a strong desire to discredit any attempt to privatize anything.
There are so many backwards assumptions made in the article, it is hard to know where to start. But let's take the implication of overcharging. Maybe we can stick to this one issue for at least a post or two so that the innocent bystanders can at least get a balanced perspective over the din of the loudmouths.
The Nation article says, Blackwater was originally slated to be paid $229.5 million for five years, according to a State Department contract list. Yet as of June 30, just two years into the program, it had been paid a total of $321,715,794. When confronted with this apparent $100 million discrepancy, the State Department could not readily explain it.
The Nation article later says that BW payed their people $600 and charged Regency $815. Regency and BW appearently had a joint venture contract with ESS who had a contract with KBR who, appearently, had the prime contract with the government. The article also said that BW "...billed Regency separately for all of its overhead and costs in Iraq".
Now let's be rational for a second and consider these facts one by one because they are, after all, the only facts we have. And they are the basis for which the Nation, the DailyKos and GZ are summarily claiming as a fact of its own that overcharging and corruption are running rampant. Let me be the first to say that it is entirely possible that overcharging and corruption may be running rampant. As they say, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. But from these facts, I don't see how you can make a conclusion either way. I think the difference is that I am not pre-conditioned to want to find a particular conclusion.
First, regarding the total payments on contracts, now that we know what was paid, we have to see what the scope of the original contract was and that of the change orders. In other words, without the other half of the equation (ie, the work committed by the vendor and delivered to the customer), this is pretty much useless. But to the Nation writer, it is a "discrepancy". It can only be a discrepancy if it is assumed that there was not a change in scope proportional to the change in pay. But there is no discussion to back up this assumption other than someone having talked to someone else at the State Department. But who talked to who and what questions were asked? Were they intimately familiar with the specifics of this contract and its progress? The absence of this side of the equation is conspicous.
It is the same Blade ploy of offering half of what's needed to make a rational observation - the cost side only - not the benefit. The other way to do this is to only show some of the costs - those that have an outward appearance of largess when taken out of context with the rest of the costs or the benefit. The classic recent example with the Blade was the focus on the Zoo director's car being a Volvo as part of his compensation package. The impression the Blade wanted to make was that the package was too high. But never did we see the total cost of the compensation package much less a comparison with that of similar zoo directors' elsewhere. As a side note, the perfect Hollywood epilogue to that story was when the new zoo director chose for her car a Jeep. Gag me. Ok, slightly off topic, sorry.
Second, regarding the personnel pay and how it is billed we have the same absence of information. BW charged $815 plus overhead internally to their partner and their cost for base pay was $600. Ok, whatever. What rate do we think that they should charge and why? From my experience, that does not sound the least bit out of line. In my business I regularly see competitive billing rates for professional services that are more than 3 times the base the pay of the person performing the service. That this rate is only about 1.3 times the base pay is consistent with the fact that some level of overhead is being recouped elsewhere.
Actually, even attempting to discuss these points any further is futile given how little information we have. I am not even going to waste my time speculating. But that's the point. That this is enough information for the Nation to call it a "classic war-profiteering scheme" (not as editorial comment but as reported fact) and for GZ to confidently assert overcharging pretty much sums up the integrity of the whole piece.
posted by babbleman at 10:32 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
McCaskey:
I have to confess that I have been watching "Daahncing With The Staahs" - at least that's what it sounds like when that British announcer guy says, "Dancing With The Stars." My wife promised me that we would get the DVDs of 24 for the season, if I would watch the show with her.
Paul
P.S.
Please don't tell anyone, b/c my friends will laugh at me. Thanks!
posted by paulhem at 10:52 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
Geez Paul, who wears the pants....lol, sorry, just kiddin.
I'm not sure you want to spend the $50 or whatever for season DVD. The show's gotten really hokey and if it wasn't for Powers Boothe, I might have stopped watchin'.
Ok, back to the thead. This whole endeavor continues to be FUBAR in general, but USA Today did have a worthwhile, positive story today why it pays off sometimes to think outside the box. It's a good read:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-30-ramadi-colonel_N.htm
posted by McCaskey at 11:42 A.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
Maybe I can parlay the 24 DVD offer into something else? hmmm...
Great story, McCaskey! Thanks.
It happens this way in every war. We are trained up for one kind of battle and then have to fight another. However, there has been and continues to be very quick feedback to troop training organizations and adjustments to tactics. The good news is that the troops were MOUNT (Military Operations in UrbaN Terrain) long before the war started. Can you imagine the casualties we would have had, otherwise? It will just take some time, and unfortunately more casualties, and money. We'll see if we can hang in there long enough.
Thanks again, McCaskey!
posted by paulhem at 04:46 P.M. EST on Tue May 01, 2007 #
Ok, so in the Blackwater case we have little bits of information here and there that, through huge and totally irresponsible assumptions, people are making accusations of corruption and overcharging.
They are also making a charge of "war profiteering" which is one of those words that doesn't even compute with me. I file that along with "price gouging". I understand where it comes from: the idea that profit should not be made. The problem is, if people didn't make a profit on these things we would still be fighting with bows and arrows.
Now, as opposed to something that may or may not be corruption, how about something that really is corruption - in black and white. No assumptions, no sketchy details. Just very simple facts:
1. Diane Feinstein was a Cardinal on the Appropriations Committee (ie, she influences what gets spent).
2. Diane Feinstein's husband controlled companies that received $1.5 billion in contracts as a result of the Appropriations Committee.
3. Diane Feinstein did not recuse herself while this conflict of interest continued for 6 years.
So, in Diane Feinstein we have both corruption and, for those of you with profit guilt, "war profiteering".
posted by babbleman at 10:37 A.M. EST on Thu May 03, 2007 #
GZ thanx for the clarification :-)
posted by katie82640 at 02:13 P.M. EST on Thu May 03, 2007 #
...humming a little tune...
...skipping stones across the water...
...waiting for JR to answer questions...
posted by AirTrainer at 04:35 P.M. EST on Thu May 03, 2007 #
This topic has NOTHING to do with
Discussing the news and events in and around Lake Erie West
That is the catch-phrase displayed at the top-center of this page, and every other page associated with Toledo Talk.
JR, what's the word?
posted by AirTrainer at 04:47 P.M. EST on Thu May 03, 2007 #
If we want to talk about how war profiteering affects LEW, then let's talk about the Teledyne plant on Laskey Rd., between Lewis and Jackman. According to AREIS, the land it sits on is recorded as belonging to the Port Authority. Teledyne makes missile parts in that factory, and is a private business. Let me guess: On PA land, it pays no property tax. Why?
posted by GuestZero at 06:56 P.M. EST on Thu May 03, 2007 #
Hey, here are more taxpayer funds mis-spent, and I can only imagine it was due to the hidden motivation to support some war profiteer:
Iraq rebuilding projects crumbling, agency finds
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/04/29/iraq_rebuilding_projects_crumbling_agency_finds/
"In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, federal inspectors have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of maintenance, apparent looting, and idle equipment."
We've has more than enough indication from news stories over the last 4 years that the war-profiteer angle is a valid concern for the American taxpayer, but the Congress can't seem to exert any control over it, and I can only suspect that that's because corporations control these politicians, not us. The voter and taxpayer is really only contributing one vote and a treasury-fill; Bechtel, however, can mean a lucrative executive position after an official leaves the military or the Congress. The Military-Industrial Complex is completely subverted by this type of delayed payola (BTW, is Dick Cheney still receiving "deferred compensation" from Halliburton?).
posted by GuestZero at 12:13 A.M. EST on Fri May 04, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
