quote: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.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
That would fall under the category of "D'uh!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know what's true legally, but to me personally that falls under the category of "criminal negligence" and to hire such people for such jobs-jobs whose success or failure quite literally have an impact on the war effort-treasonous.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
All the comments I wanted to put here, such as *snort* and *facepalm* and ... don't actually cover it because people's lives are involved. It's hard to bark with laughter at the absurdity of it all when you think of what this incompetance actually meant. And then, what perhaps could have been?
When you take the lives of a population of a country into your hands it is your responsibility to care for them as best as you can. According to this article, that didn't happen.
I'm not sure this falls under negligance, because it's actually almost purposely bad. I'm not sure where the lines of "supreme idiocy" and "deliberate sabotage" meet.
It's almost like the Berenstain Bears book in which Father Bear is always showing Brother Bear how things should not be done. It's like a textbook case on how not to run a reconstruction.
Sadly, I am so jaded when it comes to reporting about the Iraq war that I hesitate to believe such an article implicitly. Perhaps because it's so bizarre- so impossibly improbably bad. It sounds like it's quoting real facts, but I'd love to see the evidence.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I actually think that the Bush administration has been providing a valuable service. Millions of Americans are getting an excellent lesson in how not to run a country. I'm not even really intending this as a sarcastic bashing--I mean it. I've seen a lot of mistakes that leaders of all types need to avoid, and I think that it's helped me understand leadership better.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is there a crime that combines the amount of guilt associated with Manslaughter (as compared to Murder) but on a scale similar to Genocide? Geno-slaughter?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The Atlantic ran an expose on the whole corrupt Bremmer phase a bit back, so this is old news to me, but yeah. Thanks for the link, Fugu.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I actually think that the Bush administration has been providing a valuable service. Millions of Americans are getting an excellent lesson in how not to run a country.
Yes. This one.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You think this kind of nepotism doesn't run wild in government? Just because it's the other party that did it it's bad? "Uh-oh, nepotism happened in a war I don't support! Must jump all over it!" Our bloated education and social services systems have this kind of crap all the time. Where is your steelie eye of corruption detection there?
This is yet another reason why we need to shrink the size of government instead of grow it.
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Heck of a job, Brownie.
It scares me that they didn't even try to be sucessful. They don't even seem to care.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, While I agree that nepotism runs rampant in the government, I think that sabotaging any chance of the reconstruction of Iraq goes far beyond this, especially in light of how this is one of the two (or one of the one, if you ask them) central issues of the Bush presidency.
It'd be like appointing someone who was completely unqualified and under suspicion of being corrupt to head a key agency dealing with terrorism. Oh, which they did.
These are basic errors that put you, me, our troops, and our country in significantly greater danger. Now, maybe you don't support our troops or care about our country, but I do.
---
edit: I'd be astounded if it wasn't true that at least some of the people who support the War in Iraq aren't highly pissed out this. I mean, if you actually believe that we can fix the country and support the war for that reason, I think you've got to be angry that the administration intentionally shipped over incompetent people to do this. If you're not, I don't think you can really claim that this is a reason why you support the war.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Squick: They do this ALL the time! And aren't you people always going on about how domestic issues are soo much more important than pre-emptive wars? I would think you would be more upset about this same corruption happening in your own social projects.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pixiest, according to one account, there were piles of cash sitting in a room to give to 'contactors'.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And Edwin Edwards got busted getting off the plain in Las Vegas with a briefcase full of state money. And he still got re-elected. This happens on both sides and the only way to stop it is to reduce the size of government.
It seems like the big government types think that if the government is in charge of everything it'll rain hot chocolate and butterflies will fly out of people's butts. But they're wrong because stuff like this happens no matter who is in charge.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And for what it's worth, I genuinely want the whole Iraq thing to succeed. I think it's an issue that transcends politics. I try to go to bat for Bush when I can about Iraq and general Middle East issues because I generally think he's trying to do the best he can.
There is a less than honorable part of me that would prefer the Dems to not take control of anything come mid-terms. Do the Dems want responsibility for correcting the past mistakes in Iraq? No. That whole bit about winning means something? Well, here it is. For better or worse, let Iraq be the Republicans for right now.
But I don't think that would be totally cricket. If Dems can do better, let them be a part of the solution, if they can.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, the answer is to condemn it when it happens regardless of party, Pix, not pass the buck regardless of party. Winning has consequences.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, I don't think this is a partisan issue. It's a matter of the safety of our troops and our country and how neither seems important to certain people in charge.
We were told over and over that disgreeing with the President and saying that this was not a good war hurts our troops and made their mission more difficult. This is direct sabotage of the main obstensive mission of our troops. I consider that very serious.
I actually believe that a free and healthy IRaq would be of great benefit to America's interests and security. The Bush administration has made this the main message of their presidency. The problem is, their commitment to this doesn't seem to go much beyond making public statements. When we look at things like planning for how they were going to acheive this, sending over sufficient equipment and logistical support, or, now, hiring people who were competent at the jobs they were supposed to be doing, it seems like they don't care that much.
So, you're telling me that it's no big deal that they don't care about success in Iraq. I disagree.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You guys are looking at the specific. I'm looking at the general. The only way to stop it is to shrink the size of government. This incident is not isloated. It transcends parties.
You're acting like I'm making an excuse. I'm not. I'm just pointing out this is a consequence of having an oversized, bloated, Do-Everything-For-You, goverment.
Come on guys.. you've seen me rip on Republicans more than Dems for the past coupla years.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This happens on both sides and the only way to stop it is to reduce the size of government.
No, it's not. One thing you can do is to try to enforce accountability.
The issues we're talking about here are dealing with response to terrorist attacks and part of our military operations. I don't think that these are areas that we can reasonably cut out of the government.
I don't think that these are reasonable solutions. We have a definite need for agencies to deal with terrorism and, as I said, I do believe that a free and healthy Iraq is really the only good way we are going to get out of there and that it would be of great benefit to American safety and interests (not to mention that of Iraq and the world in general) - I actually agree, to a limited extent, with the neo-con foreign policy of spreading democracy. The problem is that these crucial areas need to be competenty run and staffed.
I think the proper response to this is to slam the heck out of people when they so blatantly screw up.
I'm not sure what you are saying our response to this should be. Are you saying we shouldn't care or are you saying we should pull out of Iraq immediately or something else?
edit: To me, the solution to police corruption is to root out that corruption and try to put systems in place that will prevent the growth of that corruption, not to get rid of police altogether.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've seen more problems with nepotism and cronyism in small businesses than in large. Not that this proves anything about the outcomes of various governmental systems, but dang! You just try to get the son of the owner of this building to do any maintenance.
*grumble grumble
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is a HUGE amount of nepotism in our family's business - if you want a job, you can have it.
Of course, what is available are the crappy, crappy jobs that have high turnover rates, so it's really in the children's best interest to get their own gigs somewhere else.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
CT: Businesses rise and fall. The government is here forever. (well, until a revolution comes, but that would be far worse than what we've got) They set their own prices and force you to buy.
There's no comparison.
Squick: You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about the larger issue of less power for the government. My specific views on Iraq are irrelevent to what I'm saying.
When it comes to politics, "enforcing" anything is a laugh. Each side is constantly digging for anything to smear the other side with. They'll throw whatever they can and see what sticks. The people burn out on it and don't care.
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And I would like to point out the two extrodinary particulars about this situation.
1) The lack of expertise has cost the lives of countless Iraqi citizens and many US Soldiers. By not being able to quickly and effectively get Iraq back up and running, it allowed for the growth and the support of the insurgency.
2) This was not Cronyism in a "Haliburton makes big bucks" sort of way. This was Idealism gone wrong. The idea was that the Conservative, small government, neo-con better mousetrap of an idea. To promote that idea we filled ranks with people loyal to the idea, not trained in their jobs. In other words, this was a failure not of morals, but of intelligence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, On the specific issue, I think you're suggestion that people only care about this because it's a partisan issue is both wrong and insulting. I think that your unconcern and attempt to equate this to less dangerous forms of nepotism and inefficient may betray a valuing of protecting the President over protecting our troops and our country, which I personally find both abhorrent and one of the main reasons why crap like this happens.
On the general issue, I think your magic bullet is a very unrealistic one that is neither practical nor likely to result in what you are saying it will.
quote:Each side is constantly digging for anything to smear the other side with.
The solution to this I've suggested on innumerable occasions is to tsand, not for sides, but for principles. I don't think standing for accountability is something that should be so easily dismissed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it was both.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That level of irresponsibility from people in that position is, to me, obviously immoral.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:CT: Businesses rise and fall. The government is here forever.
Not if Bush continues to have his way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Whether or not the other party does it makes no difference.
The fact that the Washington Post article (really an excerpt from a longer work) was so biased it made my monitor lean left, doesn't even matter. Much.
What matters is the Bush Administration screwed this one up royally. Republicans, IMO, are doing the right thing by distancing themselves from the president. I hope they lambast his administration for approving these weenies.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I am neither a Repulican nor a Democrat, so the issue has nothing to do with party politics for me. That cronyism is alive and well in the rebuilding of Iraq is not surprising, but is certainly frustrating.
When I first heard about the specific examples of the people appointed to oversee the finances and stock market in Iraq, I was appalled not just that they were appointed but that they chose to accept those appointments. Certainly I have, in the course of my job, undertaken new tasks for which I had little experience, but it was done with supervision and something that both I and my supervisors knew I was capable of doing. I can't imagine someone with no finance experience thinking they'd be the best choice for overseeing the finances or setting up the stock market of an entire country. I certainly wouldn't accept a position of that importance.