RantsCounterRants:  The 87 billion dollar question

MoveOn.org sent an email this past week, asking supporters to provide feedback on the approval of $87 billion requested for Iraq.  Philip at Just Playing feels denying the requested funding is tantamount to blackmailing the President.

While my esteemed blog compadre and I often agree, we disagree on this point; you can read our perspectives in comments at his blog.  I feel that we should replace the current team of wonder boys who dreamed up and sold this war with a better management team before the funding is approved, and that there should be greater accountability for continuing expenditures.

My last comment to him on this issue:

We definitely won't agree on everything, but in this case it's solely about the idea of blackmailing the president.  Asking for a better management team and more transparent accounting is no different than what's expected at Enron, WorldCom, etc.  We don't expect operations to cease -- we expect them to be run efficiently, instead of bleeding us dry and killing more of our troops in the mean time.  Why should I expect less of my nation's leaders than I expect from companies under Chapter 11?

Senator Kennedy raised a very good point this week -- besides calling Bush's sale of war a fraud -- by asking where half the money is going.  If only slightly over half the billion a week going to the Iraq effort is being accounted for, where's the rest going?  Can it end up being used against our troops?  Why can't we expect a better management team to report this information to us?  And would a better management team be able to get better results faster than the guys who've proven this was no cakewalk and that they weren't ready to do this right?

This household has had family members, flesh and blood, committed to this cause.  We have no reason to believe they won't be committed for a LONG time.  The majority of rational Democrats and liberals in this country are not espousing an immediate pullout; the power vacuum is already creating far greater threats for this country and an abrupt pullout will only make it worse.  But for their sake I expect and demand better management, better accountability.  It's what we owe them, the ones who put their life on the line.

Of major concern to me is the borderline conflicts of interest many members of the current Administration have had since they took office.  If the case for war wasn’t the imminent threat to our national security, if the case for war wasn’t firmly documented connections between Iraq and al Qaida, what was the case?  The underlying business interests that corporate constituents have in the taking of Iraq?

Sure, wrinkle your nose, but why wasn’t Richard Perle made persona non-grata by this Administration once his clear conflicts of interest were aired out in the press?  Why does he continue as an unpaid advisor on security and military issues for this Administration?  Is it possible that his personal business relations provide him adequate compensation for his continuing relationship with this Administration?

Why was Halliburton – Dick Cheney’s former employer -- given carte blanche to the rebuilding of Iraq?  If the press itself says that we the public have not seen the entirety of war and that the press was actively suppressing itself, can we trust what the press has said about Halliburton to be enough?

Can we not expect, for the sum of more than $150 billion dollars authorized and requested to date, a better management team and more thorough and transparent accounting? 

All hell can break loose in the private sector inside one week about a “mere” $140 million dollar compensation package for NYSE’s Dick Grasso, resulting in new management and a commitment to more transparency in corporate guidance.  Can we not do better for our American troops, for the taxpayers carrying the financial burden now and in the future, for the Iraqis and the people of the Middle East?  There’s a hell of a lot more at risk, isn’t there?

2:32:26 PM    comment []