And people wonder why Iraq was a Mess. . .

[dreamingwolf]

thank you luckydevil for the direct personall attack, I would never expect anything more classy of you.

While I know I shouldnt defend myself against such mean spirited hatefull comments such as yours, I will attempt to anyways. My "attacks" on djtj were merely disappointments that he joined the crowd in saying political appointments is another thing to hate Bush on. When that is how business is done. I made it clear that I think this should be addressed systematically instead of just partisian who ha garbage, and was disappointed that djtj joined in with the choms in making mindless partisian hackery out of it.

However, I do have to give you credit your personal attack on me will definately get far more traction here than my attempts to get people to see the systemic problem. Kudos to you.

[RLeVan]

The surprising thing is that people on either side of the TWO parties in this country speak as though a 55-60% agree/disapproval is an overwhelming majority.

Our country is essentially split down the middle, considering the margin of error. When actual campaign finance reform arrives, along with adequate representation from candidates outside the TWO parties in the media, we may actually get somewhere.

I'm not a poly/sci major but when was the last consecutive elections were this close, and the upcoming election looks to be the same way. No administration can win when there is just under half the population against it.

[Burgold]

"In May 2003, a team of law enforcement experts from the Justice Department concluded that more than 6,600 foreign advisers were needed to help rehabilitate Iraq's police forces.

The White House dispatched just one: Bernie Kerik."

To try to get this back on message, I copied this highlighted quote. Forget about Cronyism. Cronyism is indemnic to politics and getting jobs as payback for donations may be nothing new, although it seems that this administration has done it to an unsettling degree. The horse groomer given the reins of FEMA. This guy in this article told to build the Iraqi Stock Market who himself said he had no finance experience, etc.

However, this Bernie Kerik must be a hell of a guy and one incredible motivator. This one guy was sent to do the job of 6,600. That is not politics as usual. It is setting yourself up for failure. Thoughts?

[stwasm]

For the longest time, I've been complaining that this administration runs off to Iraq to help that country's people re-build, yet do next to nothing to help their own people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. After reading this text, they'd probably bungle that, too. I've had enough of these people!

[Burgold]

Stwasm,

I hear you. We are slower in response, efficiency, and less capable in rebuilding than we were over 100 years ago. The way the United States mobilized for the great floods, fires, and other natural disasters in the 1800's should make those in charge of our current reconstruction and those in charge of caring for those who had been displaced and harmed, deeply ashamed. Rebuilding Iraq is a symbolic of that too.

[chomerics]

djtj, You may believe that rebuilding of Iraq doesnt require secrecy, but I would wager it does. Not cause of complicated strategic battle plans but just on the difficulties of it. See if the difficulties were regulary leaked, it would be even more of a cf to fix up.

You might believe that people arent hatefull to their political rivials, but I think with the introduction of blogs it has upped the hate level far beyond any level I remember. Granted Ive only been aware of politics for 20 years, but in that time I cant say that I can remember more hatred for the other sides party. That goes for both sides, the hate is equally shared.

The hate for Bush is BECAUSE of practices like this, it hurts our country, and instead of admitting how bad this practice is, you actually defend the ludicrous notion, while at the same time acting as if you are not defending the administration. It is a complete joke that our country operates like the, and it is why we have failed so miserably in Iraq, but then again, I don;t expect you to see it. . .

ANY great leader/CEO/manager will surround himself with people who DISAGREE with him. That is how the great ones work, have you ever read Jack Welsh's book? Heck it is one of his core philosophies, you don't surround yourself with yes men, because you NEVER hear another viewpoint or idea. If you make mistakes, they become compounded because nobody will say you made a mistake. Have you ever wondered why Bush failed at so many business' in his career? Does this give a little glimpse into his faults?

both you and the others are putting this forth as a condemnation of Bush as he only puts his political friends in jobs without ever acknowledging the same has and will happend in dem administrations.

Ummm, no we did not say democrats don't appoint political people, but it has NEVER been done to this extent, and in fact Clinton hired a number of republicans and surrounded himself with people who disagreed with him. To go off and use "we'll they would do it too" is more apologist talk. What ever happened to accountability with your party? With you? Do you not hold anyone accountable with an ® next to their name, and only call out people who disagree? Even when the people who disagree are right???

What happens when you surround yourself by people who think like you, then fire everyone with an opinion that differes from yours. . .and you are wrong? Oh yea, you end up with Iraq :doh:

That is the telling sign of what you and chomerics and the rest of the lets have a hate fest people are doing.

So now it is a "hate fest". When Clinton got a BJ, it was "restoring dignity to the White House" :doh: Never mind that over 2600 Americans have died, never mind that Iraq is disentegrating before our very eyes, never mind that there are reasons things failed, it is just the hate fest so you will ignore and rational debate on the topic. And who is the "partisan one"?

This is the way its done, your guy would do the same thing. Your being dishonest assailing it cause your not going to do the same when your guy does it. I however will just shrug and say thats politics for ya when your guy does it.

Who is the one being dishonest? The people who are ignoring this practice, ignoring the results and saying "so what you'd do the same thing", or the people who recognize the failures and want accountability for this administration? Why does Rumsfeld still have a job? Why haven't you called for his head?

I know this is just a convienant dig on Bush, but its kind of like saying a pig has mud on it. This is how our politics work, its how its always worked and I think its aggrevated by how much hate has been nurtured between the partys by modern media access.

Actually, maybe it is how YOUR party has always worked, but it is not how the democrats always worked. Look at Clinton and tell me that he hired ONLY people with his POV on the world, if you can say that than YOU are the one being dishonest. . . or maybe just ignorant. if it is the latter, I will gladly show you instances where he hired prominant Republicans. . .

[@DCGoldPants]

no good plan for ocupation after iraqi military hostilities ended, typical rummy, and a major problem. the whole rebuilding process ahs been a mess as well, with many seeking profit at the expense of iraq and americas image:2cents:

That really is the bottom line.

When you have no plan, staying the course is meaningless.

[chomerics]

I am not sure what this has to do with this thread...........

I find you attacking DjTj a bit odd. He is by no means a partisan hack. While, I strongly disagree with him on the nature of the state (it is fundamentally corrupt), he is not Chom. He is one of the more open minded and honest posters on here. You have a habit of questioning people motives. You often dismiss arguments you disagree with as partisan nonsense ( Chom does this as well I might add).

The thing is you know that not all criticism of the president is coming from partisan grounds. I wished you would acknowledge it and actually address the criticism.

thank you luckydevil for the direct personall attack, I would never expect anything more classy of you.

While I know I shouldnt defend myself against such mean spirited hatefull comments such as yours, I will attempt to anyways. My "attacks" on djtj were merely disappointments that he joined the crowd in saying political appointments is another thing to hate Bush on. When that is how business is done. I made it clear that I think this should be addressed systematically instead of just partisian who ha garbage, and was disappointed that djtj joined in with the choms in making mindless partisian hackery out of it.

However, I do have to give you credit your personal attack on me will definately get far more traction here than my attempts to get people to see the systemic problem. Kudos to you.

:laugh: What a frigging joke. He asks you to acknowledge some criticism coming at the administration because it has merits, and you go off on a three paragraph tirade about being attacked. oh you poor repressed individual, wo is me, look at the opressors making fun and attacking me :laugh:

You really are nothing more then a jingoist masquareding as an unbiased observer :rotflmao: Man, and I thought MSF was bad, at least he ADMITS where he is coming from and doesn't try to pass himself off as something else.

[dreamingwolf]

again precisely my point, you are so blind by your obsession to hate your political adversary that you will only admit its a problem when the other guy is doing it and thats precisely the reason it exists. To further help nurture that situation anytime someone tries to say its a systemic problem and not a problem of the current administration targeted for hate the haters will personally attack the person who dares voice the observation in order to detract the message. Cause after all its not what hes doing that bothers you, its that hes not your guy.

[DCsportsfan53]

There is only one person talking about hate in this thread and he seems to feel it anytime someone disagrees with him. Pretty ridiculous, you'd think people would be grown enough to see that they can be disagreed with without being hated. Nothing uncivilized or even close to the punches usually thrown in the tailgate were used here and I might add, the people accused of spewing hate are some of the most thoughtful, insightful and reasonable people on this board. :2cents:

[Burgold]

He's talking about hate for a simple reason. There's no way to support the administration on the merits or facts presented in this article.

[Thiebear]

Rumsfeld should have been fired a while ago just to make sure the next guy knew to step it up a bit, miscalculation at that level is huge..

[alexey]

You might believe that people arent hatefull to their political rivials, but I think with the introduction of blogs it has upped the hate level far beyond any level I remember. Granted Ive only been aware of politics for 20 years, but in that time I cant say that I can remember more hatred for the other sides party. That goes for both sides, the hate is equally shared.

"Bush Administration" happened during the same time as "introduction of blogs"

What makes you think "introduction of blogs" is the source of hate?

[luckydevil]

While I know I shouldnt defend myself against such mean spirited hatefull comments such as yours, I will attempt to anyways.

Where are the hateful comments on this thread ( from me)? Please point them out

To further help nurture that situation anytime someone tries to say its a systemic problem and not a problem of the current administration targeted for hate the haters will personally attack the person who dares voice the observation in order to detract the message. Cause after all its not what hes doing that bothers you, its that hes not your guy.

The amazing thing is I actually agree with you. It is a systemic problem; however no man is above criticism. You have trouble accepting any criticism of the president.

[Baculus]

That is damn pathetic. Here we are, pouring billions into Iraq, and its being managed by syncophants and political appointees with no experience? This really demonstrates the complete foolishness of the administration if this is their idea of nation building: To take the best and the brightest, and shove them aside. To take butt-kissing lackeys and put them in charge of an effort that required the blood and sweat of others to accomplish. This really should piss us off - not make us defend such incomptence...unless, of course, you are one of the arse-kissing syncophants.

And come on, Dreaminwolf - are you so blind? The best you can do to respond to this article is to accuse others of hatred? This is MORE than merely pointing loyalists to oversee the rebuilding: You have to remember that BILLIONS of Iraqi (and U.S.) money is missing during the rebuilding process. Well, you have at least part of your answer from the article that was posted. Do you care so much about always defending the administration, that the best you can do is accuse others of hatred?

I guess if this article was posted out of "hatred," you are so *blindly in love* with the administration, they can do no wrong, eh? I guess you auditioning for a White House job, eh?

[tizzod]

I read that the other day. What shocked me the most, I think, except for the terrible decision to pass over people who were actually qualified, is the George Bush mousepads and slogans everywhere. Shades of WWII Germany. Well, they didn't have mouse pads, of course, but you get the drift!

But seriously, THAT is frightening.

[brewdogmike]

Leaving aside the debates over who's mean and who's nice, and who's blinded by Bush-hatred and who's "in love" with the administration, let's take a quick look at what this article actually says.

Now, hindsight is 20/20, and the refrain of "Bush (or Rumsfeld) shoulda had a plan" rings hollow to me when you're talking about doing something that's never been attempted before in a country half a world away. Just my opinion, but I think the declarations that Iraq is a "fiasco" and "we'll never win" are overblown and inaccurate.

So, let's look at the article. Keep in mind that for the Executive Branch to accomplish something that is outside its normal realm of operations, it's going to have to 1) appoint people and 2) hire contractors. Political appointees are going to be chosen primarily from people who are loyal to and/or connected to the President. It was true in Lincoln's time and it's true today, and it will be true the next time a Democrat is elected.

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.

Supposedly damning evidence, but it should not come as a tremendous surprise to anyone. Let's look at the individual cases cited in the article.

First, there's this guy, who was tasked with rebuilding the Iraqi stock exchange:

Before the war, Baghdad's stock exchange looked nothing like its counterparts elsewhere in the world. There were no computers, electronic displays or men in colorful coats scurrying around on the trading floor. Trades were scrawled on pieces of paper and noted on large blackboards. If you wanted to buy or sell, you came to the exchange yourself and shouted your order to one of the traders. There was no air-conditioning. It was loud and boisterous. But it worked. Private firms raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling stock, and ordinary people learned about free enterprise.

The exchange was gutted by looters after the war. The first wave of American economic reconstruction specialists from the Treasury Department ignored it. They had bigger issues to worry about: paying salaries, reopening the banks, stabilizing the currency. But the brokers wanted to get back to work and investors wanted their money, so the CPA made the reopening a priority.

Quickly absorbing the CPA's ambition during the optimistic days before the insurgency flared, Hallen decided that he didn't just want to reopen the exchange, he wanted to make it the best, most modern stock market in the Arab world. He wanted to promulgate a new securities law that would make the exchange independent of the Finance Ministry, with its own bylaws and board of directors. He wanted to set up a securities and exchange commission to oversee the market. He wanted brokers to be licensed and listed companies to provide financial disclosures. He wanted to install a computerized trading and settlement system.

Iraqis cringed at Hallen's plan. Their top priority was reopening the exchange, not setting up computers or enacting a new securities law. "People are broke and bewildered," broker Talib Tabatabai told Hallen. "Why do you want to create enemies? Let us open the way we were."

Tabatabai, who held a doctorate in political science from Florida State University, believed Hallen's plan was unrealistic. "It was something so fancy, so great, that it couldn't be accomplished," he said.

But Hallen was convinced that major changes had to be enacted. "Their laws and regulations were completely out of step with the modern world," he said. "There was just no transparency in anything. It was more of a place for Saddam and his friends to buy up private companies that they otherwise didn't have a stake in."

Opening the stock exchange without legal and structural changes, Hallen maintained, "would have been irresponsible and short-sighted."

To help rewrite the securities law, train brokers and purchase the necessary computers, Hallen recruited a team of American volunteers. In the spring of 2004, Bremer approved the new law and simultaneously appointed the nine Iraqis selected by Hallen to become the exchange's board of governors.

The exchange's board selected Tabatabai as its chairman. The new securities law that Hallen had nursed into life gave the board control over the exchange's operations, but it didn't say a thing about the role of the CPA adviser. Hallen assumed that he'd have a part in decision-making until the handover of sovereignty. Tabatabai and the board, however, saw themselves in charge.

Tabatabai and the other governors decided to open the market as soon as possible. They didn't want to wait several more months for the computerized trading system to be up and running. They ordered dozens of dry-erase boards to be installed on the trading floor. They used such boards to keep track of buying and selling prices before the war, and that's how they'd do it again.

The exchange opened two days after Hallen's tour in Iraq ended. Brokers barked orders to floor traders, who used their trusty white boards. Transactions were recorded not with computers but with small chits written in ink. CPA staffers stayed away, afraid that their presence would make the stock market a target for insurgents.

When Tabatabai was asked what would have happened if Hallen hadn't been assigned to reopen the exchange, he smiled. "We would have opened months earlier. He had grand ideas, but those ideas did not materialize," Tabatabai said of Hallen. "Those CPA people reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia."

That's it? That's the horrible malfeasance? That this guy managed to write a new securities law, bring transparancy to the market -- which is really is essential to spreading property rights and building a true market economy, which Iraq did not have before -- and the complaint is that he didn't do it quickly enough and offended some people?

Then there's the public health expert:

Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.

He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.

Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."

But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.

Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.

To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.

Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.

He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.

A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.

The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions. First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."

Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."

Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.

Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.

When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.

Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported that 40 percent of the 900 drugs it deemed essential were out of stock in hospitals. Of the 32 medicines used in public clinics for the management of chronic diseases, 26 were unavailable.

The new health minister, Aladin Alwan, beseeched the United Nations for help, and he asked neighboring nations to share what they could. He sought to increase production at a state-run manufacturing plant in the city of Samarra. And he put the creation of a new formulary on hold. To him, it was a fool's errand.

"We didn't need a new formulary. We needed drugs," he said. "But the Americans did not understand that."

Perfect? No. A damnable failure? Not by a longshot. Since the liberation of Iraq:

• The country has not faced a public health crisis and there is no evidence of epidemic.

• Health care spending in Iraq has increased to 60 times pre-liberation levels.

• 240 Iraqi hospitals and more than 1,200 primary health centers are operating and have been since last summer.

• More than 30 million doses of children's vaccine have been distributed. The program to immunize the nation’s 4.2 million children under the age of five against preventable diseases is well-advanced.

• More than 700,000 pregnant women have received tetanus toxin vaccinations. These vaccinations benefit mother and child.

• The World Health Organization has declared Iraq to be free of polio.

• Physicians’ salaries have increased dramatically.

• And a comprehensive plan to improve nursing care is underway.

And health care was not "free" in Iraq. Nothing is free. Somebody pays, somehow.

Could he have done better? Maybe. But again, this is all hindsight. It's all Monday-morning quarterbacking. These stories are about good people tackling a tough job and doing their best.

The last one, piling on Bernie Kerik.

"He was the wrong guy at the wrong time," Burke said later. "Bernie didn't have the skills. What we needed was a chief executive-level person. . . . Bernie came in with a street-cop mentality."

Fine, maybe Kerik didn't do a perfect job. But who could have? Do you have any idea what you're asking of Iraqis -- to join a police force for a brand new government that might not make it, to risk their lives and their families? More than 1,500 Iraqi police officers have been killed -- and they lost their lives trying to make their country a better place. You might want to read some un-media-filtered facts about the new Iraqi military and the new Iraqi police force. These are some brave men and women.

As always, I await the inevitable flames.

[DjTj]

My "attacks" on djtj were merely disappointments that he joined the crowd in saying political appointments is another thing to hate Bush on. When that is how business is done. I made it clear that I think this should be addressed systematically instead of just partisian who ha garbage, and was disappointed that djtj joined in with the choms in making mindless partisian hackery out of it.

Have you read a single one of my posts in response to yours?

Maybe I need to spell it out in a more simple form. Here's what I'm saying:

(1) Both sides do this.

(2) It is bad for the country.

(3) We should all be complaining about it.

(4) It will get better if we complain about it and vote accordingly.

My problem with your posts is that you seem to be saying:

(1) Both sides do this.

(2) Everyone should shut up because their side does it too.

...that's not how politics works. The day we all shut up is the day democracy ends. You claim to be offering some sort of "systematic" solution, but I don't see any solutions in this thread - only accusations.

[Baculus]

Now, hindsight is 20/20, and the refrain of "Bush (or Rumsfeld) shoulda had a plan" rings hollow to me when you're talking about doing something that's never been attempted before in a country half a world away. Just my opinion, but I think the declarations that Iraq is a "fiasco" and "we'll never win" are overblown and inaccurate.

I do not understand this statement. Are you saying that nation building has never been attempted? What is unique about the Iraqi situation?

So, let's look at the article. Keep in mind that for the Executive Branch to accomplish something that is outside its normal realm of operations, it's going to have to 1) appoint people and 2) hire contractors. Political appointees are going to be chosen primarily from people who are loyal to and/or connected to the President. It was true in Lincoln's time and it's true today, and it will be true the next time a Democrat is elected.

Poltical flunkees have been around for a long time, but 1) This goes against the process that is supposedly in place, and 2) Because this has, at times, been part of the process, does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA in a damn war zone and in a national building effort in a war zone. Also, it became quickly evident that some of the folks appointed were not only appointed, but were extremely unqualified for that position.

By the way, you used an example of Bremer - do you realize that billions of dollars in Iraqi and US money was mishandled, lost, or has yet to be recovered? And that is the bottom line - not merely because of the political appointees, but because of the poor performance of the political appointees. Sure, it would be unfair to state that every appointee was a failure, but considering the importance of the nation building efforts, it was stupid to appoint a person merely based upon loyalty.

In fact, having all loyal members on a team can lead to the "yes man" syndrome.

You listed some success in Iraq, and I believe there have been successful efforts which should be recognized, but part of the issue is that the loyalists refuse to seemingly recognize the failure. And if you cannot see the failures, then it makes it difficult to fix these same failures and faults. And that is part of the issue that you, and the loyalists, may overlook. This is NOT just about saying, "Hey look, we did this!," but actually doing it. And there are many folks - not just folks who are opponents of the Bush administration - who have issues with the rebuilding efforts.

The problem with loyalists, such as yourself, is that every criticism forces a "circle the wagons" mentality.

[brewdogmike]

I do not understand this statement. Are you saying that nation building has never been attempted? What is unique about the Iraqi situation?

Well, I think lots of things are unique about the Iraqi situation. The cultural differences, its site in the middle of the Muslim world -- I think a good case can be made that it's a situation unlike any other. I don't think it's a one-to-one comparison with post-WWII Germany or Japan, for starters.

Poltical flunkees have been around for a long time, but 1) This goes against the process that is supposedly in place, and 2) Because this has, at times, been part of the process, does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA in a damn war zone and in a national building effort in a war zone. Also, it became quickly evident that some of the folks appointed were not only appointed, but were extremely unqualified for that position.

By the way, you used an example of Bremer

I didn't, actually. I just tried to reply to the three cases cited in the Post article.

The problem with loyalists, such as yourself, is that every criticism forces a "circle the wagons" mentality.

Don't misunderstand me -- I understand that there's well-founded criticism. But the criticism that is useful is more along the lines of, "We could have done better, and here's how -- here are the lessons learned. Let's do better to improve Iraq" -- as opposed to an open-ended harangue of the Bush administration, which is what this thread devolved into.

[DjTj]

Well, I think lots of things are unique about the Iraqi situation. The cultural differences, its site in the middle of the Muslim world -- I think a good case can be made that it's a situation unlike any other. I don't think it's a one-to-one comparison with post-WWII Germany or Japan, for starters.

I think Korea, or the Phillippines, might be better comparisons. Every situation is unique, but we do actually have a lot of experience to draw from.

Don't misunderstand me -- I understand that there's well-founded criticism. But the criticism that is useful is more along the lines of, "We could have done better, and here's how -- here are the lessons learned. Let's do better to improve Iraq" -- as opposed to an open-ended harangue of the Bush administration, which is what this thread devolved into.

I actually thought your post was spot-on, brewdog. When it comes down to it, this article was based on interviews with a bunch of people who weren't hired for a job ... just like everyone falls in love with the backup QB, it's very easy to think that someone else could have done better with these jobs.

The administration certainly made a lot of mistakes on the way to Iraq, but I really think the truth is that no matter who they hired, Iraq would be somewhat of a mess right now. Should they have hired better people? Yes, they should have, and hopefully we will all learn from this, but nobody was going to pull off a miracle. It's not like 1948 Japan or Germany were some sort of wonderful paradises ... these things take time. The biggest mistake that Bush and Rumsfeld made was giving us the impression that this would be easy.

[Predicto]

My wife works at the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). She has been there since around 1990. The leader of the FDIC when she started was Bill Seidman a true professional who happened to be a Republican Reagan appointee (Bush Senior was in office at the time.) Seidman was brought in to clean up the banks after the Savings and Loan crisis. He was extremely competent and somewhat conservative.

When Clinton was elected, Seidman retired and Clinton put in his own couple of chairmen, people with a ton of federal regulatory experience. Each was competent and somewhat liberal.

In 2001, Bush Jr. is sworn in . Who does he choose? Don Powell. Powell was a small town banker from Amarillo who was known for two things: raising a ton of money for Bush Jr's campaign and utter loyalty to the President. He was an utterly incompetent leader. He knew nothing about bank regulation (except that he didn't like having to deal with bank examiners when he was in Amarillo). He completely sucked. On that, both liberals and conservatives in the FDIC agreed.

Where is Don Powell now, you may ask? Why, he has been promoted. He is overseeing the rebuilding of the Gulf Region after Katrina. We all know how well that is going.

Cronyism is always a problem in our political system. It is fair, however, to say that this particular administration has raised cronyism to an art form, a level not seen since the corrupt Warren G. Harding Administration.

And no, I'm not just "hating" when I say this. I have seen it over and over with these clowns. Anyone remember the Harriet Meyers appointment to the Supreme Court?

[chomerics]

Cronyism is always a problem in our political system. It is fair, however, to say that this particular administration has raised cronyism to an art form, a level not seen since the corrupt Warren G. Harding Administration.

And no, I'm not just "hating" when I say this. I have seen it over and over with these clowns. Anyone remember the Harriet Meyers appointment to the Supreme Court?

And that is the point of this thread.

DjTj, I think you are not looking at everything here. Of course things could have gone better, but this is beyond a joke. On a job application, there were questions about "who did you vote for president, and what do you think of Roe v Wade". It is a complete joke, and it is no wonder we failed at Katrina and Iraq. When you hire cronies to run the ship who are not qualified, you get crap. And, crap is what we've got from this administratioin for 6 years.

[DjTj]

And that is the point of this thread.

DjTj, I think you are not looking at everything here. Of course things could have gone better, but this is beyond a joke. On a job application, there were questions about "who did you vote for president, and what do you think of Roe v Wade". It is a complete joke, and it is no wonder we failed at Katrina and Iraq. When you hire cronies to run the ship who are not qualified, you get crap. And, crap is what we've got from this administratioin for 6 years.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in and out of the federal government over the past few years, I've heard a lot of anecdotal stories like Predicto's. Incidentally, I was never asked any of those questions ... I have heard a lot of people say that it has been worse under Bush than any other President though, but I suppose something like that is hard to quantify.

I still think that Iraq isn't the best example for this. The big mistakes in Iraq weren't made by the staff; they were made by the people at the top. If there were real planning before we decided to try to rebuild a whole country, it would have made all the difference. No matter how good the help is, they're not going to overcome bad policy.

Katrina is better example of how cronyism can blow up in your face. Hopefully, somebody learns a lesson and in '08 we get a President that is less interested in political payback and more interested in fixing the country.

[Baculus]

Katrina is an example of cronysim having disastrious results, both figuratively and literally. Joe Allbaugh, the first appointee for FEMA, had zero emergency management skills - ironically, he left his FEMA position to pursue corporate oppourtunities in Iraq. Allbaugh's replacement, Michael Brown, did not have any experience in emergency planning or preparedness as well.

What are the commonalities between these men? They were both functionaries in the Republican party and both worked on Republican campaigns.

Now, I am not a huge fan of FEMA in the first place and the issue of Katrina isn't entirely related to the Federal response. But the performance of FEMA, as least its supposed function, was poor and related to both of these political functionaries. If we are going to have an actual Federal department for emergency response, let's have one that actually works well and with planners that are chosen for their skills and not political connections. Let's not play pretend games, here.

And the reason why the issue of government competency is so important, beyond merely harping on the Bush administration, is due to the fact that lives and money are at stake. And that's what eludes the Bush supporters - billions of dollars and folks could die due to this incompetence, but that doesn't appear to be an issue to them. They'd rather just defend the Bush administration with shrill cries of "HATERS!" instead of looking at the real issues at hand. They are also, in essence, political cronies and flunkies.