I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
He shoots. He scores.
The "Iraqgate" passage is particularly choice.
Excellent as always, but Krugman doesn't say anything I didn't already know. Unfortunately, the people who most need to see this are those who either don't read or wouldn't read the "liberal" NYTimes or any of the books reviewed. It's good to have someone at least trying to put this information out there but it won't ever reach the ears or eyes of those who really need to hear or see it, and if it did, they would just ignore it and go on with their worship of Il Douche.
As long as W thumps the Bible loudly enough, his depredations will be overlooked by his religofanatic acolytes. Look how much treasure has been looted from the snake handlers by Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk, yet they remain "respected" figures. They even appear on TV, where they're free to spread their insidious delusions. In a sane society, their babblings would be emanating from behind bars.
While you're at the NYRB, read Michael Massings' "Now They Tell Us" _ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922 — about the media's role in the run up to war.
Last week Massing kicked around Judy Miller on NPR: http://www.theconnection.org/
sho...0203_b_main.asp
I would love to hear a question put to the Chimp on Sunday asking him to just talk for a few minutes off the cuff about his family's history with the bin Ladens.
I will not.
Hm, I just glanced at it, but it sounds like it could be quite a salutary book for those who think themselves more or less liberal but might be surprised at how far the rot goes in the generality of the American political system to allow some of these goings-on.
I have to correct Jennifer: the NYT has its own Book Reviews section (every Sun), but I think it and the NYRB are separate animals, in much the same way as the Times LIterary Supplement in the UK has little or nothing to do with the normal style of the London Times, although they may have a common owner (I'm not sure).
heh, there's a lie in *the first paragraph*:
"without competitive bidding"
My ass.
*plonk*
TheLogie - My bad, I misread it as NYT. Of course, what I said still holds - the Il Douche followers don't read anything without the Faux stamp of approval.
heh, there's a lie in *the first paragraph*:
"without competitive bidding"
Oh, you have some information that refutes that? A link? Anything?
I didn't think so. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of pretending to be right.
Seraphiel, your ignorance is what you get from reading hyper-partisan weblogs.
Halliburton is operating under the competitively-awarded (in 2001) LOGCAP contract.
They are operating under a "cost plus" payment system, under which they make a 1% to 3% profit on costs. But hey, come to lying hyper-partisan blogs, and discover how this is profiteering.
"They are operating under a "cost plus" payment system, under which they make a 1% to 3% profit on costs."
Hey hat, I've got this really nice bridge for sale....
Jennifer: Oh, you have some information that refutes that? A link? Anything?
I didn't think so. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of pretending to be right.
Yes, the competitive bidding amounted to winning a contract, in 2001, to do everything in Iraq. So, now, yes, they are awarded multi-billion contracts without competitive bidding because they won the right to just 'handle everything' on a cost+plus basis, a contract which benefits them if they inflate their costs, because they no longer need to compete. see?
great find. Thanks Atrios.
I love this sentence: "it's a lot easier to document links between the bin Laden family and the Bushes than it is to document links between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30...halliburton.ap/
"Democratic lawmakers have been highly critical of the prices charged the U.S. government by Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, which has been importing refined petroleum products into Iraq under a mission awarded without competitive bids. Cheney headed Halliburton before running for vice president. "
Details of the DoD LOGCAP contract with Halliburton:
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cep...q/
factsheet.htm
So by overcharging ten of millions for gas and meals Halliburton was hoping for a profit of which: !, 2 or 3%?
The contract was linked to by this story "The Pentagon and Halliburton" By Jason Leopold
http://www.counterpunch.org/
leop...ld05142003.html
In the focused pursuit of power, this is how far the Bush Dynasty has gone:
Secure an even more stable foothold on Middle East oil; undermine and sideline national and international envirionmental brakes on industrial expansion; create new aliances (around 'anti-terror' and "free-trade" agendas) with Russian and China; start the U.S. down a path to huge, previoiusly unimanginable deficits (look at realistic deficit projections if the anti tax on capital agenda is made permanent). Now, for speculation sake: what are possible next steps the Bush Dynasty could take to secure their future power (along with that of their old Middle Eastern, South American, and new emerging dynasties in Russia and China)? Just to get it started -- how much in the U.S. and the world will be available for privatization (which will look like a welcome rescue to many) after 2010?
Uh, guys, the $7 billion oil field contract was awarded without bidding:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/...urton_iraq_con/
bullshit atrios. The costs were inflated by the Kuwaiti providers.
Yeah, there's been some graft. That's not surprising. But you and other hyper-partisans are pretending that this is an indication of a widespread pattern. Without any substantiation.
People are out there doing serious, difficult things and you're just sitting on your fat ass smearing, sneering, sneering and smearing.
Coward.
Great article by Krugman.
I was interested by the question he posed:
"What Phillips doesn't explain, or at least not to my satisfaction, is why crony capitalists have been able to make an effective alliance with the religious right, while other groups—say, Democrats tied to the labor movement —have not."
I wondered if it might have to do with the fact that they have united against what they perceive to be a common enemy: the federal government.
The crony capitalists hate the government because it expects them to share their wealth (taxes) with the less wealthy and it oversees their businesses with regulations. The fundamentalists hate the government because it is secular and expects them to contribute a portion of their wealth (taxes) to non-fundamentalist social policies.
United in hatred of a common scapegoat?
Uh, guys, the $7 billion oil field contract was awarded without bidding:
More bullshit. It came in at around $600M.
pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
Can we just mark this hat fellow as a troll and move on now?
Haloscan is screwing up again. I'm reasonably sure it's truncating "asshat" as, "hat".
I saw the Krugman op/ed article in the International Herald Tribune - the one where the government couldn't make up its official mind over whether the CIA had been too hawkish or too doveish...
Orwell did somewhat come to mind. No doubt the CIA wasn't entirely blameless, but was its intel wilfully misinterpreted and over-hyped, turning maybes into definites? That's to find out. Will it be found out? One can but hope.
Oh, another connection between crony capitalists and the religious right--
It may be true, as he says, that most fundamentalists in America are poor on average.
But many of their preachers are filthy rich, and they set the agenda for their flock.
I'd imagine that some investigation into crony capitalism by the wealthy leaders of the religious right might reveal some shared values with clan Bush.
Great article--makes me want to read those books even more now. Good for Krugman to pull those strings together.
This makes me want to work even harder to get a Dem into the white house by any means possible. What I mean by that is to remind everyone that the Machiavellis were not removed from power by their opponents playing nice.
Can anyone confirm that if BushCo goes down in November, will that pull up most of the roots of the noxious Neo-Bush-Con shrub from the federal government?
If all those facts couldn't shut up the troll.........
ladies and gentleman, paul krugman, the closest thing to an opposition party left in these united states.
One important aspect of the control alliance not explored here is the increase in media concentration and shift of ownership to the same clubby gang of cronies, and their manipulation of 'news' to reinforce their agenda.
Case in point on Faux right now: on a show ostensibly focused on investments and financial issues, the headline is "Proof that John Kerry would be a disaster for stocks".
Hmm, LOGCAP, awarded in 2001... Who was the VP in 2001? Who was the CEO of Halliburton before 2000?
Yeah. That bid was competitive, just like I'm the Pope.
Some of these wingnuts will believe anything. It's kinda fun to watch though.
Shrill.
why is russert taping the interview...why aren't they doing it live? never mind, I already know the answer.
shorter hat:
I love my moron President--anything he does is right and anyone who disagrees is a hater
No one should wonder why Russert is not interviewing Bush live...if you've ever heard Bush attempt to speak coherently for more than 20 seconds without notes, you know the answer.
Bigger question--why is Russert going for it?
There goes any hope of a "real" interview.
My guess is that it will be a platform for Bush to spew more campaign soundbites, bullshit and out-and-out lies.
Re: the crony capitalists & the religious nuts.
Dan is right to point out that the RR leaders are all rich pigs. That's fairly obvious. What he (and Krugman) seem to miss is that the RR's rank and file are pandered to because their agenda isn't seen as interfering with business. This is why the DLC can't make a similiar arrangement with the Democratic Party's more progressive wing. Indeed, this is why the DLC treats liberals, unionists, etc. as the enemy because, to them, that's what they are.
This is a point that I almost never seen brought up in discussions along the lines of "Why can't we take over the Demcoratic Party the way the religious lunatics have with the GOP?"
I was anti-Halliburton until I saw their new commercial. The soldier crying at the end when he hears about the birth of his child is so emotional. How can anyone challenge Halliburton? They support the troops.
Hat, get a fucking clue. So are you saying the $600M was a no bid contract? As Atrios said, a cost+plus contract is a no bid contract. When awarding cost+plus contracts, how do you pick a winner since there are no firm cost estimates? Did Halliburton get to add 3% to the $6M in bribes their employees took?
Other than that, I really enjoy Hat's faith-based logic.
John Stewart on The Daily Show had a great take on Halliburton's touchy-feely commericial - "If you criticize Halliburton then YOU HATE SOLDIERS' BABIES!!!"
I think Krugman is wrong about the religous fundamentalists being poor. Look at the large mall-like churches popping up in the suburbs. They are filled to the brim with white-collar middle-class people who vote republican. They are Bush wannabees. My wife works with some of these people and they are just awful.
hat:
An exemplar of the endemic Gooper mental disease of Denial.
Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter and science is subordinate to the latest faith-based bromide.
Bushboy's "word" is all the Denialiacs need for their epiphany!
Now it's clear: When Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cut goes to the bottom of the economic spectrum," he was referring to the moral and ethical bottom.
Krugman is a national treasure.
The Halliburton commercial is like a parody of a 1980's SNL parody commercial for "Texxon".
It portrayed an oil company named *Texxon* as compassionate and charitable, and included a little girl in a hospital bed removing her oxygen mask long enough to plead for deregulation and ended with a voiceover saying:
"Give us what we want - and nobody gets hurt"
puhleeze takes us back when SNL's comedy was more than just making fun of celebrities. God, how it's so toothless now.
NY Review of Books Rocks.
If the lone gunmen of the world would go out and do their duties this problem might never have existed. At least not with the Bush cabal.
Someone should go out and start building lots of grassy knolls and book depositories. We need them on every corner in DC.
MYOB'
.
I don't claim any particular political expertise, but that the Bush family was out only for itself and its enablers was obvious with Bush senior.
Krugman nails it again!
Best quote:
It's a lot easier to document links between the bin Laden family and the Bushes than it is to document links between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein.
Recipe to restore Democracy in the US:
(1) Say the above soundbite.
(2) Repeat.
Democratic speechwriters please take note!
Jason - not only are they awful, but OT, they also have really bad taste. It's not only on display in those huge gaudy churches they're building all over the place, but the decorating style of religious right women is stuck somewhere in the 1980's. I've been in some of their offices - without fail, they have a floral wallpaper border in the obligatory shades of blue, green, and rose; duck and goose motifs are common and the fake-gold framed scripture quotation surrounded by a floral wreath illustration, again in blue, green, and rose is inescapable. There's also a tendency to go way overboard in collecting little cheap resin statues of angels and moppets. I would blame HGTV but that's just way too easy.
My question is: just what is it about fundamentalist Christianity that renders people tasteless? You'd never find a good upstanding Episcopal surrounded by such tawdry dreck.
Another mantra for this year - The lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq - BIGGER THAN WATERGATE.
TO MYOB - NOT FUNNY -
Assassination is never a joke nor an option if you believe in democracy.
I disagree with Bush and the Republicans about 100% of the time but I would never wish violence on them.
Get a grip on the hyperbole; or if you're serious, get some professional help.
go to SUNW board on Yahoo finance read and post about Bush! http://finance.messages.yahoo.co...6929&
mid=560079
"a Cuban refugee whom Phillips suggests had CIA connections"
"may have involved bin Laden family money"
"a series of actual or potential scandals"
This stuff doesn't convince ANYONE.
This, on the other hand, is brilliantly stated: "While he may have some policy biases—like that 'instinctive policy fealty' to the investment business—policy is basically there to serve the acquisition of power, and not the other way around."
Also the abortion issue is big deal with the RR. And now gay marriage. The Rethugs will change their minds on the marriage part if the number of voting homos > number of voting RR (+/- a lot of $$donations$$). In fact they could say "we are all for marriage. The Dumbocrats were only offering civil unions". Ask Unca K, he can spin anything.
"a Cuban refugee whom Phillips suggests had CIA connections"
"may have involved bin Laden family money"
"a series of actual or potential scandals"
Sounds like somebody needs a visit to the Office of Special Plans.
The intelligence manipulation experts at OSP can take "suggests," "may have," and "potential," and convert it seamlessly into absolute, irrefutable certainty!
Our resume includes such incidents as the invasion of Iraq, based on nothing more than lies, distortions, and fear.
Let the OSP work for you today!
Maybe Krugman was observing NRO Standards Week.
I love this: "And when Bush asked, 'What are we doing on compassion?' no one answered."
"What are we doing on compassion?" -- as if "compassion" is merely a policy one can take out and use when needed.
Says volumes about our boy.
didrex on line didrex on line didrex on line // of americans with health insurance of americans with health insurance of americans with health insurance
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
