GAO: Iraq rakes in billions in oil profits while the United States pays for reconstruction

The dramatic increase in oil prices has positioned Iraq, which sits atop the third largest oil reserve in the world, to begin to bear some of the burden of reconstruction of that war-torn country, decimated by more than two decades of war and sanctions.

In a GAO report released yesterday, the government watchdog was deliberate in avoiding assignation of who-should-pay-for-what and thus the politics of the matter. Instead, they did what they do best and stuck to facts and figures - but in so doing, the report leaves little doubt that Iraq can afford to pony over a bit more dough for its own reconstruction. Iraq took in just under $33 Billion in oil revenues in the first six months of 2008, and is on pace to rake in between $67 and $79 Billion this year, meaning Iraq could see a budget surplus of between $38.2 billion and $50.3 billion this year alone. The GAO estimates that this years oil revenues will be double the average annual oil revenues that were realized from 2005 through 2007. The GAO based their projections for the second half of the year on actual sales through the first half, and assumed an average export price from $96.88 to $125.29 per barrel and oil export volumes of 1.89 to 2.01 million barrels per day.


As oil prices settle down at around $125 per barrel, after exceeding $140 just a few weeks ago, Iraq could post a budget surplus of between $33 billion and $50 billion this year. This windfall comes in spite of the fact that Iraq has yet to approach pre-invasion oil-production levels.

Between 2005 and 2007, the government of Iraq spent approximately $67 billion on government operations and investments in the greater society. About 90% was spent on operations, and 10% was invested in structures and durable goods. A mere one percent was spent on maintaining the country. Instead the United States has been footing that bill. Buildings, infrastructure for the delivery of water and electricity, and weapons for the countries police and security forces.

Even as total expenditures grew from 2005 through 2007, the country was unable to spend all of the budgeted funds. For example - last year, 2007, Iraq spent 80% of ths $28 billion operating budget and 28% of its investment budget. GAO estimates that in 2008, Iraq will spend less than $40 billion of its nearly $50 billion budget.

At the end of 2007, the Iraqi government had financial deposits of $29.4 billion, held in the Development Fund for Iraq and other deposits made in the name of the central government in the Central Bank of Iraq and Iraq’s commercial banks. This balance is due to budget surpluses of about $29 billion between 2005 and 2007.



And then there are the American numbers.

Since FY 2003, when the U.S. appropriated approximately $48 billion for stabilization and reconstruction efforts of post-invasion Iraq. As of June 2008, about $42 billion of that amount had been obligated. Of that $42 billion, the United States has spent more than $23 billion on security and critical infrastructure, such as water, electricity and oil. Compare that expenditure with the $3.9 billion spent in these sectors by Iraq between 2005 and April of this year.

Now there are multiple reasons why the Iraqi government has been unable to invest more of its money on capital improvements, and some of those shortcomings were created by the United States and our coalition allies when civil servants were summarily fired by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and barred from public service for being members of the Bath Party (a requirement for government employment) under the Saddam Hussein regime. When the people who know how to work the levers are not allowed to touch the machine, it doesn't work.

De-bathification was a factor in several areas of shortfall, from operations to procurement and budgeting. De-bathification coupled with sectarian violence and the "brain drain" that resulted from the middle class fleeing the country made government operations in Iraq ineffectual at best. These factors converged and conspired to make it necessary for the United States to fund activities of key ministries to even get the country on a footing where it could begin to execute it's own budget priorities.

Now let me be clear that it is not my intent to debate who should be paying for the reconstruction. If I had my druthers we would be able to unring the bell, unselect George Bush, uninvade Iraq and unhang Saddam Hussein. But as none of that is possible, we have to look at the situation at hand and make realistic assessments. And reality dictates that the United States can not keep up the level of spending we have been engaged in in Iraq. Certainly not with all the problems we face at home.

There's more: "GAO: Iraq rakes in billions in oil profits while the United States pays for reconstruction" >>

How the EPA found a way to fall on it's sword one more time in the waning days of Bu$hCo

In March of this year, the GAO warned that the EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) database was at risk of becoming obsolete because the EPA is buried under pending assessments of threats posed by chemicals present in the environment. When I say it is buried, that is almost an understatement. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, a total of four assessments were completed of thirty two submitted over the same period of time. Currently, over seventy assessments are pending. [The chart below, found on p.7 of the report illustrates the increase in the backlog and the decrease in completion of reporting.]



In response to the GAOs findings, in early April the EPA issued it's revised IRIS assessment process, supposedly aimed at streamlining the process and promoting transparency and increasing confidence in the credibility of assessments. Instead, the changes the EPA employed gave the White House the ability to further obstruct the process. Under the guise of "streamlining" another layer was added - bringing the Office of Management and Budget into the mix, and the OMB promptly started two investigations that are holding up the release of assessments.

Earlier this week, the GAO weighed in on the EPA's "efforts."

EPA’s new process expressly defines such comments as “deliberative” and excludes them from the public record. GAO continues to believe that it is critical that input from all parties—particularly agencies that may be affected by the outcome of IRIS assessments—be publicly available. In addition, the estimated time frames under the new process, especially for chemicals of key concern, will likely perpetuate the cycle of delays to which the majority of ongoing assessments have been subject. Instead of significantly streamlining the process, which GAO recommended, EPA has institutionalized a process that from the outset is estimated to take 6 to 8 years to complete. This is problematic because of the substantial rework such cases often require to take into account changing science and methodologies. Since EPA’s new process is not responsive to GAO’s recommendations, the viability of this critical database has been further jeopardized. [p.2]

Another change keeps comments from other federal agencies on assessments out of the public record.

It is important that the comments of other agencies be included in the public record because although IRIS assessments are not by nature regulatory, quantitative IRIS values are one of the data points considered when risk-management decisions are made and therefore they serve as a benchmark of regulatory consideration.

This process is obstructed by the fact that the completion process for assessments is so dismal. Because of the staggering backlog, the EPA has been unable to complete assessments of key chemicals that are in the forefront of public health concern for their known health risks, including carcinogenic and mutagenic properties. Chemicals awaiting formal assessment include known offenders like trichloroethylene (TCE), naphthalene, tetrachloroethylene, dioxin, and formaldehyde.

And just when you thought that the process was just about manipulated to the max - they manage to throw one more spanner in the works - unlike every other department in FDA and pretty much all departments across all agencies of the federal government - there is no timeline for completion of assessments.

IRIS was put in place in 1985 to increase constituent confidence in the agency and the governments ability to protect it's citizens, after high-profile chemical contamination cases led to the abandonment of first Love Canal, New York in 1981, and then Times Beach, Missouri in 1985. The database was conceived of as a sort of clearing house for information on toxic chemicals.

Its importance has increased over time as EPA program offices and the states have increasingly relied on IRIS information in making environmental protection decisions. Currently, the IRIS database contains assessments of more than 540 chemicals. According to EPA, national and international users access the IRIS database approximately 9 million times a year. EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development has described IRIS as the premier national and international source for qualitative and quantitative chemical risk information; other federal agencies have noted that IRIS data are widely accepted by all levels of government across the country for application of public health policy, providing benefits such as uniform, standardized methods for toxicology testing and risk assessment, as well as uniform toxicity values. Similarly, a private-sector risk assessment expert has stated that the IRIS database has become the most important source of regulatory toxicity values for use across EPA’s programs and is also widely used across state programs and internationally.

Historically and currently, the focus of IRIS toxicity assessments has been on the potential health effects of long-term (chronic) exposure to chemicals. According to OMB, EPA is the only federal agency that develops qualitative and quantitative assessments of both cancer and noncancer risks of exposure to chemicals, and EPA does so largely under the IRIS program. [p.3]

When the GAO revisited the system changes that the EPA announced in April, they discovered that the new tweaks were actually counterproductive. The new requirement that OMB review assessments contributes to the backlog - assessments completed by the EPA essentially stnd on line awaiting OMB approval before they are released. And every single delay presents the distinct possibility that the entire process will have to be started over again as methodologies and best practices advance.

Further, because EPA staff time continues to be dedicated to completing assessments in the backlog, EPA’s ability to both keep the more than 540 existing assessments up to date and initiate new assessments is limited. Importantly, EPA program offices and state and local entities have requested assessments of hundreds of chemicals not yet in IRIS, and EPA data as of 2003 indicated that the assessments of 287 chemicals in the database may be outdated—that is, new information could change the risk estimates currently in IRIS or enable EPA to develop additional risk estimates for chemicals in the database (for example, developing a cancer potency estimate for assessments with only noncancer estimates). In addition, because EPA’s 2003 data are now more than 4 years old, it is likely that more assessments may be outdated now.

The consequences of not having current, credible IRIS information can be significant. EPA’s inability to complete its assessment of formaldehyde, which the agency initiated in 1997 to update information already in IRIS on the chemical, has had a significant impact on EPA’s air toxics program. Although in 2003 and 2004, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) had released updates to major epidemiological studies of industrial workers that showed a relationship between formaldehyde and certain cancers, including leukemia, EPA did not move forward to finalize an IRIS assessment incorporating these important data. Instead, EPA opted to await the results of another update to the National Cancer Institute study. While this additional research was originally estimated to take, at most, 18 months to complete, at the time of our report (more than 3 years later) the update was not complete. In the absence of this information, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation decided to use risk information developed by an industry-funded organization—the CIIT Centers for Health Research—for a national emissions standard. This decision was a factor in EPA exempting certain facilities with formaldehyde emissions from the national emissions standard.[p.7-8]

Yes -you caught that right. Data from a study funded by the chemical industry was used to formulate the assessment of health risk for formaldehyde. The mind boggles...

Actually, what they have done by intent is what has occurred by accident and derailed a thousand promising research projects. I spent a big part of my career in research labs, and we have a name for the phenomenon they have employed by design. We call it "paralysis by analysis."

The EPA is yet another federal agency that has been crippled and undermined, kept from completing it's mission, and the detriment of the agency has served to the benefit a select few who have been allowed to operate under outdated assessments and continue polluting at unsafe rates.

The next president needs an EPA chief with a strong background in toxicology and environmental sciences. And the balls to stand up to gigantic, polluting corporations who perceive the best interest of human beings - especially poor and powerless ones - to be diametrically opposed to their own.

The next person to head up the EPA will be tackling a thankless job, and have to do battle every day - but battle he or she must, because the job they will be tasked with will have an impact on the quality of life and health of future generations for the foreseeable future.

There's more: "How the EPA found a way to fall on it's sword one more time in the waning days of Bu$hCo" >>

Your tax dollars abused

"Too many government employees have viewed purchase cards as their personal line of credit.
It's time to cut up their cards and start over." Sen. Norm Coleman, R-MN

Ya know, it sets my teeth on edge to have to agree with Norm Coleman first thing in the morning. It really, truly does. But that is exactly where I find myself today, reading the GAO report and corresponding Washington Post article on the abuse and misuse of purchase cards by government employees.

About a decade ago, it was decided that department managers, shift supervisors and certain other personnel working in the various and sundry federal departments should have a little latitude. Cards were issues for routine and ordinary purchases. The old procurement process was a bureaucratic nightmare. The old process is where those "speed of government" jokes came from. Let me illustrate by example. In 1988, if a monitor crapped out, an entire workstation would be down for weeks while a new monitor was requisitioned and ordered from a specific supplier who had the contract to supply all of the monitors to a specific government entity. This was stupid, and it was infuriating.

Fast forward one decade...purchase cards were issued to certain federal employees that situations like I just described might be eliminated. People like me had the option of performing the troubleshooting checklist and then going to Office Max or Best Buy or Comp USA and buying a new monitor and getting the workstation back up after lunch instead of having it sit idle for weeks, perhaps months.

Makes sense, right? You trust me with submitting all these man hours to payroll, you can trust me to buy office supplies. Right?

Me personally? Sure. Every penny accounted for properly. Justified, verified and immediate supervisor informed. All "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed. Hand delivered to the appropriate administrator and a receipt requested. Copies made and filed in my file cabinet in my office. No screwing around, since at the end of the journey, I always figured I was ultimately spending my own money, since as a taxpayer I am the origin of the governments funding source.

I'm such a chump!

The GAO found that nearly half the "purchase card" transactions it examined were improper, some because they weren't authorized correctly and others because they did not meet requirements for the cards' use. The audit determined that the overall rate of problems "is unacceptably high."

Nearly $2 million was spent on items such as laptops and digital cameras and can not be accounted for. The Department of the Army charged more than a dozen computer servers worth a hundred grand apiece to the cards, and now can't account for them.

The audit is the culmination of a series of GAO reports over the past decade that have uncovered improper use of government-issued purchase cards at agencies, including the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Government employees spent nearly $20 billion last year using "SmartPay" cards and related convenience checks, for items ranging from pencils to computers to utility trucks.

Purchase cards, used by about 300,000 government employees in 2007, are essentially the federal government's equivalent of corporate credit cards. Issued by five major banks, they are primarily for transactions under $2,500 but can be used for larger contract payments. All transactions are supposed to comport with federal purchasing guidelines, including proper authorization and documentation.

The latest study used scientific sampling to gauge problems with the cards across numerous federal agencies from July 2005 to September 2006. The report singles out incidents for special criticism as "abusive," "improper" or "fraudulent."

In the fraudulent category, a longtime employee of the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Debra K. Durfey, wrote convenience checks worth more than $640,000 from 2000 to 2006 to a live-in boyfriend, who used the money for gambling, car expenses and mortgage payments, according to the GAO and the Justice Department.

The fraud went undetected until a whistle-blower forwarded a tip to the Agriculture Department's inspector general. Durfey, who headed her unit's purchasing office, pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to 21 months in prison and restitution.

Another fraud case involved the U.S. Postal Service, where an unidentified postmaster used his card to charge $1,100 over a 15-month period for "various online dating services" while he was under investigation for viewing pornography on a government computer. The employee worked out an agreement to remain on sick leave until he retired in 2007 and paid back the money spent on the dating services, according to the GAO report and a Postal Service spokesman.

In a case the GAO deemed "abusive," the Postal Service spent $13,500 in 2006 on a dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steak House in Orlando, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The tab came to more than $160 a head for the 81 guests, the report said.

A spokesman for the Postal Service, Gerry McKiernan, seemed almost indignant that the expense for the dinner would even raise an eyebrow and he would have to answer questions about it by unctuous guttersnipes from the GAO. "When you're having dinner with customers, it's normal to have a drink," McKiernan asserted.In another glaring example of perfidy, a State Department cardholder spent $360 at a lingerie boutique in Ecuador. Ostensibly, the expense was for "women's underwear/lingerie for use during jungle training by trainees of a drug enforcement program." No further details of the purchase were revealed, but a State Department official "agreed that the charge was questionable." (Ya think???)

Reading reports like this just disgusts me to my very core. I am easily infuriated by people who just don't know how to act. People who, apparently, have never managed to grow up. Narcissistic brats who think the world owes them something instead of realizing humbly that it's the other way around.

There's more: "Your tax dollars abused" >>

Another system that worked, destroyed by the Bush administration

Most of the authors who post to this blog can fairly be categorized as good-government Democrats. We took a shine to that government we learned about in ninth grade civics, and have spent the intervening years telling anyone who would listen that we really ought to give it a whirl.

Being good-government Democrats, we have been horrified as agency after agency that serves the public good has been gutted and parceled out under this administration. The GAO, the DoJ, the CDC...

One of those things that worked that fell prey to this administration was the EPA library system. (The EPA laboratory system has been decimated, too, but that will be another post.) The facilities started shutting down a couple of years ago, but not a lot of notice was paid to it - scientists protested, but we are a tiny fraction of the population and we are in hostile territory with this anti-science administration any way. We don't get a lot of love from these folks, but we don't sit up at night crying about it, either. We do sit up crying at night over the closing of scientific libraries that provide information and educational services to researchers, academicians and the public at large.

Now the GAO is advising that the EPA slow down on their restructuring activities and make sure that they are employing best practices and procedures when making changes to the library network.

EPA’s primary rationale for the library network reorganization was to
generate cost savings by creating a more coordinated library network and increasing the electronic delivery of services. However, EPA did not fully follow procedures recommended in a 2004 EPA study of steps that should be taken to prepare for a reorganization. In particular, EPA did not fully evaluate alternative models, and associated costs and benefits, of library services. EPA officials stated that they needed to act quickly to reorganize the library network in response to a proposed fiscal year 2007 funding reduction.

EPA did not develop procedures to inform staff and the public on the final configuration of the library network, and EPA libraries varied considerably and were limited in the extent to which they communicated with and solicited views from stakeholders before and during the reorganization effort. In particular, EPA’s plan did not include information that the Chemical Library was to close, and EPA did not inform staff or the public until after the fact. EPA’s communication procedures were limited or inconsistent because EPA acted quickly to make changes in response to a proposed fiscal year 2007 funding reduction, and because of the decentralized nature of the library network. EPA is currently increasing its communication efforts.

EPA does not have a post-reorganization strategy to ensure the continuity of library services and has not yet determined the full effect of the reorganization on library services. Moreover, EPA has recently made several changes that could have impaired user access to library materials and services. For example, EPA did not determine whether federal property management regulations applied to the dispersal and disposal of library materials before it closed the libraries. Furthermore, EPA lacked oversight of the reorganization process and does not have procedures that would allow the agency to measure performance and monitor user needs.

Currently, the libraries remaining in the network answer to a variety of different offices. Each office makes general decisions about funding allocations and funding the reorganization activities. When a $2 million budget shortfall was handed down in FY 2007, the EPA specifically directed that the libraries absorb the cuts first, but they did not offer any guidelines or protocols for achieving the reductions. The rationale for the shutdowns and restructuring was cost savings, and no shut-down fees were allocated. The libraries were targeted in spite of being found cost efficient in a 2004 audit, and in spite of providing a unique and important public service. The GAO found that the "EPA did not effectively justify its decision to reorganize the library network because it did not implement a process for conducting a number of analyses, including many that were recommended in its own study of the libraries, prior to initiating the reorganization." (PAGE 4)

The GAO also found that the EPA not only failed to follow best practices, but they also failed to follow regulations from the OMB. (PAGE 5)

Office of Management and Budget guidance recommends that agencies conduct a benefit-cost analysis to support decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or projects, and that, in conducting such an analysis, tangible and intangible benefits and costs be identified, assessed, and reported. However, EPA did not perform a benefit-cost analysis in this case. According to EPA officials, OEI decided to reorganize its libraries without completing the recommended analyses because it wanted to reduce its fiscal year 2007 funding by $2 million to create the savings necessary for its headquarters library and the regional office libraries per
the President’s budget proposal.

Nor were stakeholders informed of the consequences of the restructuring, and communications strategies were inconsistent and slap-dash, failing to inform affected personnel both internal and external how the proposed changes and closures would affect them and what strategies could be employed to assure that access to vital research materials remain available to scientists and the general public alike. They also failed to solicit feedback, another box on the checklist that is supposed to keep silly things like closing down libraries willy-nilly from happening in the first place.

Now, after the fact, they are reaching out to stakeholders, now that the damage is done, so to speak. But they are reaching out without an effective strategy to ensure the continuity of library services, and without having a clear idea of how the restructuring has affected the availability of library services.

The GAO also found that the EPA did not follow standard protocols (best practices) that are designed assist organizations during mergers and restructuring, but things as basic as feedback from staff were not employed, instead the restructuring seemed to be top-down and somewhat arbitrary. The EPA describes it's library plan as "phased approach" but it has no goals, timelines or evaluation mechanisms in place. The criteria offered by the EPA has been vague and the guidance and oversight has been relatively non-existent.

The GAO recommends that the EPA continue the current moratorium on further changes to the library system while the system as it exists today is fully assessed and a plan for completing the restructuring is developed and a plan for implementation in place.

There's more: "Another system that worked, destroyed by the Bush administration" >>

The one where I crow a little bit because I beat the Washington Post to this by almost three months

Remember all those heady promises of increased airline security so something like the attacks of September 11 could never happen again?

Technology was going to save us! Technology would provide sniffer machines that would detect explosives and biometric data collection systems would be a able to detect a terrorist by his shifty eyes.

Well...Been to the airport lately? Going on seven years after September 11 and what changes have been made? Lets see - I have to take off my shoes. My shampoo, conditioner and toothpaste are treated as weapons-grade materials, and my three year old granddaughter is likely on a terrorist watch list now because of the fit she threw when they took her sippy cup.

Yet GAO investigators had no problem getting real bomb making components past various incarnations of Roscoe P. Coltrain and his deputy Enos.

(Yes, we were three months ahead of the Washington Post - they are reporting today on the findings of a GAO report we read in November.)

The sluggish pace of technological innovation and deployment has left holes in checkpoint security that could easily be exploited by terrorists, according to government officials and outside experts. Congressional investigators reported last year that they were able to smuggle bomb components through checkpoints despite new security measures. Other investigative reports questioned the government's efforts to get emerging technology into the field.

"The snail's pace of deploying new technology is unacceptable," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "We remain vulnerable because we have not kept up with technological innovation."

The TSA in coming months is expected to begin the government's first substantial investment in new checkpoint security technology since the 1970s, according to officials at the TSA, which plans to spend about $250 million on new devices, up from about $89 million last fiscal year. The machines include upgraded X-ray equipment that will provide multiple views of bags and hand-held scanners that can detect liquid explosives in bottles after they are identified by screeners.

The machines my luggage passed through was the same vintage 70's equipment that was screening luggage on September 10, 2001.

So what happened? Why haven't these wonderful technological advances materialized? Well, the government says that private investment has been anemic and the private sector says the government hasn't done it's part to foster investment.

I get frustrated with such maddening petulance. Sometimes you just suck it up and do what's right - or that's how it's supposed to be. But in America 2.0, Beta it doesn't work that way. Nowadays, the mantra is "Fuck you if I can't make a buck!"

Is anyone else just worn out with this shit? I sure as hell am. I'm so god-damned sick of fucked-up priorities and wrong-headed, selfish behavior that it's all I can do to keep from banging my head on the desk out of the sheer frustration of it all.

Can we have the grown ups back in charge please? I don't like this "Lord of the Flies" reality these juvenile nitwits have created.

There's more: "The one where I crow a little bit because I beat the Washington Post to this by almost three months" >>

Iraq spending gap

GAO disagrees with State's fuzzy math

Buried on A16 of Thursday's WaPo, Walter Pincus reported of a dispute between the State Department and the Government Accountability Office on Iraq spending. Who you gonna trust? State run by Condi Rice, the enabling handmaiden of Bush, or the GAO? Follow the bouncing dollar signs (with emphasis added).

The Bush WH:

In a much-publicized September report on benchmarks in Iraq, the White House said that Iraqi ministries had spent about 24 percent of their capital budget through July 15, 2007, and that the government was making "satisfactory progress in allocating funds to ministries and provinces."

The administration touted the news "when Congress was debating fiscal 2008 funding for Iraq." Convenient timing, eh?

Now the GAO:

In a report this week, however, the GAO found that of their $6.4 billion budget for capital projects, the ministries "had spent only 4.4 percent of their investment budget as of August 2007," citing official Ministry of Finance reports. State Department officials told the GAO that they had relied on "unofficial" Ministry of Finance data that were more current.

[Keep reading...more after the jump.]

Clapping harder:

A senior State Department official said yesterday that more recent data collected in Iraq will show that the ministries spent far more than 24 percent of their budgets. "We are predicting that when the final tallies are done in a month or two from 2007, we will have hit and may have exceeded 60 percent of the capital budget," he said.

No, no, no! State is wrong said the GAO:

Joseph Christoff, the GAO official responsible for the report, said yesterday that his figures were reported by U.S. Treasury officials working with Iraq's Ministry of Finance. His latest numbers, which cover spending through October, show only a slight increase -- up to 8 percent of the total 2007 budget. He said the State Department is considering not just money spent on capital projects but also money allocated to such projects but not yet spent. "It is not just comparing GAO's apples to State's oranges," Christoff said. "State is including also bananas, apples and oranges."

"The discrepancies . . . highlight uncertainties about the sources and use of Iraq's expenditure data," the GAO report concluded. It added that the "strikingly large" gap between the different assessments required the U.S. Treasury to work with the Iraqi ministry "to reconcile these differences."...

...According to the GAO, the Bush administration reported that Iraq's Oil Ministry had spent $500 million of its $2.4 billion capital budget by mid-July. However, the GAO found that spending on oil capital projects reached only $270,000, according to Ministry of Finance data.

Seems everyone recognizes that Iraq's budgeting, purchasing, and accounting systems are flawed -- so FUBAR that it hinders capital projects from getting done. More curious: Deflecting the issue of what "spent" means, the anonymous State Dept. official claimed that projects are getting completed:

"Are we seeing the effects of these capital expenditures on the ground? And we are seeing it," he said. "Services are being delivered [and the] slow, downward spiral of worsening services has stopped and is starting to come back." Delivery of services, he said, is "our number one goal" in Iraq for 2008.

Someone's drinking a lot of Kool-Aid -- apparently not the GAO.

Is this a case of "falsifying" numbers to make a bad situation look better? Wouldn't be the first time that the administration employed a fuzzy math scam.

Condi's propaganda shop has obviously undertaken the mission to spin Iraq into a success story. Under the Bush WH, our State Department has transformed from a diplomatic corp into a public relations agency for its client, George W. Bush -- and by extension, the GOP during an election year.

The slap in the face to U.S. taxpayers: They're using our tax dollars to shine up Bush and the Iraqi quagmire.

There's more: "Iraq spending gap" >>

Lets Talk About Port Security

Like it or not, our economy - and way of life - is largely based on imported energy products such as crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and refined products such as gasoline and jet fuel – and those products come into United States ports in tankers – about 8.5 million barrels per day. This supply chain of energy commodities is vulnerable to attack and disruption at many points, both here and abroad, as evidenced by successful attacks overseas against both ships and facilities.

In assessing the vulnerability of the supply chain, the GAO assessed three areas in a review that spanned several foreign and domestic ports. Multiple steps were taken to analyze data and opinions gathered from agencies and stakeholders, and reported to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The three areas reviewed were:

1. The types of threats to tankers, and the consequences of a successful attack
2. Measures taken to protect tankers, and the challenges faced by federal agencies in making these actions effective.
3. Plans in place for responding to a successful attack and potential challenges stakeholders face in responding.

The GAO determined that the supply lines face threats from three different types of attack:

1. Suicide attack by explosives-laden boats
2. Stand-off attacks involving rockets fired from a sufficient distance to allow the attackers to evade defensive fire.
   
3. Assault by armed commandos.

The volatile and combustible nature of energy commodities mean the contents of tankers carries a potential for combustion, or, in a less likely scenario, explosion. This explosive capacity represents a significant threat to public safety. The chemical nature of the material transported by tanker represents a high risk of negative environmental impact in the event of an attack. Additionally, the disruption of the supply lines could have a severe economic impact.

The GAO determined that while many steps have been taken, both internationally and domestically, to protect tankers and facilities, many significant challenges remain. For example, in spite of international agreements that detail specific protective steps, in reality many disparities exist in their implementation. The United States is limited in the ability to increase compliance abroad, as well as in ensuring safe passage of tankers traversing vulnerable transport routes.

[Keep Reading...]

The global supply chain involves many players, and has three main components, each presenting it's own vulnerabilities. First, the materials are loaded in the country of origin, then it is transported across the open ocean, and ultimately unloaded at a facility in this country. Facilities where tankers are loaded overseas might be owned by private entities, governments, or combinations of the two. Foreign governments are primarily responsible for overseeing the security of energy export operations, and the vessels aboard which energy commodities are loaded are likewise owned by many different companies, some with multi-national ownership interests. Transportation routes involve crossing open, international waters, where there is no government control. Of approximately 3,550 oil tankers and 200 LNG tankers, most are registered in countries other than the United States, which means the United States has minimal oversight authority over these vessels’ crews or condition until they enter U.S. waters. Once an oil or LNG tanker arrives at it's US destination, it is unloaded at terminals that may be on the Atlantic, Pacific or Gulf coasts. LNG is currently limited to five facilities, but demand for natural gas is growing, and the number of terminals for unloading LNG is expected to increase. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must approve each new LNG terminal. Eleven new facilities are currently approved and dozens are pending approval.

On the domestic front, the Coast Guard, the federal agency responsible for maritime security, reports that it lacks adequate resources to meet its own self-imposed security protocols. Those protocols involve escorting ships carrying LNG. As LNG facilities are added, the workload of many units are likely to increase. The Coast Guard has not developed plans for shifting resources and spreading workload among units. According to the data obtained by the GAO, and discussions held with field unit officials, resource shortfalls were the primary reasons for not meeting these responsibilities.

Although multiple attack response plans have been established to address an attack, three main challenges are faced by the stakeholders in their implementation. Primarily, the plans for responding to a spill, versus responding to a terrorist threat are disparate processes, and ports have rarely exercised these plans in concert to see if they work effectively together. Second, ports are generally lacking in plans for dealing with economic issues, such as the prioritizing of the movement of vessels after an affected port reopens. Finally, some ports report difficulty in even acquiring response resources to carry out planned actions.

Federal grants allocated for port security have in general been geared toward preventing attacks, rather than responding to them, but a more comprehensive risk-based approach is in the planning stages.

Now comes the inevitable Catch-22. Decisions about the need for enhanced response capabilities are hindered by a lack of performance metrics tying resource needs to response effectiveness.

The supply chain of energy commodities is not only critical, it is vulnerable to disruption by terrorist attack. Ports are inherently vulnerable because they must be accessible by both land and sea, and because they are sprawling installations, frequently in close proximity to population centers. The ships themselves are vulnerable because they travel direct routes that are known in advance, and for much of the journey, they are afloat on waters that do not afford evasive maneuvers to avoid possible attack. Because there are so many links in the chain, terrorists have the luxury of examining the chain for the weakest link.

In spite of the increased security presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, terrorists have managed to carry out several attacks on this supply chain. These attacks have included attempts to damage tankers, and to disrupt the loading operations at facilities overseas. In 2004, terrorists managed to coordinate two offshore oil terminals in Iraq where tankers were taking on oil, and in 2002, terrorists succeeded in conducting a suicide attack against the French supertanker Limburg in international waters off the coast of Yemen. (pictured)

The successful attacks overseas illustrate that tankers face several major threats, and if carried out domestically, serious consequences would likely result. Terrorists have demonstrated the ability to carry out three types of attack - suicide, stand-off, and commando raid - but overall, the suicide boat presents the greatest concern. It was a suicide boat that disabled the Limburg in October 2002. That attack killed one, injured 17, and spilled 90,000 barrels of oil.

To date, no such attacks have occurred on tankers in U.S. waters or on loading facilities in U.S. ports, but the successful attacks abroad, coupled with the expressed desire by terrorists to target U.S. economic interests, and the potential outcome of a terrorist attack on a tanker have led to the conclusion that protective efforts are warranted.

A successful attack against an energy commodity tanker, port facility or terminal carries the potential for significant public safety, environmental and economic consequences, which vary by commodity. A highly combustible commodity like LNG has the potential to burn, or (less likely) explode. An explosion at a port facility, near a population center, would pose a threat to public safety. Crude oil and heavy petroleum products remain in the environment after they are spilled, and must be removed. Spills pose the risk of significant environmental damage. The economic consequences of a major attack could be as mild as a temporary price spike, associated with apprehension about future attacks or supply disruptions with delays of shipments. While the loss of one cargo shipment would probably not have a significant price impact by itself, if an attack shut down a port for days - or even weeks - price responses and higher costs could mean losses that, when figured across the entire spectrum of effect, could run into billions of dollars.

Much is being done, both internationally and domestically, to protect the supply lines, but much more remains to be done. GAO recommends that cognizant agencies

1. plan for meeting a growing security workload for protecting liquefied natural gas shipments,
2. help ensure that ports plan for dealing with economic consequences of an attack,
3. integrate terrorism and spill response plans at the national and local level, &
4. work to develop performance measures for emergency response.

The agencies generally agreed with the GAO recommendations, but the Department of Homeland Security stopped short of endorsing them and "took the final recommendation under advisement."

There's more: "Lets Talk About Port Security" >>

GAO Blasts Department of Defense on Iraqi Police

--By Pale Rider

They put out the NIE on Iran today in order to keep people from paying attention to what came out on Friday--the GAO Report on the Iraqi police forces.

The report, filed under the subject heading Operation Iraqi Freedom: DOD Assessment of Iraqi Security Forces’ Units as Independent Not Clear Because ISF Support Capabilities Are Not Fully Developed, highlights a critical fact of what is going on in Iraq. The Iraqi police can't do anything independently, but the Bush Administration by way of the Department of Defense is doing everything it can to keep you from figuring that out. And it sent General Petraeus to testify before Congress about some things that weren't, ahem, not quite true. Oh my goodness, has St. David of the General Rank of Petraeus been caught lying to Congress? Perish the thought. And by the way, that was him walking on water a little while ago.

[Keep reading...]

The GAO goes on at length in their report, and I can't do it justice. I can't adequately parse all the polite doublespeak in a way that adequately expresses how outraged we should all be.

A few things stand out. The GAO says:

...the Administration’s September 14, 2007, Benchmark Assessment Report stated that although some Iraqi Army and police forces were operating independently, it also stated that the greatest constraints on independent operations were a shortage of trained leaders and an immature logistics capability, and that for the present time Coalition partnership and support remained necessary for most ISF operations.

"Independently." Remember when this was an issue? Let's get in the way-way back machine and travel all the way back to 2005:

Sep 29, 2005 - from USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The Iraqi military has only one battalion — about 500-600 soldiers — capable of fighting on its own, U.S. commanders told lawmakers Thursday.
Many Iraqi police are not being paid, and insurgents are infiltrating Iraqi police and military forces, the commanders acknowledged. Even so, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, said U.S. troops could start leaving next year if Iraqi voters back a proposed constitution and form a government.
"I do believe that the possibility for condition-based reductions of coalition forces still exists in 2006," Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[snip]

In his final appearance as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retiring Gen. Richard Myers told McCain that he never said "things are going very well in Iraq" and that the United States is not developing a "cut-and-run strategy."
"This is a win strategy," Myers said, adding that Iraqis were making progress toward forming a government. "In a sense, things are going well."
The commanders didn't say how many qualified Iraqi troops would be necessary to allow U.S. withdrawals.
In June, the Pentagon said three of 100 Iraqi battalions were capable of acting on their own, Casey acknowledged. Thursday morning, that estimate changed to one.
After a recess, Casey said the new assessment of Iraqi readiness stemmed from a new, more demanding standard U.S. commanders use to judge Iraqi forces.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So, in just over two years, the Iraqi police are in the same shape today that they were then. In other words, they've made no progress whatsoever in any of the important areas they needed to improve. In 2005, we were told that they have tens of thousands that don't show up, that the insurgents have infiltrated the forces, that there is inadequate training and the units can't fight independently.

According to the GAO, not a damned thing has changed. I guess Generals Petraeus and Hunzeker--two individuals, who you'll recall, once were given responsibility for training the Iraqi police forces--did a bang-up job training the Iraqi police--so much so that they got promoted and were given great new jobs. If there was any accountability whatsoever in the United States Army, the only assignment these two generals would have right now is a temporary billet at Fort Living Room with a future engagement planned at Camp Golf Course.

Just a few highlights--and the intrepid Blue Girl will tell us more when time permits--

...As of July 2007, the Iraqi Army was short 18,000 corporals, 14,500 sergeants, and 7,500 sergeants first class. With MNSTC-I advice and assistance, the Iraqis are working a number of initiatives to address this leadership shortage.

...the MOI is facing the fundamental challenge of not being able to accurately account for its personnel. According to DOD’s June and September 2007 reports to Congress, there is currently no reliable data on how many Coalition-trained personnel are still serving in the MOI’s forces. Moreover, DOD has also reported that the MOI has hired a significant number of police beyond those trained by the Coalition. According to testimony by the former MNSTC-I commander, the MOI’s payroll accounts for about 60,000 to 74,000 more personnel than the number trained and equipped by the Coalition. However, he also stated that about 20 percent of this overage are “ghosts,” meaning personnel whose names appear on the MOI’s payroll but who are not actually serving.

...According to both the former and current MNSTC-I commanders, the National Police are also beset with widespread sectarianism. In June 2007, the former MNSTC-I commander testified that the Iraqi National Police was the “single most sectarian organization in Iraq.” Two months later, the current MNSTC-I commander echoed his predecessor’s assessment, stating that the National Police were “overly infiltrated with militia elements” and that “there’s no doubt that in the National Police the sectarian influence remains and will be hard to eradicate.” Finally, evidence indicates that the Iraqi Police Service is also heavily infiltrated with sectarian elements. The former commander of the Iraq Assistance Group13 characterized the Iraqi Police Service as the ISF element most vulnerable to sectarianism, despite the MOI’s removal of over 3,000 members considered to have a sectarian bias in January 2007.

...Since January 2007, the Iraqi government has replaced 70 percent of senior commanders in the National Police due to their sectarianism, a list that includes 2 division, 7 brigade, and 17 battalion commanders. These high level command changes are especially significant given that the National Police are facing a critical officer shortage; by the summer of 2007 they had filled fewer than half of their officer positions. Despite these officer changes, however, according to a July 2007 DOD report, there continues to be a sectarian bias in the appointment of senior Iraqi police commanders.

---------------------------------------------------------------

What did General Petraeus tell Congress? Well, the GAO weighs in on that, too:

For example, in its most recent report to Congress, issued in September 2007, DOD stated that 95 Army, Special Operations Combat Forces, and Iraqi Army Infrastructure units; an indeterminate number of MOD logistics enablers; 7 National Police Combat Battalions; and 3 National Police Brigade Headquarters were all “capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations independently or with Iraqi or Coalition forces.” Although in none of these reports does DOD distinguish between those forces that are capable of operating independently and those that require Coalition or Iraqi assistance, the tables in which DOD’s data are presented lead one to believe that at least one if not more than one of the units was rated as independent. This was underscored during the MNF-I commander’s September 10 and 11, 2007 testimony, during which he briefed the Congress that in every month since November 2005, with only one exception (February 2006) the Coalition has assessed at least one ISF unit as “fully independent.”

The GAO has a disturbing finding on this--

However, despite DOD’s reports and the MNF-I commander’s recent testimony that a certain number of ISF have been assessed as “fully independent,” after March 2006 it was no longer possible for a Coalition transition team member to rate the readiness of an ISF unit using these terms. Previously, in guidance provided to Coalition transition teams for use in evaluating Iraqi Security Forces, a level 1 unit was said to be “fully capable of planning, executing, and sustaining independent operations.” However, in the spring of 2006, MNC-I removed the words “fully” and “independent” from the definition. When we asked DOD officials for the reason for this change they were not able to provide us with an explanation. Therefore, according to the current guidance, a level 1 unit is one that is “capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations.” It is important to note that, according to the guidance, a Coalition transition team cannot judge an ISF unit as “independent.” However, in its most recent report to Congress, DOD asserted that an “independent unit is one that is capable of planning, executing, and sustaining counterinsurgency operations.” Thus, DOD’s continued reporting that some ISF units are “independent” or “fully independent” is not congruent with MNC-I’s instructions for filling out the Operational Readiness Assessments on which DOD’s assertions and reports seem to be based. If independence is still a relevant descriptor of ISF unit capabilities, then why was the term removed from the definition of a level 1 unit in 2006?
---------------------------------------------------------------

So did General Petraeus lie to Congress? Did he commit perjury?

My reaction to all of this is...[sigh].

Another day, another outrage. And we don't have a working press to tell all of this to the American people.

There's more: "GAO Blasts Department of Defense on Iraqi Police" >>

Some folks read Stephen King - I read GAO reports and get the same effect

Wanna know what scares the hell out of me?

It isn’t a few thousand bearded whack-jobs frothing with fundamentalist fervor, sporting a gigantic chip on their collective shoulder and entertaining delusions of taking over the world that are slightly less likely to be realized than the grand schemes of Pinky & the Brain.

No, what scares me is the pure, unadulterated incompetence at the highest levels of our kleptocracy.

In the last week, the GAO issued three reports on border security, terrorist screening, and aviation security that, read individually, are each cause for consternation. But read them together and synthesize the information, and you might be sorely tempted to crawl under the bed with a security blanket and a stash of Xanax until 1/20/2009.

[keep reading]

Border Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the governmental agency responsible for keeping terrorists and other inadmissibles out of the United States. They are charged with fulfilling this mission while simultaneously facilitating the cross-border traffic of millions of international travelers every year. The CBP conducts this mission at 326 ports of entry (international airports, harbors, border crossings) throughout the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, nearly a quarter million ineligible individuals were interdicted by CBP and turned away, but the agency estimates that several thousand more were admitted to the country through our ports of entry.

Weaknesses that compromise border security include not verifying the nationality and admissibility of individuals. This failure of the system is the most acute at land crossings. When the GAO did spot checks, they found some checkpoints entirely unmanned. (For contrast: The state of Kansas is more vigilant about their turnpikes and that five dollar fee to travel from Bonner Springs to Wichita. I have never seen a turnpike entry point completely unmanned. Have you? Didn't think so.)

The CBP has been somewhat successful in identifying certain undesirables and inadmissible aliens, but the system is compromised by the vulnerabilities that let several thousand inadmissibles slip in.

Most of the problems highlighted by the GAO can be traced to a single problem: understaffing. Staffing shortfalls directly affect the ability of the CBP to carry out the anti-terror aspect of their mission. Progress has been made in the training of new officers, but no metric exists to measure the extent to which officers on the job receive additional training and exhibit proficiency in requisite skills. Officer attrition has further impaired the ability of the CBP to maintain budgeted staffing levels, and efforts are underway to curb the loss of seasoned officers opting to retire at relatively young ages.

Terrorist Watch List Screening

In the shock and horror of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the FBI was charged with compiling a terrorist watch list to keep tabs on known terrorists and individuals who were suspected of ties to terrorism after “standards of reasonableness” were applied to nominated individuals. The FBI conducts this work through the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which submits records from the watch list to screening entities, such as the CPB, law enforcement agencies, etc.

In the intervening time since the watch list was initiated, it has mushroomed to include records on over three-quarters of a million individuals. The list has led to approximately 53,000 positive matches. These matches have led to arrests, denial of entry into the U.S., but most often questioning and release. In a disturbing revelation, the GAO found that some of these positive matches occurred after-the-fact. Individuals positively identified and confirmed to be inadmissible to the United States had already boarded and flown on aircraft, or even been admitted to the country, and perhaps become untraceable.

The TSC sends updates daily to the various screening agencies, but in many instances entire records are not sent, partly because screening against certain segments of the reports might not be integral to the mission of respective agencies. The resulting “cafeteria updates” are often incomplete, inadequate or even missed entirely. In other instances, software incompatibility hinders the ability of some agencies to receive adequate updates of information.

Although the GAO found that some progress has been made in the promotion of effective screening procedures, both in the federal sector and the private/critical infrastructure sector, many potentially effective screening opportunities remain untapped. This situation is perpetuated because the government lacks a current strategy and implementation protocol for optimizing the terrorist watch list.

In addition to the lack of formal protocol, clear lines of authority, accountability and responsibility are missing.

Aviation Security

If you aren't ill at ease yet, keep reading. Aviation security, it seems, is an oxymoron. The GAO conducted spot-checks of United States airports, and successfully smuggled bomb-making components and detonation devices aboard aircraft.

After the thwarted attempt in Britain to make bombs from hydrogen peroxide, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) made substantial modifications to the passenger screening process. Aimed at closing gaps in security that the alleged plot revealed, TSA agents set about confiscating perfumes and shampoos and sippy-cups and toothpaste from hapless travelers as they passed through security checkpoints at the airport.

After the new protocols were in place, a request was made for the GAO to test the system. To do this, the GAO attemptedc to:

1. Obtain the instructions and components needed to create devices that a terrorist might use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers and
2. Test whether GAO investigators could pass through airport security checkpoints undetected with all the components needed to create the devices.

The investigators were able to successfully pass through screening checkpoints with bomb-making components and, on one occasion, an improvised incendiary device (IID), concealed in their carry-on luggage or on their persons. All of the component parts, as well as the items used to conceal them are commercially available.

In conducting the test, the GAO investigators used publicly available information, and determined that two types of device could be used to commit acts of terror aboard aircraft. The first was a two-component IED, comprised of a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. In this scenario, the detonator could be used as an explosive device in it's own right, or used to greater effect in concert with a volatile liquid. The second device was an IID that could be created by combining readily-accessible products (one of which is a liquid) that are banned from carry-on luggage. All total, the investigators spent less than $150 to purchase the components of their improvised weapons. Prior to testing the security apparatus, the components were tested for efficacy at a national lab in the summer of 2007. Prior tests had been conducted in early 2006, in conjunction with an unnamed law enforcement agency from somewhere in greater metropolitan D.C. These test clearly demonstrated that a terrorist aboard an airplane with the components in question could wreak havoc and endanger the safety of all aboard.

After the volatility of the components had been adequately established, the investigators set about devising concealment schemes, keeping in mind the prohibitions on liquids and other banned items. And two GAO investigators demonstrated the weaknesses of the security screening process in American airports by smuggling the components for multiple explosive devices and one incendiary devise through security and aboard commercial airliners, without being challenged by TSA officers.

Most of the time, the officers seemed to follow protocol and procedure, and employed technology in an appropriate manner, however, GAO was able to uncover weaknesses in the screening process and expose other vulnerabilities as a result of the exercise. Case in point: While officers generally followed the guidelines and enforced TSA policies, the investigators were able to exploit weaknesses in the TSA's own policies to get liquids through checkpoints. the investigators were able to exploit the weaknesses by studying public information and identifying the procedural weaknesses in the policies. (Details of a sensitive nature or that could otherwise be exploited by those intending to inflict harm were omitted from the report released to the public.)

GAO has submitted two briefings to the TSA in an effort to help the agency take corrective action, and suggested several actions that TSA should consider implementing in an effort to improve the passenger screening program. A system-wide review is underway, and the GAO is expected to issue a comprehensive public report, complete with recommendations for TSA early next year.

***************

As I said at the beginning of this post, any one of these reports would be cause for consternation and concern. But read them together and the picture that emerges is downright maddening. Not only are we not keeping proper tabs on terrorists and suspected terrorists, but our borders are as secure as your average sieve is watertight, and the GAO sent investigators into the field who were able to smuggle bombs-making components past TSA officers and aboard commercial aircraft.

There's more: "Some folks read Stephen King - I read GAO reports and get the same effect" >>

Florida's Wingnut Strikes Again!

I know. It's hard to believe that Florida has a Representative that rises so far above the rest of the craziness in this state that she earns the title of "wingnut" but it's true.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is already well-known for her call to assassinate Fidel Castro on video. You might remember that she denied it and accused the news crew who filmed it of altering the tape to get out of it. The BBC came back with a strong denial and she was forced to back down. I think she's in the same spot now.

Think Progress caught the brouhaha from yesterday's International Relations Committee hearing. Ros-Lehtinen, in continuing her unwavering support for the war in Iraq, questioned the GAO's ability to render a judgement about the situation in Iraq.

“I just feel uncomfortable listening to a report by the Government Accountability Office about a war effort.”

This is the investigative arm of the US Congress, for pity's sake! As Faiz rightly points out, apparently she only thinks the GAO is not qualified when it doesn't agree with her agenda.

Ros-Lehtinen has had no problem citing the work of the GAO in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff or enlisting the GAO’s resources to pursue her agenda. It’s only when she doesn’t like the agencies’ conclusions that she finds fault with the work of the office.

But GAO Comptroller General David Walker called her on it, using a decidedly Republican tactic. You know the one: we don't have to be in the military to wage war, we just have to listen to the Generals, the people on the ground.

While we know they don't really listen, the GAO did and issued a scathing report on Iraq and the surge and, of course, the failure to meet almost 85% of the set benchmarks . If she thinks that report is "uncomfortable", she'll probably go ballistic when she gets this report:

Iraq's Interior Ministry is regarded as "dysfunctional and sectarian," and the National Police should be "disbanded and reorganized," according to an independent report obtained by CNN.

The report was put together by the Independent Commission on Security Forces in Iraq. Oops, this investigation is headed by General James L. Jones. What will she say to try to discredit it - Jones isn't serving in Iraq so he can't know anything about it?

Really, this woman is a schizophrenic disgrace. How can someone who gets an A+ on Darfur continue to support a war that is creating a humanitarian crisis that is the sole creation of the Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons? She supports immigration reform, yet advocates assassination? She supports the GAO but she doesn't?!?

Someone call a psychiatrist. This woman needs help. Wait, she can't - her Scientologist supporters don't believe in that.

There's more: "Florida's Wingnut Strikes Again!" >>

Operation: Move Those Goal Posts!

Last January the Resident forged ahead with the Surge™, selling it by frequently referencing the Friedman Unit, and pleading for six more months like a junkie whore pleading for a bump.

In May, the Resident prevailed with the supplemental spending bill, and the war was funded through the end of fiscal year 2007 on 30 September. One of the conditions attached to the supplemental, PL 110-28 mandated that the GAO report to Congress on 01 September assessing the progress of the Iraqi government on 18 separate benchmarks.

The GAO released their report on Tuesday. The assessment found that only three of 18 benchmarks had been met.

The picture is bleak. That means there is only one thing to do...Move the goalposts!

Now, since the test has been graded and an F- has been awarded (Three of 18 is 17%) the White House wants the Congress to ignore the failure to meet the benchmarks - which by the way were proposed by the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress - and concentrate instead on the alliances that are now being made with Sunni Sheiks. The White House also absurdly insists that arming the Sunnis enhances the relationship with the Shia dominated government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

You know, since they insist - lets take a moment to look at that arrangement. We are arming the very people who were killing Americans this time last year, the same people that were once the greatest threat to the stability of the country. Additionally, so much ammo is going to Iraqis that our cops stateside are training with paintballs. (Trust me on this - there is no fucking comparison between a 9mm and a paintball gun!) This is truly a sick joke, especially when they flog the lie that this clusterfuck is necessary to 'keep Americans safe.'

The Pentagon immediately commenced with the protesting. One of the nits they picked: The GAO used 'old' data...all the way back through the end of July! And that is just not fair, you see, because August was better! If that data was included, the benchmarks would be nearer! (I'm curious...Were they supposed to do the analysis over the long Labor Day weekend?)

The report determined that violence remained high....prompting Pentagon officials to once more insist that the August numbers would have improved the numbers considerable. (Really? The Yazidis might disagree. 500 Yazidis were killed in coordinated bomb attacks in mid-August. August saw the single most deadly attack of the entire civil war.)

The Pentagon cranked up the Wurlitzer, and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (MO-07) put on the funny pants and danced like a good little monkey to advance the PentaSpin.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) said Pentagon officials had told Republican leaders that the GAO had relied on outdated information....He added that lawmakers were far more interested in the assessment coming next week from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.

Roy is, of course, referring to the 'report' that the White House is producing for Petraeus and Crocker to deliver. And Roy should speak for himself. He is the Minority whip, and most of the members on the Majority side of the aisle (with the exception of the pod-person that replaced Brian Baird when he popped in for a dog-and-pony show) have had General Petraeus' number since 26 September 2004, when he threw his support behind Bush and the war with a fawning Op-Ed in the Washington Post. (I am still non-plussed that I seem to be the only person having a fit about it. What's up with that? Generals are simply not supposed to weigh in before an election, and I frankly hoped it would at least get a mention when he was in front of Congress before receiving his fourth star.)

Roy can look forward to the Happy-Talk Express all he wants. But something tells me that it is not going to roll down smooth tracks. Congress has about a hundred million angry bees in their collective bonnet, and every last one of us sent our bullshit detectors in for servicing in advance of the PR offensive that is supposed to convince us to sacrifice a few thousand more of our children on the altar of Bush's ego.

There's more: "Operation: Move Those Goal Posts!" >>

Countering the Petraeus Offensive that is coming to Congress in two short weeks

More details from the forthcoming GAO report on the status of Iraq emerged Wednesday. (I first posted about the pending GAO report on Tuesday.) The realistic and sobering GAO assessment will run head-on into the Petraeus - Crocker Happy-talk Express™ that is scheduled to pull into the station the following week.

The release of the report should put the Petraeus testimony the following week under a harsh light, and he should expect his positions to be challenged, especially when he makes the inevitable claims of "progress."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

A draft of the report was provided to the Washington Post by a government official who is concerned that the pessimistic conclusions that the report draws would be diluted and spun in the final version. A valid concern, given the "softening" that last weeks NIE was subjected to before it was released.


The GAO report was mandated in the Iraq Supplemental legislation that was passed in May. The May Supplemental set a high bar, requiring an up-or-down determination on whether each benchmark has been met. Applying that standard, the GAO determined that only three of eighteen benchmarks have been met - two security and one political. On the political front, the report finds that steps have been taken to safeguard the rights of minority political parties, but it also emphasizes that further political progress (overturning de-baatification, constitutional reform, an oil sharing law) is stalled by the boycott of the Cabinet. Without a quorum, legislation can not be sent to parliament for consideration by the full body; and without the seventeen Cabinet members that are boycotting the government, a quorum is not possible. In fact, in an internal GAO assessment this month, the GAO found that "this boycott ends any claim by the Shi'ite-dominated coalition to be a government of national unity."


(Here I feel I must take the opportunity to remind you that the White House insisted in July that there was significant progress on eight of the benchmarks in question.)

The report actually contradicts the Bush Administration's happy talk about violence being down as a result of the Surge™. The report emphasizes that "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July."

The GAO holds the Iraqi Security Forces up to a more realistic measuring stick than the administrations July assessment, and the Iraqi forces come up short. The number of Iraqi units able to operate independently has declined from ten in March to just six last month. Additionally, the GAO found that the Iraqi army is plagued by "performance problems" and "[S]ome army units sent to Baghdad have mixed loyalties, and some have had ties to Shiia militias making it difficult to target Shiia extremist networks." It also found that the Iraqi government interfers with military operations for political purposes, and that this results "in some operations being based on sectarian interests."

The findings of the GAO run counter to the trope peddled by Lt. Gen. Ray "any day now we'll turn a corner" Odierno who earlier in the month said "[A]lthough we still have a ways to go, Iraqi security forces are making significant, tangible improvements."

Odierno's sunny assessments are offset by the sober assessment of Lt. Gen. James Dubik, commander of the U.S. troops training and advising Iraqi army and police units, who, in a news conference with reporters in Baghdad yesterday stated flatly that "[the] problems that the military commanders and the minister of defense have here in generating the Iraqi army are very significant, and they shouldn't be taken lightly." (Nor should they be, one presumes, played down for political reasons.)

Still, Odierno's seeming cluelessness is actually somewhat understandable. (Honest!) In closing, I will let Alex, from Army of Dude explain the cognitive dissonance:

In the last month of the deployment, on one of our few days off, we risked our lives so the Army, at some level, could throw a rose colored lens onto a news camera for the benefit of...I don’t know who.

Later on that day, a two star general got on our truck to be escorted back to the base. The captains and colonels around him talked about how Diyala was really shaping up and that Baqubah would be a shining example of the surge in no time, thanks in part by the 1920s! This was great for me to see and hear, because I finally got it. It took me fifteen months, but my epiphany was complete. Generals see Iraq in a unique way for two reasons. One, they take the word of anyone under them, which will almost always be positive no matter what. I doubt many have the guts to tell a general that things aren’t going exactly as planned. And two, they view Iraq in quick spurts with over-the-top security measures. I took a picture of the mob next to the deputy prime minister’s SUV, and there was an entourage of no less than fifteen American and Iraqi soldiers in a span of ten feet. Needless to say, the two star was well protected. We’ve walked the most dangerous streets on planet earth with less people. Surprise, some of us have a different perspective on the way this country is going.

There's more: "Countering the Petraeus Offensive that is coming to Congress in two short weeks" >>

Just when you thought we were out of inventive ways to screw over our returning veterans...

On Veterans Day 2005, the White House issued Fact Sheet: Honoring America’s Veterans. One of the items that was bulleted in that official communiqué, under Helping America’s Newest Veterans Transition To Civilian Life read:

DOL And The Department Of Justice (DOJ) And The Office Of Special Counsel Actively Protect The Employment Rights Of Veterans. DOL helps veterans and employers understand their rights and responsibilities under the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). This law requires employers of active duty service members, reservists, and deployed National Guard members to reinstate them to their jobs with full pay and benefits. If returning soldiers face problems in securing reinstatement and legal action is necessary, DOJ personally represents returning soldiers under USERRA when they seek to resume the job they left to serve their country. The Office of Special Counsel represents soldiers’ Federal sector USERRA claims.

That was then, and the sentiment lasted about as long as the photo op.

USERRA is supposed to protect Reservists and Guardsmen from job losses, demotions, denial of promotion, loss of benefits and loss of seniority sustained due to military service and deployment.

Supposed to.

It doesn’t exactly work that way in this administration. But they always have to push just a little bit further, you know? They have not merely failed to enforce USERRA – this administration and the Rove Department of Justice has made the statute virtually unenforceable.

Military personnel who return from deployment to discover their civilian employment gone, then find out that they are charged with proving that their jobs were taken away as a result of their call-up to active duty. Essentially, a complainant must prove that there is no possible reason other than their deployment for their termination. The bar is set so high that employers ignore the law and most of the victims of that disregard don’t bother filing complaints, figuring following procedure to be a mugs game. The GAO estimates that fewer than 30% of wrongfully terminated Reservists and Guardsmen file USERRA complaints.

Those who do file complaints with the Veterans Employment and Training Service Department (VETS) find that resolving their complaints, by the military's own admission, can take "months, if not years." A declassified Defense Department memo compiled for military lawyers stated: "Many VETS field investigators simply accept whatever the employer tells them in a response and close their files" rather than continue an investigation, meaning the reservists never receive assistance. A 2005 GAO report found that the average time service members have to wait for USERRA complaints to be resolved is 619 days -- nearly two years.

Complaints that cannot be closed are referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, but few cases make it that far. In 2005, of the 5,302 complaints filed by reservists, 111 cases were referred to the Justice Department. Only 16 resulted in benefits going to reservists.

Maybe “mugs game” was too generous an assessment.

Veterans are fighting mendacity on two fronts. The DoJ fails to prosecute the employers who violate the law and screw the service men and women, while the Deparment of Defense does backflips to keep the reemployment problems of returning vets under wraps. The GAO charges that “the Pentagon's annual Status of Forces Surveys provide the only accurate account of the number of reservists experiencing reemployment difficulties. These surveys ask reservists about their service, job loss and whether they are receiving the legal protections -- occupational and otherwise -- guaranteed to them under federal law…Status of Forces Surveys used to be available to the public. But the 2005 and 2006 surveys of returning reservists and guardsmen were designated "for official use only," putting them off-limits to civilians, journalists or anyone else outside government curious about enforcement of USERRA.

This action by the Defense Department has rendered oversight of this issue virtually impossible.

The men and women who serve us deserve a hell of a lot better than we have given them. They sacrifice, and so do their families. Most Reservists and Guardsmen are working class people, and service often represents its own financial setbacks. Coupling that economic impact with a job lost illegally is, one would imagine, enough to send many into bankruptcy – and if they are still in the Reserves or the Guard – bankruptcy is considered a “character issue” and will endanger career and clearance. Most can’t afford the legal representation to pursue legal remedies, and I have not seen a single silk-stocking Republican law firm running ads that they will represent veterans pro bono in USERRA claims.

Contact your elected representatives and demand that USERRA be enforced, and the statistics made public. Our service men and women deserve to have the bargain they made with us upheld, and we deserve to know that our government isn’t screwing over the men and women who suit up not to serve the pentagon, but to serve the American people and the Constitution that binds us together as one.

There's more: "Just when you thought we were out of inventive ways to screw over our returning veterans..." >>

Anti-Americanism on the March

About five pages into the GAO’s latest report on the image of America and Americans abroad, especially in the Muslim world, I was muttering aloud that it sure would be nice to have a functioning State Department about now!!!

The report is an indictment of a State Department in disarray; not merely understaffed, but with an existing staff that is largely unqualified for the positions they hold.. In May 2006, the GAO reported that approximately 15 % of the worldwide public diplomacy positions in the State Department were vacant. Updated information shows that this problem has worsened, with approximately 22 % of such positions currently vacant. Embassy officials indicated that insufficient numbers of staff (and the lack of staff time for public diplomacy activities) hinder outreach efforts. Keep in mind that key objectives of U.S. public diplomacy are to engage, inform, and influence overseas audiences. The department is in such disarray that recipients of American aid are often wholly unaware of the source of that benificence.

The State Department continues to experience significant staffing shortfalls in foreign language proficiency in embassies around the world. This is especially acute in the Muslim world. In May 2006 the GAO reported that 30% of language-proficiency-designated diplomatic positions are filled by officers who lack the level of language proficiency required for their jobs. The current report indicates this figure is up to 36%. Today. This has a negative impact on the ability of the diplomatic officers to engage with the public in the countries hosting our embassies.

In addition to communications deficits, the report highlighted a lack of strategic planning and inadequate coordination among embassy personnel pursuing various efforts and aims. Additionally; no standardized metric of measuring performance and results. This was first pointed out in a GAO report in 2003. Four years later, no strategy has been released, but State swears it will happen real, real, real soon...

State has not issued guidance on how its assorted public diplomacy activities will be coordinated to achieve these goals. In addition, posts’ public diplomacy efforts generally lack important strategic communication elements found in the private sector, which GAO recommended that State adopt as a means to better communicate with target audiences. Key steps in this approach include defining core messages, identifying target audiences, developing detailed communication strategies and tactics, and using research and evaluation to inform and re-direct.

A recent Pew Global Attitudes Project reports finding that favorable attitudes toward the United States in Indonesia (the worlds most populous Muslim country) declined from 75% favorable to a mere 30% between 2000 and 2006. The same time period saw favorable perceptions among citizens of Turkey decline from 52% to 12%. (Turkey, remember, is a NATO ally of the United States.)

Consistently negative polling data is significant because it reveals deeply seated perceptions that are difficult to palliate.

It must be pointed out that correlation is not causation, yet it is obvious that growing anti-American sentiment does nothing to help the United States achieve foreign policy, economic or security goals, and in fact bodes ill for the future of American interests in the Islamic world.

We know that the Iraq War has no singular military solution, that diplomacy will be a key component of the eventual solution.

So…Is anyone feeling inspired?

There's more: "Anti-Americanism on the March" >>