After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
2006-09-17
Nepotism Trumps Knowledge in Iraq Reconstruction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have no reason to doubt these claims. They are horrible, and I want Bush held accountable for them.
However, all wars involve this sort of thing, even the sacred campaigns of the US Union Armby and the US GIs in WWII. Nadir would oppose this war today regardless of Bush's incompetance or curruption. I hope that other Bush voters will join join me in wanting to get to the bottom of these accusations, and take all neccessary and possible steps to prosecute those who used this war as a political goody bag.
Why do your criticisms of Bush's crimes always include a "however"?
And what does my opposition to the war have to do with Bush's crimes?
Is my credibility somehow stained because I am against the murder of innocent civilians and the raiding of the US treasury, while you advocate these attrocities?
My Bush criticisms contain "however" because they don't amount to my voting for a democrat or anybody else on the left, and they don't neccessarily amount to my withdrawing support for Bush's war.
And what your opposition to the war has to do with these criticisms is that since you have been so forcefully 100% opposed to the war since it even began, have never found even the slightist benefit from it, and seem to me to want it to fail, I do not take your criticisms as seriously as I would somebody who wants the war to succeed, and who is at least open to the possibility that it could benefit the Iraqis and the world. One such anti-war critic would be Bill Mahr who seems open to the possibility that the war might work, and might be "worth it." Thus when Mahr criticises the war, I don't automatically figure that he has scoured the news in search of more negative developments in order to prove his case and assist in the war's failure.
Does my percept of you logically figure into the validity of any particular criticism that you make? Of course not.
Post a Comment