Privatizing -er, Profitizing War
John Bonanno
of special privilege that take advantage of the opportunity which war
affords to more firmly entrench themselves in their control of government
and industry. These interests are amassing enormous fortunes out of the
world's misery." -Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin in 1917
"December 4, 2006 -- U.S. contractors looted billions in Iraq from
overcharging and superfluous fees. According to U.S. contractors who have
just returned from Iraq in what appears to be an evacuation of non-essential
U.S. civilians from the civil war-ravaged nation, a number of U.S.
contractors have pilfered the U.S. and Iraqi treasuries by running up huge
bills and charging for unnecessary services.
In addition, American contractor personnel report that when any U.S.
contractor is identified as overcharging or being involved in malfeasance,
they simply pass the contract (and the same contractor personnel) on to
another contractor. One such firm, Custer Battles LLC, a company with close
political ties to the Republican Party, was found guilty in March 2006 of
defrauding the U.S. government and ordered to pay $10 million for
overcharges. A federal judge later overturned the verdict based on the
ridiculous contention that the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority was not
a legal part of the U.S. government. Of course, the judge, Thomas Selby
Ellis, III, born in Bogota, Colombia, was a Reagan appointee to the infamous
"rocket docket" U.S. intelligence-centric U.S. District Court for Eastern
Virginia in Alexandria. Ellis, known as "Tim" to his friends and a former
Navy pilot, is a longtime friend of Senator John Warner, whose close
political links to defense contractors, such as the Fairfax, Virginia-based
Custer Battles, are legendary. Ellis is one of many GOP- and defense
industry-aligned "bought-and-paid for" judges on the federal bench.
German prosecutors in Darmstadt are investigating some $2 million in
deposits made in German banks by the wife of Custer Battles co-founder Mike
Battles. The deposits were made by Jacqueline Battles under her maiden name
Vihernik. Battles' wife has been placed on an electronic monitor by German
police and ordered to remain in Germany."-Wayne Madsen, Dec. 4, 2006
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
PollyC
> "December 4, 2006 -- U.S. contractors looted billions in Iraq from
> overcharging and superfluous fees. According to U.S. contractors who have
> just returned from Iraq in what appears to be an evacuation of non-essential
> U.S. civilians from the civil war-ravaged nation, a number of U.S.
> contractors have pilfered the U.S. and Iraqi treasuries by running up huge
> bills and charging for unnecessary services.
_________________________________
I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United
States as a result of this world disaster.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882-1945 - during World War II
A senator named Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating just
such misconduct during World War II, General Marshall later told him
that his committee was worth two divisions to the war effort. Back then
war profiteers were run out of town. Today it appears they run the town.
~Keith Olbermann, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (Sept. 19, 2006)
//PollyC
**Each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering.
- Stuart D. Brandes**
_____________________________________
David C Kifer
> I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United
> States as a result of this world disaster.
> ~Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882-1945 - during World War II
>
> A senator named Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating just
> such misconduct during World War II, General Marshall later told him
> that his committee was worth two divisions to the war effort. Back then
> war profiteers were run out of town. Today it appears they run the town.
> ~Keith Olbermann, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (Sept. 19, 2006)
>
>
> //PollyC
>
> **Each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering.
> - Stuart D. Brandes**
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
It's those "profiteers" who made, and continue to make, it possible to
fight a war with 150,000 men and 3,000 KIA instead of 1,500,000 men
and 60,000 KIA. Not a small thing, that, and worth a few "profiteers"
in exchange. Not only that, the entire Western Civilization is built
upon the possibility of becoming a "profiteer", otherwise known as one
who succeeds in a free market. And the war would be fought even more
effectively with those "profiteer-supplied tools" if it wasn't
shackled by so much "politically correct" nonsense.
Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of
disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and
that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible
this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in
such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit
of benevolence are the worst.
--Karl von Clausewitz, _On War_, ed. Anatol Rapoport (Great Britain:
Penguin Books, 1982), p. 102
--
Dave
"Tam multi libri, tam breve tempus!"
(Et brevis pecunia.) [Et breve spatium.]
PollyC
>>A senator named Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating just
>>such misconduct during World War II, General Marshall later told him
>>that his committee was worth two divisions to the war effort. Back then
>>war profiteers were run out of town. Today it appears they run the town.
>>~Keith Olbermann, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (Sept. 19, 2006)
> It's those "profiteers" who made, and continue to make, it possible to
> fight a war with 150,000 men and 3,000 KIA instead of 1,500,000 men
> and 60,000 KIA. Not a small thing, that, and worth a few "profiteers"
> in exchange. Not only that, the entire Western Civilization is built
> upon the possibility of becoming a "profiteer", otherwise known as one
> who succeeds in a free market. And the war would be fought even more
> effectively with those "profiteer-supplied tools" if it wasn't
> shackled by so much "politically correct" nonsense.
_______________________________________
In your indiscriminate rush to justify *anything* related to war and
bloodshed, Mr Kifer, you appear to have missed the difference between
making a profit and profiteering.
...
Profiteering/profiteer
# someone who makes excessive profit (especially on goods in short supply)
# make an unreasonable profit, as on the sale of difficult to obtain goods
~wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Profiteering, a term for making unconscionable or socially destructive
profits, especially in times of economic stress and widespread shortages.
~www.answers.com/topic/profit
//PollyC
_____________________________________
John Bonanno
"David C Kifer" wrote
> PollyC dipped mouse in ink and wrote:
>
>> I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United
>> States as a result of this world disaster.
>> ~Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882-1945 - during World War II
>>
>> A senator named Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating just
>> such misconduct during World War II, General Marshall later told him
>> that his committee was worth two divisions to the war effort. Back then
>> war profiteers were run out of town. Today it appears they run the town.
>> ~Keith Olbermann, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (Sept. 19, 2006)
>>
>>
>> //PollyC
>>
>> **Each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering.
>> - Stuart D. Brandes**
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________
>
> It's those "profiteers" who made, and continue to make, it possible to
> fight a war with 150,000 men and 3,000 KIA instead of 1,500,000 men and
> 60,000 KIA. Not a small thing, that, and worth a few "profiteers" in
> exchange. Not only that, the entire Western Civilization is built upon the
> possibility of becoming a "profiteer", otherwise known as one who succeeds
> in a free market. And the war would be fought even more effectively with
> those "profiteer-supplied tools" if it wasn't shackled by so much
> "politically correct" nonsense.
Wow! Those profiteers are doing a heckuva job! They are losing a war and
making a fortune. Daddy Warbucks would be proud.
But, according to von Clausewitz, we cannot win in Iraq:
"The country must be occupied, otherwise the enemy could raise fresh
military forces."
We have insufficient force in Iraq to accomplish this. We have insufficient
Will to raise the necessary army to do this.
Carl also states that "the fighting forces must be destroyed." We do not
even know who the fighting forces are.
A cursory perusal of my copy of Clausewitz seems to indicate that Carl does
not address terrorist tactics or civilian insurrection.
He has the classic "old Europe" mindset. He presupposes set armies opposing
each other in traditional ways. The bottom line is: the Will of the Iraqi
insurrectionists, of whatever persuasion, is vastly greater than the Will of
the American people to totally defeat and occupy the country.
"Since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its
political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to
be made for it in magnitude and also in duration. Once the expenditure of
effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be
renounced and peace must follow."-Carl Von Clausewitz
War as carried out by neocons is senseless passion.
The true political object of the war has never been revealed.
Therefore no one can judge whether the magnitude or the duration of this war
is worth any sacrifice.
When mad religionists fight wars based on magickal thinking with lust for
result, only failure can happen.
David C Kifer
> David C Kifer wrote:
>
>>> A senator named Harry Truman made a name for himself investigating just
>>> such misconduct during World War II, General Marshall later told him
>>> that his committee was worth two divisions to the war effort. Back then
>>> war profiteers were run out of town. Today it appears they run the
>>> town.
>>> ~Keith Olbermann, 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' (Sept. 19, 2006)
>
>
>
>> It's those "profiteers" who made, and continue to make, it possible to
>> fight a war with 150,000 men and 3,000 KIA instead of 1,500,000 men
>> and 60,000 KIA. Not a small thing, that, and worth a few "profiteers"
>> in exchange. Not only that, the entire Western Civilization is built
>> upon the possibility of becoming a "profiteer", otherwise known as one
>> who succeeds in a free market. And the war would be fought even more
>> effectively with those "profiteer-supplied tools" if it wasn't
>> shackled by so much "politically correct" nonsense.
>
> _______________________________________
>
> In your indiscriminate rush to justify *anything* related to war and
> bloodshed, Mr Kifer, you appear to have missed the difference between
> making a profit and profiteering.
Not hardly, and you should be grateful for those improvements that
make war less bloody for your troops.
Unless you plan to do away completely with your military and rely
entirely on the peace-keeping capability, the peace-making capability,
of the U.N. Good luck with that...
> ...
> Profiteering/profiteer
> # someone who makes excessive profit (especially on goods in short supply)
> # make an unreasonable profit, as on the sale of difficult to obtain goods
> ~wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
> Profiteering, a term for making unconscionable or socially destructive
> profits, especially in times of economic stress and widespread shortages.
> ~www.answers.com/topic/profit
Just *who* defines "excessive"? You? Me? The government? Since it
won't be you, and it won't be me, of course it will be the government.
Both of those terms are "political" terms that completely disregard
the Law of Supply and Demand, in favor of socialist/government control
of all prices that will eventually reduce any profit to the barest
minimum, if not zero, that being the only way to prevent anything
anyone might call "excessive", by placing rules on everything. Enjoy
the society it brings about, standing in lines for rationed goods in
short supply.
What do you define as "excessive" profit on a sale? One percent? Ten
percent? 20 percent?
Does it matter whether supply is short and demand is high, or vice-versa?
Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not
foresee.
-- Ludwig von Mises
PollyC
>>In your indiscriminate rush to justify *anything* related to war and
>>bloodshed, Mr Kifer, you appear to have missed the difference between
>>making a profit and profiteering.
>
>
> Not hardly, and you should be grateful for those improvements that
> make war less bloody for your troops.
> Unless you plan to do away completely with your military and rely
> entirely on the peace-keeping capability, the peace-making capability,
> of the U.N. Good luck with that...
Most of the profiteering in Iraq is from the so-called *reconstruction*
of infrastructure etc...but you knew that - so don't pull the ol' guilt
card that I don't care for *my troops* . It's a technique that goes
along with the Kifer side-step. <lol>
...
Even before US troops arrived in Baghdad, looting broke out--in
Washington. While Republicans in Congress and their allies in the media
yammered about the need to silence dissent and "support the troops,"
corporations with close ties to the Bush Administration were quietly
arranging to ink lucrative contracts that would put them in charge of
reconstructing Iraq.
~War Profiteering, The Nation
...
A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the
devastation in Iraq. The politics and process behind these deals have
always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they're
not even doing their jobs.
~Chris Kromm, 'Southern Exposure'
> Just *who* defines "excessive"? You? Me?
Get real, Mr Kifer. A child could define excessive, unconscionable and
socially destructive. A profit is excessive and unconscionable if you
take the money and don't do the work, for a start.
...
Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately
audited is beyond me. The potential for waste and profiteering under
such a contract is substantial.
~Donald Rumsfeld, Republican congressman from Illinois in 1966, raising
questions about the 30-year association between Halliburton's chairman
and then-president Lyndon Johnson.
...
Our country has a proud history of leaders who have stood up to the war
profiteers.
~Tara Purohit
//PollyC
_____________________________________
Catherine Deschevaux
> Unless you plan to do away completely with your military and rely
> entirely on the peace-keeping capability, the peace-making capability,
> of the U.N. Good luck with that...
_____________
You are arguing for the military solution from a VERY weak base at the
moment.
...
The commission's key recommendations carry an emphasis on diplomatic
engagement that has been missing from the Bush administration so far.
[..]The Baker-Hamilton report's most striking quality was its deep
pessimism about Iraq. But it placed whatever hopes it had on the value
of diplomacy, and the need to reach a careful consensus before taking
precipitous acts.
~Peter S. Canellos, Diplomacy call goes against Bush beliefs, The Boston
Globe (December 7, 2006)
The report painted a grim picture of Iraq nearly four years after U.S.
forces toppled Saddam Hussein. It urged Bush to embrace steps he has
thus far rejected, including a call to involve Syria and Iran in
negotiations over Iraq's future.
It warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a
risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of
Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."
"Neighboring countries could intervene. … The global standing of the
United States could be diminished. Americans could become more
polarized," commissioners said.
[..]
Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and
their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try
to engage them constructively.
~ABC News (Dec 7 2006)
So, will we be chatting with the Axis of Evil?
My, next we will be eating French Fries with our Humble Pie!!
//__________Catherine Deschevaux_____________
'Prenez haleine, tirez forte'
_____________________________________
David C Kifer
> You are arguing for the military solution from a VERY weak base at the
> moment.
You mean the Iraq Surrender Group? That group that was never meant to
do anything but provide a meaningless cover for the Dhimmi-crats to
cut and run from Iraq, as they do from anything difficult and painful?
That did nothing but "aid and abet" the enemy? That group that
consulted with "book reviewers" and reporters, rather than military
experts? That would rather ask the enemy to help us rather than
actually do anything ourselves?
The best way to avoid war with the Islamists, as you seem determined
to do, is to surrender immediately. Disband the "bikini protest" in Oz
against the Islamists I saw a report of [the only effect it will have
is to offend the Islamists even more], adopt Shari'a Law, convert and
buy a prayer rug and bow to Mecca or pay the Jizya tax as a good
Dhimmi must. Do it now, avoid all the terror attacks and the brutality
and unpredictability of war. They will accept nothing else. Don't call
US when you decide you don't like wearing a burka, etc.
"Aid and abet"
JERUSALEM – A high level U.S. commission's recommendations for an
eventual withdrawal from Iraq and for dialogue with Iran and Syria
proves "Islamic resistance" works and America will ultimately be
defeated, according to senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND.
The militants, from the largest Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza
Strip and West Bank, welcomed the policies outlined by the Iraq Study
Group, which they claim recognizes Islam is the "new giant of the world."
[...]
"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said
Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank
town of Jenin.
[...]
"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the
conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be
clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the
principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the
end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu
Ayman said.
According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called
military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by
"Allah and his angels."
"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big
superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen
(fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in
comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that
was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is
considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas'
Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance"
department.
[...]
Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be
defeated on its own soil.
"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin
America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S.
itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American)
land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.
[...]
"The Iraqi victory is a great message and lesson to the revolutionary
and freedom movements in the world. Just to think that this resistance
is led by hundreds of Sunni fighters who defeated hundreds of
thousands of Americans, British and thousands of soldiers who belong
to the puppet regime in Baghdad. What would be the situation if the
Shiites will decide to join the resistance?" commented Abu Nasser.
The Al Aqsa leader said his group learned from the "Iraqi resistance"
that jihad will ultimately destroy Israel.
-- Aaron Klein, Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan', December
6, 2006
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53269
"Expert advice"
It totals 96 pages, not counting its introductory letter from
Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton, the executive summary, and
the many appendices, which includes such helpful information as the
fact that the ISG talked to 15 senators (not one of whom was elected
for the first time since 9/11, creating a generation bias in the
interviews, one which appears replicated in the 10 House members
interviewed.,) and that of the 21 foreign officials interviewed, only
David Abramovich, the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, was consulted from the state most threatened by the
Iranian mullahs and Syrian thugs the ISG demands the US appeal to.
Incredibly, the ISG did not consult with anyone from the democratic
government of Lebanon, even as the ISG urges us to reach an
understanding with Syria.
Of the 43 "former officials and experts" consulted --including Mark
Danner of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Friedman, Leslie Gelb,
Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, Ken Pollack, Thomas Ricks, and George
Will-- the ISG did not find it necessary to talk with, say, Victor
Davis Hanson, Lawrence Wright, Robert Kaplan, Mark Steyn, Michael
Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, or Christopher Hitchens. The ISG did talk
with Bill Kristol. I wonder how long that sit down lasted?
The report combines an almost limitless condescension towards the
"Iraqi sovereign government," even going so far as to lay out a
timetable for its exact legislative program for the next six months,
with a cavalier indifference to the Syrian death squads operating in
Lebanon, and the certain nature of the Iranian regime --still, on this
very day, hosting the anti-Holocaust conference.
It is a wonder, this bit of appeasement virtuosity, and I think it
will gain for its authors all the lasting fame that has attached
itself to the name Samuel Hoare, and his brainchild, the Hoare-Laval
Agreement.
[...]
UPDATE: Correction: The ISG did talk to a second Israeli, Deputy
Minister of Defense of the State of Israel, Ephraim Sneh, and Reuel
Marc Gerecht was part of an "Expert Working Group" on "Political
Development," though not listed as an expert consulatation.
UPDATE: Just back from Iraq, T.F. Boggs offers another take on the
ISG. Key excerpt:
" What the group desperately needed was at least one their members
to have been in the military and had recent experience in Iraq. The
problem with having an entire panel with no one under the age of 67 is
that none of them could possibly know what the situation is actually
like on the ground in Iraq. Now I concede that it is possible to have
a good understanding of things as they stand in Iraq but unless you
interact with the people of Iraq and spend a year or years of your
life on ground you cannot possibly have a complete picture of the
situation.
We cannot appease our enemies and we cannot continue to cut and
run when the going gets tough. As it stands in the world right now our
enemies view America as a country full of queasy people who are
inclined to cut and run when things take a turn for the worse. Just as
the Tet Offensive was the victory that led to our failure in Vietnam
our victories in Iraq now are leading to our failure in the Middle
East. How many more times must we fight to fail? I feel like all of my
efforts (30 months of deployment time) and the efforts of all my
brothers in arms are all for naught. I thought old people were
supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but apparently I have
more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of
Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food-you can’t have what you want and have
it now. To completely change a country for the first time in it’s
entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years.
Talking doesn’t solve anything with a crazed people, bullets do
and we need to be given a chance to work our military magic. Like I
told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by
Islamofacists sucks more."
-- Hugh Hewitt, The ISG Report: The Emperor Has No Clothes
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/066799c9-7b4b-41fd-9c66-d2866b29a771
"Surrender now, with enemy help"
The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can
help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped
stabilize Poland in '39.
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on
losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got
elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to
dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a
runaway train and can't stop it now.
--Ann Coulter, Incoming Congress prepares to launch 'Operation Surrender'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53268
“Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local
fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire.
These people are flaming the fire.”
--Senator Joseph Lieberman, CBS “Face the Nation,” December 3, 2006
David C Kifer
> Catherine Deschevaux dipped mouse in ink and wrote:
>
>> You are arguing for the military solution from a VERY weak base at the
>> moment.
>
>
> You mean the Iraq Surrender Group? That group that was never meant to do
> anything but provide a meaningless cover for the Dhimmi-crats to cut and
> run from Iraq, as they do from anything difficult and painful? That did
> nothing but "aid and abet" the enemy? That group that consulted with
> "book reviewers" and reporters, rather than military experts? That would
> rather ask the enemy to help us rather than actually do anything ourselves?
For a report to identify the outside agitators (which happen to also
be the worst terrorist-sponsoring states in the world — Iran & Syria)
as “provid[ing] arms, financial support, and training for Shiite
militias within Iraq,” i.e., fomenting war, and then say we should
negotiate and offer incentives to those countries is simply too much
to bear. Insult is added to injury with the absurdity that Iran and
Syria then become members of something called the Iraq Support Group.
Committeeism simply got out of control here.
[...]
James Baker opened his thoughts today by saying Iraqis “have been
liberated from the nightmare of a tyrannical order only to face the
nightmare of brutal violence.” So much for any moral distinction
between a terrorist sponsoring dictatorship and an embattled, weak,
effort toward self-government. The distinction between permanent
darkness and days of light and darkness both, and a hope for dawn was
lost.
[...]
One reporter got it exactly right in his question: “[T]ell me, why
should the president give more weight to what you all have said given,
as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator
Robb. None of you made it out of the Green Zone. Why should he give
your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his
commanders on the ground in Iraq?”
Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or
even foreign policy? Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington
insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that
those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can
design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to
military service.” The entire report is contemptuous of the military,
spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and
trainers. Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors
in the world. Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or
even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this
commission?
I’ve heard again and again — at the press conference and on subsequent
interviews — variants of “this is how a commission should work in
Washington,” “this has been great bi-partisanship,” “it’s too bad we
can’t operate this way more,” “if any message is to be sent it’s the
message that five Republicans and five Democrats of goodwill sat down
since March and put together a remarkable document.”
This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug
across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. The crisis
of the house divided has been inverted; we no longer are worried about
the crisis but the House, the moral, the good, and the just take a
backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about
bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task
is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is
the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of
right and wrong. And, woe to those who disagree, they will be sent
whence they came — the outer reaches of “extremism.”
-- Bill Bennett, Smug, Arrogant, Insufferable, National Review
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFmNTdkMDUyMzVhMmY3Yjc4ZmU4YzYxMzZlNDBmZWE=
In late March, 2003, I was in the desert with a U.S. Army tank
company. We were going into action soon, but this was a lull, tanks
sitting ready in the desert. An officer and I were talking about what
we were doing there.
"In five years," he said, pointing to the Abrams tanks parked on the
sand around us. "The Iraqi Army will driving tanks like these." He
talked about his expectations for a free, democratic Iraq.
I told him I hoped so. I also believed in what we were doing. But I
knew that trying to terraform a politically and psychologically
traumatized Arab nation was a daunting task, and I wondered whether
the United States government, already with a lot of negative baggage
in the neighborhood, could do it. I didn't have any crystal ball, and
I never imagined what would in fact happen in Iraq. But I said to the
captain, "This is the easy part, what we're doing right now. The hard
part is what comes after."
[...]
I would learn more about the parts of war. About finding out that
friends are dead. About going forward into fire in the morning,
expecting to be dead by nightfall. I would learn that I could do this,
and discover how part of the brain just shuts down and other parts
come to life in combat, to carry you through. I discovered that I
liked it, and wanted more of it. A great surprise at the age of 42,
never having been a particularly brave person, that made me wonder
what kind of person I really was. Then, I would learn about the
strange feeling of being alive still when it was all over, when others
were dead. About coming home to be reviled and accused, and to see the
cause friends had died for disparaged.
But the cause still went forward, though it ran into problems and more
people died. Nothing is easy in life, this is what we learn,
everything's a fight, and that's why, by the time we're in our 40s,
most of us stop believing in giveaways and easy outs. We have to have
faith, but we have to be smart, and we have to be able to adjust.
Now, in this war of ours in Iraq, the pressure is not for a smart
adjustment. Four years into war, people are tired of it. As Americans,
with notoriously short attention spans, a lot of them maybe are bored
it. The pressure now, no matter how the Iraq Study Group cares to
couch it, is for abandonment. To pull out slowly. To ask a lot of
American soldiers not to die for a cause, but to die for a mistake.
The mistake of giving up. To go hat in hand to enemies who know they
only have to wait in order to win.
This is beginning to feel like another part of war I had not
experienced, something as terrible as all the other parts, the death
and the loss, because of what it means for those things. I know enough
about history to know this is what happens, maybe more often than not.
So is this going to be the betrayal part?
--Jules Crittenden, The Betrayal Part,
http://julescrittenden.blogspot.com/2006/12/betrayal-part.html
Catherine Deschevaux
> Don't call US when you decide you don't like wearing a burka, etc.
God Bless America for invading Iraq in an attempt to save me from the
burka! Although I think it would be useful keeping warm in those
Communist work camps I am still so frightened of....
...
President Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses
dependency-creating language. He employs language of contempt and
intimidation to shame others into submission and desperate admiration.
[...]
...the public, their electoral resistance broken down by empty language
and persuaded by personalization, is susceptible to Bush's most
frequently used linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative
framework is a pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and
maintains negative frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of
linguistic techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to instill
the image of a dark and evil world around us. Catastrophic words and
phrases are repeatedly drilled into the listener's head until the
opposition feels such a high level of anxiety that it appears pointless
to do anything other than cower.
~Renana Brooks, The Language of Power, Fear and Emptiness
The Nation, (July 2003)
//__________Catherine Deschevaux_____________
'Prenez haleine, tirez forte'
**To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be
proud of..
-Eugene Robinson, Using Our Fear, Washington Post(January 27, 2006)**
_________________________________________________
Daniel P. B. Smith
> Just *who* defines "excessive"? You? Me? The government? Since it
> won't be you, and it won't be me, of course it will be the government.
> Both of those terms are "political" terms that completely disregard
> the Law of Supply and Demand, in favor of socialist/government control
> of all prices that will eventually reduce any profit to the barest
> minimum, if not zero, that being the only way to prevent anything
> anyone might call "excessive", by placing rules on everything. Enjoy
> the society it brings about, standing in lines for rationed goods in
> short supply.
Safe in the hand of one disposing Pow'r,
Or in the natal, or the moral hour.
All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see
All discord, harmony not understood,
All partial evil, universal good:
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.
--Alexander Pope, "Essay on Man"
Everything's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
--Voltaire, parodying Leibnitz
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, usene...@dpbsmith.com
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://www.dpbsmith.com/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
David C Kifer
>> Just *who* defines "excessive"? You? Me?
>
>
> Get real, Mr Kifer. A child could define excessive, unconscionable and
> socially destructive. A profit is excessive and unconscionable if you
> take the money and don't do the work, for a start.
The latter is fraud, not profit, and is punishable by law. If it isn't
punished, that's a failure of justice, not a failure of economics, and
therefore outside this discussion.
Yes, a child, and everyone else *could* define "excessive", but the
child and everyone else each defines it differently. Except you. I did
notice you refused to answer a specific question about your own
definition. Doing the PollyC side-step, I see...
You tell me just how you define excessive profit, and I'll tell you
how I define it. Let's pin down that definition before we continue any
more discussion of "profiteering".
When the shallow critics denounce the profit motive inherent in our
system of private enterprise, they ignore the fact that it is an
economic support of every human right we possess and without it, all
rights would soon disappear.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
All the economic evils popularly ascribed to capitalism were caused,
necessitated, and made possible not by private enterprise, not by free
trade on a free market, but by government intervention into the
economy, by government controls, favors, subsidies, franchises, and
special privileges.
--Ayn Rand, The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age
Polly C
A profit is excessive and unconscionable if you
>> take the money and don't do the work, for a start.
>
> The latter is fraud, not profit, and is punishable by law.
It is fraud - it is also profiteering by the very definition of that
word. As to punishable by law, it depends on who has the power to make
the call, I guess.....
...
Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Introduction Of The War Profiteering Prevention Act Of 2006
March 2, 2006
Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, today I am introducing the "War Profiteering
Prevention Act of 2006.” This bill creates criminal penalties for war
profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would exploit the United
States Government's taxpayer-funded war and reconstruction efforts in
Iraq and elsewhere around the world. I am pleased that Senator Dorgan
has also included this legislation in the “Honest Leadership and
Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006” that is also being introduced
today.
I previously introduced this legislation in 2003. It came to be
cosponsored by 21 Senators, including Senators Clinton, Dodd, Feinstein,
Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold,
Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman and Reid. The Senate
Appropriations Committee unanimously accepted these provisions during a
Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 billion appropriations
bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and it passed the
Senate. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to
do now.
Regrettably, the Republican leadership in the House stripped this
legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have
been witnessing the results in the meantime.
Billions appropriated for the continuing war efforts and for
reconstruction are unaccounted for, and fraud has been rampant. The
recent report of the special inspector general confirms that U.S.
taxpayer funds appropriated for reconstruction have been lost and diverted.
There are, of course, anti-fraud laws to protect against waste of tax
dollars at home. But none expressly prohibits war profiteering, and none
expressly confers jurisdiction for fraud overseas. This bill would
criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers in order to
defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or
reconstruction efforts. It would prohibit any fraud against the United
States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in
connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction
activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal
penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or
twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200603/030206d.html
Comment:
So, Mr Kifer in 2003, "Republican leadership in the House stripped this
legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have
been witnessing the results in the meantime."
Why would they do that, and thus open the door to ripping off the US
taxpayer?
Interested folk would like to know.
//PollyC
AQ website: Photos, FAQ, AQers websites
http://www.altquotations.com/
___________________________________
Catherine Deschevaux
> You mean the Iraq Surrender Group?
The latest neocon to weigh in with preemptive rhetoric about the Iraq
Study Group is Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security
Policy, in today's Washington Times. Gaffney calls the ISG "the Iraq
Surrender Group," a name for which he thanks John Wohlstetter, offsping
of Albert Wohlstetter, the founder of neocon national security policy.
Gaffney calls the ISG "unelected, unaccountable, and substantially
unqualified."
~ Richard Dreyfuss, The Dreyfuss report
Comment:
"Unelected, unaccountable, and substantially unqualified.
Mmm! Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? ;-)
/__________Catherine Deschevaux_____________
'Prenez haleine, tirez forte'
**Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and
fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They
will.
-John McCain (2004) **
__________________________
David C Kifer
> Comment:
> So, Mr Kifer in 2003, "Republican leadership in the House stripped this
> legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have
> been witnessing the results in the meantime."
>
> Why would they do that, and thus open the door to ripping off the US
> taxpayer?
> Interested folk would like to know.
Still sidestepping the definition of excessive profit, I see.
Shouldn't be that difficult, even a *child* could do it, according to
some authority upthread.
Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of
things a man chooses or avoids.
-- Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, c. 322BC
Polly C
> Still sidestepping the definition of excessive profit, I see.
> Shouldn't be that difficult, even a *child* could do it, according to
> some authority upthread.
I believe I have remained totally on topic. The AQ reader will have to
decide for themselves who sidesteps in debate. Want to make a bet on it?
<lol>
Your personal definition from this thread ... *a "profiteer", otherwise
known as one who succeeds in a free market*. I disputed that definition
of profiteer - it's merely a blatant white-wash, and not correct. (see
dictionary definitions this thread)
...
When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge
and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying
unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate
committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady
wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement
and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior
was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President
Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised
the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War
Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who
became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped
to be FDR's running mate in 1944.
Comment:
Note that Excess-profits tax!
Why are you asking *me* what is an excess profit? The appropriate laws
and courts decide that So go check your laws.
Shouldn't be difficult. Even a child can google.
...
Under the Leahy amendment (2006), war profiteering is defined as
“materially overvaluing” any good or service with the specific intent to
“excessively profit” from the war and relief or reconstruction activities.
Both “materiality” and “overvaluation” are common terms in the
criminal code and have been appropriately interpreted and applied by the
courts and juries for years.
War profiteering is defined as materially overvaluing any good or
service with the specific intent to “excessively profit” from the war
and relief or reconstruction activities.
The term "excessively profit", is taken directly from the
Renegotiation Act, a World War II era statute, repealed at the end of
the war, designed to prevent profiteering.
The constitutionality of Renegotiation Act was upheld in by the
Supreme Court in Lichter v. United States, 68 U.S. 1294 (1948).
The Court later found that the term “excessive profits” provides
sufficient guidance to the fact-finder (e.g. a jury). Touby v. United
States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991).
There is ample case law that establishes specific guidelines for
making this determination.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200406/061504.html
//PollyC
**Treason
- Harry Truman referring to war profiteering**
________________________________
David C Kifer
> David C Kifer wrote:
>
>> Still sidestepping the definition of excessive profit, I see.
>> Shouldn't be that difficult, even a *child* could do it, according to
>> some authority upthread.
>
> __________________________
>
> I believe I have remained totally on topic. The AQ reader will have to
> decide for themselves who sidesteps in debate. Want to make a bet on it?
> <lol>
>
> Your personal definition from this thread ... *a "profiteer", otherwise
> known as one who succeeds in a free market*. I disputed that definition
> of profiteer - it's merely a blatant white-wash, and not correct. (see
> dictionary definitions this thread)
Your definition of profiteer was one who made excessive profit, I quote:
> Profiteering/profiteer
> # someone who makes excessive profit (especially on goods in short supply)
> # make an unreasonable profit, as on the sale of difficult to obtain goods
> ~wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I said profiteer was a political word applied to anyone who succeeded
in the free market, and asked you to further define profiteer by
defining excessive profit.
> Comment:
> Note that Excess-profits tax!
> Why are you asking *me* what is an excess profit? The appropriate laws
> and courts decide that So go check your laws.
> Shouldn't be difficult. Even a child can google.
This, and your following quotes, are just more political talk, not a
definition of "excessive profit", and simply support my statement that
such a term is political, to be defined by the government as
influenced by ever-changing political reasons, not an economic term
defined by choices made in the market. As such, I'm asking *your*
definition of "excessive profit" so that I know which political
solution you support.
Making unreasonable profits from war is widely considered unethical
and is deeply unpopular, so attempts to prohibit excessive war
profiteering, such as the imposition of an excess profits tax, receive
much political support in wartime. *Defining 'excessive' accurately is
difficult, however*, and such legislation frequently allows some
instances of profiteering to go unchecked while reducing the income of
others' war-related business to loss-making levels.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/profiteer
[my *emphasis*]
The Chinese Fire Marshal
> > In your indiscriminate rush to justify *anything* related to war and
> > bloodshed, Mr Kifer, you appear to have missed the difference between
> Just *who* defines "excessive"? You? Me? The government? Since it
> won't be you, and it won't be me, of course it will be the government.
"Government auditors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency
have identified more than $1 billion in 'questioned' Halliburton
costs. DCAA challenged most of these costs as "unreasonable
in amount" after completing audit action because they 'exceed
that which would be incurred by a prudent person.' The auditors
found (1) $813 million in questioned costs under Halliburton's
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract to
provide support services to the troops and (2) $219 million in
questioned costs under the company's Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO)
contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. The magnitude of
these questioned costs significantly exceeds previously known
estimates. The DCAA auditors have also found that an additional
$442 million in Halliburton's charges are 'unsupported.' As a
result, Halliburton's total 'questioned' and 'unsupported' costs
exceed $1.4 billion."
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2#parsonsoverbill
John Bonanno
"David C Kifer" <dkif...@MOVEearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:elev5...@news2.newsguy.com...
Yes, with Republicans running all branches of government, there is no legal
definition of "war-profiteering" simply because there is no law regarding
it at this time. After all, legally speaking, this is not really a "time of
war". There has been no declaration of same by Congress. How convenient
that Halliburton, at one time was garnering 52% of the Iraq war contracts
with "cost plus" provisions. And how convenient that the Vice President
retains stock options in the company that he once ran (and gleefully did
business with Iran).
Rest assured that the Democrats will quickly give us definitions under law
of Iraq "war profiteering" and the gravy train will begin to slow down.
A good bill that Republicans buried will rise from the dead. Stand by you
greedy traitrous Republicans.
"I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will create new and better tools
to combat fraud, waste and abuse in government contracting. I commend our
chief sponsor, Senator Byron Dorgan, for his leadership on this.
The spirit of Give 'Em Hell Harry is alive and well today in Senator Dorgan.
One of Harry Truman's greatest contributions to the nation came not while he
was President, but when he was a senator, when he took on the challenge of
watchdogging waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracts. I'm proud to have
been part of this modern-day band of watchdogs in recent years as we have
stood up for America's taxpayers and America's troops.
Waste, fraud and abuse in the name of defense is doubly destructive and
doubly offensive, and it should never be tolerated. It saps resources
needed by our troops and it plays the taxpayers for fools, all the while
hiding under the cover of national defense.
Just this week we learned that the Army has quietly awarded Halliburton more
than $250 million in reimbursements, profits and bonuses that government
auditors had concluded were unreasonable and unsupported.
That's another great government deal for Halliburton, but it's a very bad
deal for our taxpayers and our troops. In collusion with an Administration
that either just doesn't care, or worse, Halliburton has found a formula for
mischief in this Administration's lax standards for federal contracting.
Our bill establishes new criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats
who, for ill-gotten gain, would exploit the chaos of war, or the devastation
of a natural disaster to defraud American taxpayers. I previously
introduced a section of this bill on anti-war profiteering in 2003, and I am
pleased that Senator Dorgan has included this legislation in the Honest
Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act.
This legislation also promotes openness and fairness in contracting, and it
includes safeguards to end cronyism and eliminate conflicts of interest in
contracting decisions. It also strengthens the federal protections afforded
to whistleblowers who alert the public to contract fraud and misconduct.
Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be protected from waste and federal
contract -- which are paid for with taxpayer funds -- should be open and
transparent. This is an accountability bill, and the Senate will face its
own accountability moment when this bill comes to a vote. The taxpayers
deserve this to be one of our highest priorities." -Remarks Of Sen. Patrick
Leahy News Conference On The Honest Leadership And Accountability In
Contracting Act Of 2006 Thursday, March 2, 2006
Polly C
> "Government auditors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency
> have identified more than $1 billion in 'questioned' Halliburton
> costs. DCAA challenged most of these costs as "unreasonable
> in amount" after completing audit action because they 'exceed
> that which would be incurred by a prudent person.' The auditors
> found (1) $813 million in questioned costs under Halliburton's
> Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract to
> provide support services to the troops and (2) $219 million in
> questioned costs under the company's Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO)
> contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. The magnitude of
> these questioned costs significantly exceeds previously known
> estimates. The DCAA auditors have also found that an additional
> $442 million in Halliburton's charges are 'unsupported.' As a
> result, Halliburton's total 'questioned' and 'unsupported' costs
> exceed $1.4 billion."
> http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2#parsonsoverbill
>
The war for liberty never ends. One day liberty has to be defended
against the power of wealth, on another day against the intrigues of
politicians, on another against the dead hand of bureaucrats, on another
against the patrioter and the militarist, on another against the
profiteer, and then against the hysteria and the passions of the mobs,
against obscurantism and stupidity, against the criminal and against the
overrighteous. In this campaign every civilized man is enlisted till he
dies, and he only has known the full joy of living who somewhere and at
some time has struck a decisive blow for the freedom of the human spirit.
~ Walter Lippmann 1889–1974
//PollyC
_____________________________________
Flykke ~
>>You are arguing for the military solution from a VERY weak base at the
>>moment.
> You mean the Iraq Surrender Group?
_______________________________________
Prince Humperdinck: Surrender.
Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.
~ dialogue, The Princess Bride (1987)
//Flykke~
_____________________________________
PollyC
As such, I'm asking *your*
> definition of "excessive profit" so that I know which political
> solution you support.
Which political solution I personally support on ANY issue is irrelevant
to the thread, and beyond the mandate of a quotations group.
AQ is not a personal soap-box/blog.
...
I take politics only medicinally, as a cure of occasional attacks of
insomnia.
~Kenneth Hare (1888--1962)
//PollyC
_____________________________________
PollyC
> Yes, with Republicans running all branches of government, there is no legal
> definition of "war-profiteering" simply because there is no law regarding
> it at this time. After all, legally speaking, this is not really a "time of
> war". There has been no declaration of same by Congress. How convenient
> that Halliburton, at one time was garnering 52% of the Iraq war contracts
> with "cost plus" provisions. And how convenient that the Vice President
> retains stock options in the company that he once ran (and gleefully did
> business with Iran).
___________________________________________________
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower President of the United States (and former
General of the Army), Farewell Address to the Nation (January 17, 1961)
//PollyC
_____________________________________
PollyC
> "Government auditors at the Defense Contract Audit Agency
> have identified more than $1 billion in 'questioned' Halliburton
> costs. DCAA challenged most of these costs as "unreasonable
> in amount" after completing audit action because they 'exceed
> that which would be incurred by a prudent person.'
____________________________________________________
The most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the
course of my professional career.
~Bunnatine (Bunny) H. Greenhouse [former chief contracting officer of
the United States Army Corps of Engineers] - in testimony alleging
specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities
by Halliburton with regard to its operations in Iraq since the Iraq War.
(June 27, 2005)
A top U.S. Army contracting official who criticized a large,
noncompetitive Iraq contract with Halliburton was demoted for what the
army called a poor job performance....Known as a stickler for the rules
on competition, Greenhouse initially received stellar performance
ratings. But her reviews grew critical after she began objecting to
decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg, Brown & Root [the
engineering and construction arm of the Halliburton Company]
~ Eric Eckhol, The New York Times (Aug 30 2005)
//PollyC
**Whistleblowers are usually ordinary people, often longstanding
employees and experts in their field, who take huge professional and
personal risks to blow the whistle on corporate and governmental
wrongdoing. They are often a lesser-known but vitally important part of
government and industry regulatory and advisory systems. They are
generally harassed, vilified, and fired or forced to resign.
-www.sourcewatch.org**
David C Kifer
> David C Kifer wrote:
> As such, I'm asking *your*
>
>> definition of "excessive profit" so that I know which political
>> solution you support.
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Which political solution I personally support on ANY issue is irrelevant
> to the thread, and beyond the mandate of a quotations group.
> AQ is not a personal soap-box/blog.
Nonetheless, your definition of terms is still important, and you are
still PollyC-dancing around it.
Everything that thou reprovest in another, thou must most carefully
avoid in thyself.
--Cicero
David C Kifer
> _____________________________
>
> The war for liberty never ends. One day liberty has to be defended
> against the power of wealth, on another day against the intrigues of
> politicians, on another against the dead hand of bureaucrats, on another
> against the patrioter and the militarist, on another against the
> profiteer, and then against the hysteria and the passions of the mobs,
> against obscurantism and stupidity, against the criminal and against the
> overrighteous. In this campaign every civilized man is enlisted till he
> dies, and he only has known the full joy of living who somewhere and at
> some time has struck a decisive blow for the freedom of the human spirit.
> ~ Walter Lippmann 1889–1974
Strange that Lippman never mentioned the "barbarians" who want to
destroy not only liberty but the countries and the people who practice it.
Either kill the tiger or be eaten by him--one or the other.
--J. R. Nyquist, _Origins of the Fourth World War, 1999
The Chinese Fire Marshal
> Polly C dipped mouse in ink and wrote:
>
> > _____________________________
> >
> > The war for liberty never ends. One day liberty has to be defended
> > against the power of wealth, on another day against the intrigues of
> > politicians, on another against the dead hand of bureaucrats, on another
> > against the patrioter and the militarist, on another against the
> > profiteer, and then against the hysteria and the passions of the mobs,
> > against obscurantism and stupidity, against the criminal and against the
> > overrighteous. In this campaign every civilized man is enlisted till he
> > dies, and he only has known the full joy of living who somewhere and at
> > some time has struck a decisive blow for the freedom of the human spirit.
>
> Strange that Lippman never mentioned the "barbarians" who want to
> destroy not only liberty but the countries and the people who practice it.
The "barbarians" can police their own profiteers, Dave. Now get
out of the way and let us police ours.*
"Food items were being brought into the base that were outdated or
expired as much as a year. We were told by the KBR food service
managers to use these items anyway. This food was fed to the troops.
A lot of these were frozen foods: chicken, beef, fish, and ice cream.
For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to
go into the trucks and remove the food items and use them after
removing the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.
We were told to turn the removed bullets over to the managers for
souvenirs."
-- Rory Mayberry, Former KBR Food Production Manager
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2#parsonsoverbill
-- CFM
*(fighting Kiferism with Kiferism)
Polly C
>> Which political solution I personally support on ANY issue is irrelevant
>> to the thread, and beyond the mandate of a quotations group.
>> AQ is not a personal soap-box/blog.
>
> Nonetheless, your definition of terms is still important, and you are
> still PollyC-dancing around it.
__________________
What part of this earlier quote I posted did you NOT understand, Mr Kifer?
It seems pretty clear to me.
...
Repost:
War profiteering is defined as materially overvaluing any good or
service with the specific intent to “excessively profit” from the war
and relief or reconstruction activities.
The term "excessively profit", is taken directly from the
Renegotiation Act, a World War II era statute, repealed at the end of
the war, designed to prevent profiteering.
The constitutionality of Renegotiation Act was upheld in by the
Supreme Court in Lichter v. United States, 68 U.S. 1294 (1948).
The Court later found that the term “excessive profits” provides
sufficient guidance to the fact-finder (e.g. a jury). Touby v. United
States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991).
There is ample case law that establishes specific guidelines for
making this determination.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200406/061504.html
Comment:
I am bored with your posts on this subject now. I, and other posters,
have made our point. You, however, as is your wont, are flogging a dead
horse.
//PollyC
AQ website: Photos, FAQ, AQers websites
http://www.altquotations.com/
_____________________________________
David C Kifer
> David C Kifer wrote:
>
>>> Which political solution I personally support on ANY issue is irrelevant
>>> to the thread, and beyond the mandate of a quotations group.
>>> AQ is not a personal soap-box/blog.
>>
>>
>> Nonetheless, your definition of terms is still important, and you are
>> still PollyC-dancing around it.
>
> __________________
>
>
> What part of this earlier quote I posted did you NOT understand, Mr Kifer?
> It seems pretty clear to me.
Oh, I understood perfectly that you were side-stepping a specific
question, *your* number definition of excessive profit -- 1%, 5%, 10%,
20%, x% -- by giving me a bureaucratic definition of government weasel
words that allow it to do whatever it wants. You did not give me *your
own* definition, unless you mean to suggest that you are quite willing
to allow the government to define such a thing because you have no
definition of your own. But that wouldn't surprise me.
> Comment:
> I am bored with your posts on this subject now. I, and other posters,
> have made our point. You, however, as is your wont, are flogging a dead
> horse.
Then you probably won't see this, but others will. You have flogged
the same dead horse many times in your attempt to agree with the Islam
extremists that America is the Great Satan.
Of all delusions, one delusion, above all others, worms its
invertebrate way into the American consciousness. It is the
misbegotten fancy of every full-blown peacemonger and treaty-maniac.
Its name? Disarmament--which means: a predilection for walking naked
into the jaws of destruction.
--J. R. Nyquist, _Origins of the Fourth World War_, 1999
The Chinese Fire Marshal
> **Each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering.
> - Stuart D. Brandes**
"In summary, the source water used for our soldiers at
Ar-Ramadi was basically diluted sewage; highly polluted
and completely unacceptable by any standard for being
used without robust treatment. In what appears to be a
profound misunderstanding of the way a reverse osmosis
unit works, concentrated untreated polluted water was
provided to our soldiers for hygienic purposes that is highly
likely to make them sick. They would have been better off
being provided with water straight from the Euphrates River."
-- Jeffrey K. Griffiths, Professor Public Health and Medicine,
Tufts University School of Medicine
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2#parsonsoverbill
Catherine Deschevaux
> Then you probably won't see this, but others will. You have flogged
> the same dead horse many times in your attempt to agree with the Islam
> extremists that America is the Great Satan.
___________________________
I said I was bored with discussing this topic, -it's been over-worked-
not that I have stopped reading. I am not continuing to
discuss profiteering.
btw I do not believe I have ever begun a single thread in AQ. I respond
only. If I repeat a topic it is only because someone ELSE has dragged it
up again.
Your response here, however, is typical of the appalling, unjust
attitude Catherine Deschevaux chooses to expose. Thank you for being so
predictable!
As for playing the game - I imagine I could beat you at chess, too...
but you'd probably tip over the board and call me a cheat.
...
Resisting American bullying in connection with Iraq is not the same as
supporting Saddam. 'If you are not for us, you are against us' is
another example of simplistic, childish, black and white U.S. thinking.
~Stuart Yates, on The Activist
Comment:
Drop it, Mr Kifer. The horse is gasping...and I have moved from boredom
to irritation. I am probably not alone.
//__________Catherine Deschevaux_____________
'Prenez haleine, tirez forte'
_____________________________________
Roo-Barb
> Nonetheless, your definition of terms is still important, and you are
> still PollyC-dancing around it.
Although the most common POL dance competitions are still amateur nights
at strip clubs, there is a growing community who are trying to get POL
dancing taken seriously as a sport and art form.
~wiki
//Roo-Barb
_________________________________________________
Polly C
> I said I was bored with discussing this topic, -it's been over-worked-
> not that I have stopped reading. I am not continuing to
> discuss profiteering.
> btw I do not believe I have ever begun a single thread in AQ. I respond
> only. If I repeat a topic it is only because someone ELSE has dragged it
> up again.
>
> Your response here, however, is typical of the appalling, unjust
> attitude Catherine Deschevaux chooses to expose. Thank you for being so
> predictable!
> As for playing the game - I imagine I could beat you at chess, too...
> but you'd probably tip over the board and call me a cheat.
>
> ....
>
> Resisting American bullying in connection with Iraq is not the same as
> supporting Saddam. 'If you are not for us, you are against us' is
> another example of simplistic, childish, black and white U.S. thinking.
> ~Stuart Yates, on The Activist
>
> Comment:
> Drop it, Mr Kifer. The horse is gasping...and I have moved from boredom
> to irritation. I am probably not alone.
____________________________________
What she said. (Catherine jumped in when I should have responded...must
be her vivacious French genes!)
The "you love terrorists you nasty anti-American" gambit is insulting to
ANY AQer who would quite rightly be outraged at the impertinence. None
of the AL posters have ever referred to America as the Great Satan (a
Google archive check shows that the users of that term in AQ have been
overwhelmingly David Kifer, followed by the Inspector, and then aloha
and wordkyle.) Nor have the AL ever agreed with Islam extremists. They
have disagreed with invading Iraq as a means to fight terror. There is a
BIG DIFFERENCE which some folk seem unable to grasp.
...
"What is 'anti-Americanism'? If it is opposition to murderous and
destructive US policies, should we prevent its rise?
~Noam Chomsky
//PollyC
**American paranoia would be hilarious if it didn’t have such brutal
consequences for the rest of the us
-halo**
_____________________________________
Kenneth S.
"Polly C" <POLL...@XCAPSbigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Gp2fh.6122$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Catherine Deschevaux
> In that case, it's time for Catherine Deschevaux to take up the cudgels.
__________________________
I did - it was instinctive dealing with the US proctocracy* and its
blinkered cheer-squad! <s>
*With acknowledgement to the AQ reader who recently introduced me to
this term. <s>
And as every war-monger knows....
...
Baton porte paix
A cudgel brings peace.
~French proverb
//__________Catherine Deschevaux_____________
'Prenez haleine, tirez forte'
**Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq.
-George W. Bush, (Feb 7, 2004)**
_____________________________________
Polly C
> out of the way and let us police ours.*
What the rest of us have to remember is that dissent in a democracy is
not unpatriotic, what is unpatriotic is subservience to a bad policy.
~ Wm Sloane Coffin, interview with Ralph Nader "None of Us Have the
Right to Avert Our Gaze", Counterpunch (Oct 19, 2005)
//PollyC
**It is this quality [virtue] rather than fear or ambition, that makes
things work in a democracy.
-Montesquieu**
_____________________________________