War
Profiteers
"War
is a Racket" is marine general, Smedley
Butler's classic treatise on why wars are conducted, who profits
from them, and who pays the price. Few people are as qualified as General Butler
to advance the argument encapsulated in his book's sensational title. When "War
is a Racket" was first published in 1935, Butler was the most decorated American
soldier of his time. He had lead several successful military operations in the
Caribbean and in Central America, as well as in Europe during the First World
War. Despite his success and his heroic status, however, Butler came away from
these experiences with a deeply troubled view of both the purpose and the
results of warfare.
Butler's central
thesis is that regardless of the popular rhetoric that often accompanies
warfare, it is waged almost exclusively for profit. He advances this argument in
three decisive examples.
EXAMPLE 1:
CORPORATE MILITARY PROFITS RESULTING FORM WAR
In an early version of
"follow the money", Butler provides pre- and post-World War I data on some of
America's leading corporations to demonstrate the surge in profits that they
experienced from the war, often totaling several hundred percent. While some
companies, such as Dupont, arguably produced goods that contributed directly to
America's military victory in 1918, others such as saddle manufacturers did not.
Even when these companies failed to contribute directly to the war effort, they
still managed to lobby the government to retrain or expand their contracts. Its
as though powerful, well connected oil services company today were to contract
with the government to supply oil to the military during a foreign campaign and
then deliberately overcharge it.
EXAMPLE 2:
INVESTING IN OTHER NATIONS' WARS
Butler argues that the
United States practically doomed itself to entering the First World War the
moment it began lending money and material to the allies. Once the allies were
faced with certain defeat, argues Butler, they approached American government
and business officials and flatly told them that unless they were victorious
they would not be able to repay their staggering debt. In the event that Germany
and the axis powers won the war, they would have no motivation to assume and
repay the allied debt to the United States. America entered the First World War,
according to Butler, in order to guarantee the repayment of its massive military
loans to the allies. No allied victory meant no repayment, which meant no
profit. Thousands of American soldiers were killed or maimed, argues Butler, to
protect corporate profits.
EXAMPLE 3: THE
MILITARY AS A COROPORATE THUG
Based on his own service
experience in Central America and the Caribbean Butler argues that most American
military interventions in small countries were done in order to "clear the way"
for American corporations to set up shop and commence pillaging. It would be as
if the United States were to occupy an oil-rich nation and then start doling out
"rebuilding" contracts to some of its largest and best-connected corporations.
WHO PAYS FOR
WAR
Having
focused on who profits from war, Butler then examines who pays the price. The
answer, unsurprisingly enough is the average taxpayer and the young people who
are either slaughtered in wartime or who return home physically and
psychologically damaged. Sadly, Butler points out, once these young people are
no longer useful they are ignored by their own government and are left to suffer
without assistance. It's as though a president were to employ a lot of rhetoric
about supporting our troops while using them to occupy and oil-rich nation, but
were to secretly slash their hazardous duty pay and veterans benefits.
THE SOLUTION: END
WAR PROFITEERING
Butler's solution to
preventing the carnage and social injustices of war is to eliminate business
leaders' ability to make a profit from war or to avoid serving in it themselves.
He also argues that those who put their lives at risk should have a say in
whether or not to wage war. This may sound like a lot of idealistic, socialist
nonsense, but think about it. Would the United States have invaded an oil-rich
nation if its unelected president had been forced to serve in the front lines as
part of the process? Would business interests have supported the war if they
never stood to profit from it? Probably not.
"War is a Racket" also
contains other interesting factoids including General Butler's successful
prevention of a right-wing coup against President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Unfortunately, no one of General Butler's caliber was able to prevent a similar
coup from taking place in 2000.
General Butler also
makes a persuasive case for the United States to remain isolationist and to
avoid involving itself in the coming European war (This book was published
shortly before World War II.). Using his considerable grasp of military
logistics, Butler counters many of the prevailing arguments of his day that
Hitler posed a direct military threat to the United States. Unfortunately, no
one of General Butler's caliber was available to counter a similar argument that
right wing policy makers advanced about a tiny oil-rich nation in the Middle
East posing a direct military threat to the United States.
To anyone who doubts the
veracity or efficacy of this book, I have a humble but useful suggestion. Ask
yourself who makes money off of war. Then ask yourself if they ever make the
physical, mental, or fiscal sacrifices for war. Finally ask yourself who
ultimately makes the sacrifices and pays the prices. Most people who favor war
either profit from it, or are seduced by the idea of it. General Butler's book
is a concise, and brilliantly argued treatise on the reality of war. Of course
most people prefer a beautiful idea to harsh reality, and that is why
propagandists and politicians are so successful.
Source: Book Review by
Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States)
Who
is profiting from the Iraq War?
War
Profits: Perle's Conniving
Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by The
Charleston Gazette
Editorial
The most sensational war profits
dispute forced Richard Perle to resign as chairman of a Pentagon board that sets
war policies. Here’s the story:
Perle, who was assistant secretary
of defense under President Reagan, is a militant “hawk” allied to the Bush
family in Republican politics. Washington enemies call him “the Prince of
Darkness.” In the late 1990s, while Democrat Bill Clinton still was president,
Perle joined Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and other
far-right figures in an outfit called the Project for the New American Century.
PNAC issued a strategic plan calling for America’s awesome military superiority
to be used to impose U.S. sway over the entire planet.
After Bush was awarded the
presidency, most of the PNAC members got top administration posts. Rumsfeld
became defense secretary. Wolfowitz became his deputy. Perle headed the
Pentagon’s war policy board. Variously, they helped draft the “Bush Doctrine,”
which says the White House may unleash a pre-emptive military attack on any
nation it thinks might pose a future danger to America. Perle became a top
advocate of war against Iraq.
The clamor to attack the Arab nation
caused The Economist of London to observe that Perle, Wolfowitz and some other
Bush military planners are Jewish, which raises suspicion that they might be
“more concerned with protecting Israel than they are with advancing America’s
national interest.” But the British journal said such fears are rooted in
America’s former anti-Semitism.
Just as the Iraq war was launched,
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed in The New Yorker that Perle met
in France with notorious Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi to discuss “the
future of Iraq” and to invite another wealthy Saudi to invest in Perle’s
national security firm, Trireme Partners. Khashoggi became famous in the 1980s
because he helped Oliver North and other conspirators in the Reagan White House
arrange illegal arms sales to Iran and use the profits to arm Contras who
attacked Nicaraguans.
Meanwhile, it came to light that
Global Crossing, the bankrupt telecommunications giant, hired Perle to overcome
Pentagon objections to the firm’s takeover by Asian owners. Perle was paid a
$125,000 fee, plus a promise of $600,000 more if he succeeded in changing the
Pentagon’s view.
It was a brazen conflict of interest
for a Bush insider holding a high Pentagon post to take money to influence
Pentagon policy — especially since the money came from a sleaze-tainted firm.
Newspapers around America raised a protest.
Also, Perle participated in a
Goldman Sachs conference call advising investors how to reap war profits. The
session was titled “Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now, North Korea
Next?”
An Idaho Mountain Express columnist
sneered: “Perle is a man who obviously believes in making hay while others fight
the war he promoted.” Columnist Arianna Huffington commented on the Global
Crossing deal:
“Perle’s windfall is coming from the
coffers of a disgraced company that was among the worst of the corporate crooks.
He’s lining his pockets at the expense of the 10,000 laid-off Global employees,
who collectively saw $32 million in severance pay wiped out, and the
shareholders, who lost $57 billion in equity when the company declared
bankruptcy.”
Amid this uproar, Perle declared
that he had done nothing wrong. He called Hersh “the closest thing American
journalism has to a terrorist.” He threatened to sue Hersh. Finally,
Perle was forced to step down as chairman of the Pentagon board — but he remains
a member.
This
sorry mess shows how some members of the boardroom elite who are entwined in
Republican politics hope to profit from the tragedy of the Iraq war. It’s a
disturbing picture.
WASHINGTON (CNN)
--
One of the
Pentagon's top civilian advisers resigned Thursday, saying he wanted to defuse a
controversy over charges he stood to profit from the war in
Iraq.
Richard Perle resigned
as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Critics said Perle had
a conflict of interest because he took a consulting job for the bankrupt
telecommunications firm Global Crossing Ltd., which is trying to get the
government to approve its purchase by a joint venture of two Asian firms.
The AP reported that
according to lawyers and others involved in the bankruptcy case, Perle would
receive $600,000 if the deal is approved, in addition to a $125,000 fee.
Pentagon
adviser Richard Perle
briefed an investment seminar on ways to profit from conflicts in Iraq and North
Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government briefing on the
crises in the two countries.
Perle, who until March was chairman
of the Defense Policy Board, a group of outside advisers to the Pentagon, also
serves on the board of several defense contractors. His actions raise
concerns about conflicts of interest.
Perle attended a Defense
Intelligence Agency briefing in February and three weeks later participated in a
Goldman Sachs conference call in which he advised investors in a talk titled
Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea
Next?
A financial advisor who participated
in the conference call told Capitol Hill Blue that Perle offered "advice on how
to cash if war broke out in Iraq and/or North Korea."
Perle did not return phone calls or
e-mails seeking comment.
One of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's closest advisers, Perle was a vocal advocate of going to war against
Iraq and publicly questioned the reliability of some longtime U.S. allies,
including France and Saudi Arabia.
Suing
in England, Vacationing in France: the Misplaced Patriotism of Richard
Perle
March 25,
2003
by Christopher
Deliso
According to Richard Perle,
there exists a "cozy
relationship" between French president Jacques Chirac and Saddam
Hussein. In fact, they're
even friends. Of course, such silly accusations represent nothing
new. In the Neocons' ongoing campaign against all things French, apparently not
even the lowly
French fry is safe.
Yet the riposte was
rather surreal. After all, Washington's warmonger-in-chief does enjoy frolicking
at his vacation chateau – in the balmy south of France.
This amusing discrepancy came
to light in a recent investigation by veteran
muckraker Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker. Yet the French
connection, while embarrassing enough, was merely symbolic in comparison to
other conflicting involvements mentioned, regarding Richard Perle's financial
and political motivations for demanding war on Iraq.
Hersh questioned
whether Perle has abused his prominent position as chief of the Defense Policy
Review Board, not only for financial gain, but also for advancing an unpopular
war with Iraq at the behest of Israel.
In November 2001,
says Hersh, Mr. Perle set up a company called Trireme Partners, to cater to the
fast-growing "homeland security" market. His board members included other
Defense Department advisors, as well as close associate Gerald Hillman and even
Henry Kissinger. Shortly before bloviating against Chirac, Perle was (on 3
January) in Marseilles trying to shake down potential Saudi investors in
Trireme, alleges Hersh. Apparently, Perle "peddled influence" in an attempt to
win $100 million in investments for Trireme. The Saudis, who allegedly were
hoping to trade the investment for a peaceful solution to Iraq, are well aware
that Perle has expressed continuous and unrelenting hatred for their country,
its government and its Wahabbist branch of Islam. That a US anti-Saudi campaign
should be executed more, er, robustly has been a central theme for Perle and
some of his appointed lackeys.
As Hersh recalls,
Perle himself arranged for a Defense Policy Board briefing (on 10 July 2002)
from a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawiec, who:
"…depicted Saudi
Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that the Bush
Administration give the Saudi government an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism
or face seizure of its financial assets in the United States and its oil
fields."
Although the
government hurriedly moved to disavow this as not representing its official
policy, Hersh believes that the Administration's failure to at least discipline
Perle unnerved the Saudis. Although no Saudi investments have yet been made in
Trireme, and the whole case is fraught with vigorous denials and
counter-accusations, serious ethical questions about Mr. Perle have been
raised.
The most troubling contention
to emerge from the Hersh investigation is that Richard Perle may profit directly
from the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
Perle, it seems,
struck while the iron was hot, getting into the homeland security "game" soon
after September 11th. Aided by mass paranoia, Perle and many others – from
retailers of goods to crafters of Imperialist prose – were happy to help create
what is likely to be the 21st century's most potent industry. Since 9/11,
shameless opportunists have sprung up across the country and across
the Internet, ready to take advantage of the American people's
newfound spirit of impending doom. While such exploitation is reprehensible, we
can assume that many of these snake-oil salesmen are just hapless, would-be
entrepreneurs. Richard Perle, on the other hand, frequently brags about his
great influence on the formulation of the White House's foreign affairs and
homeland security policies. The bellicose rumblings of Perle and his Neocon
peers have caused reverberations of panic around the country (especially
whenever they shout about the unlikely "threat" of Iraqi terrorism),
reverberations that must in the end sound, to Homeland Security purveyors,
something like the ringing of cash registers.
The point here is
that Perle and Co. can ratchet up the paranoia level at will, and frequently
have done so – especially when it comes to elucidating threats to the real
homeland.
However sick it may be to
think that Richard Perle is deliberately trying to profit from spreading
paranoia, the far worse thing is his allegiance to Israel. His personal profits,
after all, do little direct damage to any of us. His primary political
allegiances to a foreign country, however, do.
America is a melting
pot for people of all colors and creeds. Our problem today is, as George
Washington ominously predicted over 200 years ago, that some of them have
principle loyalties to foreign causes or countries. Indeed, for every one of the
world's regional conflicts, there are right now lobbyists and agitators hard at
work on steering American foreign policy in wayward directions. One of the most
dangerous (for Europeans, at least) is the Albanian-American
lobby, enabled in part by the good Tom
Lantos.
Yet right now, most
foreign lobbies are relatively unimportant. In the overwhelmingly dominant
context of Iraq, there is only one lobby that is threatening the security of the
entire world – and that is Israel's lobby in Washington.
However, this lobby
has a built-in self-defense mechanism, one that bigoted conspiracy theorists
ruinously validate with their own paranoid musings. Nobody, excepting racists,
sets out to criticize people on the basis of their religion. However,
historically exploited sensitivities mean that in today's empathetic,
politically correct United States of America, those who put the needs of the
state of Israel first and foremost – whether they be Jewish or not – can
instantly immolate any critic as a raving anti-Semite. Almost always, the
benefit of the doubt is conceded to the former. However, in criticizing specific
lobbyists for a specific foreign state, we have absolutely no interest in, and
make no reference to, their religious orientation – but merely to the unneeded
security dangers that their allegiance brings on the United States.
It is unquestionable
that the Israel-first foreign policy advocated by Richard Perle and the Neocon
chorus has hijacked the entire foreign policy of the Bush Administration. That
it has not already exploded into their long-desired apocalyptic cultural
showdown has a lot to do with the diplomatic concerns of Colin Powell, and the
Cancerian caution of George Bush. However, far more powerful than these men are
the Super-hawks such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Perle. And their
belligerence is firmly rooted in a devotion to the state of Israel and its
apparent best interests.
An indispensable
article by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski covers the details and ramifications
of this entire issue. Among other things, it brings up the fact that Richard
Perle has been putting Israel first for four decades:
"During the
1970s, Perle gained notice as a top aide to Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson
(Democrat, Washington), who was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist and
pro-Israeli members. During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of
defense under Reagan, where his hardline anti-Soviet positions, especially his
opposition to any form of arms control, earned him the moniker 'Prince of
Darkness' from his enemies.
…Perle is not
only an exponent of pro-Zionist views, but has had close connections with
Israel, being a personal friend of Ariel Sharon's, a board member of the
Jerusalem
Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapon manufacturer Soltam. According
to author Seymour
M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI
wiretaps had picked up Perle providing classified information from the National
Security Council to the Israeli embassy."
The last article
came out in 1982. The next year, as Hersh reminds us now, Perle was the subject
of a New York Times investigation regarding his recommendation that the
Army buy weapons from a certain Israeli company that had paid him a $50,000 fee
in 1981. And the list goes on.
There are two very
clear indicators that Richard Perle – and the Neocons around him – have been
planning for years to depose Saddam for the sake of Israel, whether or not he
poses a threat or is involved with terror, and to hell with all other concerns.
First of all was a Perle-endorsed 1996 policy paper called, "A clean break: a
new strategy for securing the realm," which advised the incoming Netanyahu
government to ignore the Oslo Peace Accords and take over the West Bank and
Gaza. The stated greater goal was to overthrow Saddam, and presumably afterwards
install pro-Western governments in countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Saudi
Arabia and Iran. Second, in an open letter to President Clinton (19 February,
1998), Perle and Co. demanded the opportunity to "bring down" Saddam Hussein.
The letter was signed by all of the usual suspects, including Robert Kagan, Bill
Kristol and a more
than up for it Donald Rumsfeld.
Although in 1998 Clinton
deigned to comply, under the Bush Administration it seems the Israel-first
militants have finally won. But at what cost? As the uncertainties of war once
again grip the world, and the safety of its population remains unknown, it is
necessary to realize going in that this is not America's war. When the reckoning
comes – and it will – we should remember who brought it to us. Richard Perle and
rest, perhaps, have ceased to be Americans. Their overweening hubris, their
overseas allegiances are bound to bring ruin upon the already
dying Republic.
But through all that
gloom, at least there is a silver lining: we may purchase to our hearts'
content, even from the safety of our own homes, Richard Perle's tastefully
packaged and soon to be useful homeland security products.
It looks like Mr. Perle will
have a bumpy ride in store for him, however, as new investigations are being
made about various other jobs he has acquired through his chairmanship of the
Defense Policy Board. The
New York Times is looking into Perle's current advisory role to
the bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing, in the process of being
sold to Asian investors. Apparently, the influential Perle is being eyed as
someone who can "…help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed
sale." According to the Times, Perle:
"…is to be paid
$725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves the sale
of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison
Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and
Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government
of Singapore."
This very
interesting piece, it should be noted, ends with a remarkable disclosure, one
that implies some of our countrymen know more than us regarding where the dust
will finally settle:
"Mr. Perle, who
as chairman of the Defense Policy Board has been a leading advocate of the
United States' invasion of Iraq, spoke on Wednesday in a conference call
sponsored by Goldman
Sachs, in which he advised participants on possible investment
opportunities arising from the war. The conference's title was "Implications of
an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"
Christopher Deliso is a Balkan-based
journalist, travel writer and critic of interventionist foreign policy. Over the
past few years, Mr. Deliso's writing for Antiwar.com, UPI, various American
newspapers, websites and European strategic analysis firms has taken him
everywhere from the shores of the Adriatic to the top of the Caucasus Mountains.
Mr Deliso holds a master's degree with distinction in Byzantine Studies from
Oxford University, and also manages the Balkan-interest news and analysis
website, Balkanalysis.com
Hollinger
executives indicted for fraud
Federal prosecutors have indicted
four Hollinger executives, including former chairman and CEO Conrad Black, on
fraud charges related to the abuse of company perks and the $2.1 billion sale of
several hundred Canadian newspapers.
The executives were also charged
with illegally diverting $32 million from the company through a series of
complex transactions and another $51.8 million in relation to the sale of
CanWestGlobal Communications Corp.
"Officers and directors of
publicly traded companies who steer shareholders' money into their pockets
should not lie to the board of directors to get permission to do so," said U.S.
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in a statement. He added that insiders "whose job it
was to safeguard the shareholders made it their job to steal and
conceal."
Hollinger's board of directors
also came under heavy criticism in that report. In addition to Kissinger, the
board had several other politically connected directors: Robert S. Strauss, a
former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ambassador to the
Soviet Union; Richard R. Burt, a former United States ambassador to Germany;
former Illinois Governor James Thompson (who chaired the company's audit
committee, and was described by the report as "ineffective and careless") and
Richard N. Perle, assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald
Reagan the former chairman of a Pentagon advisory board. Perle was
heavily scolded in the report, which says that Perle "repeatedly breached his
fiduciary duties" a member of the board's executive
committee.
According to the report, Perle
signed papers that allowed Black and Radler to loot the company without even
bothering to look at what he was signing. "It is difficult to imagine a more
flagrant abdication of duty than a director rubber-stamping transactions that
directly benefit a controlling shareholder without any thought, comprehension or
analysis," the committee report says. "In fact, many of the consents that
Perle signed as an executive committee member approved related-party
transactions that unfairly benefited Black and Radler, and cost Hollinger
millions."
Perle also ran an Internet investment arm of the
company for Black, which, despite losing money, netted Perle $3.1 million in
bonuses. A special board panel said that Perle
should return $5.4 million in pay after "putting his own
interests above those of Hollinger's shareholders."
An
unsavory character on Bush team
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
September 13,
2004
Richard
Perle, a foreign policy guru who has oozed his way through Republican
administrations for two decades making a fortune as he went, has met his match
in Conrad Black, the former head of Hollinger International, the U.S.-based
newspaper conglomerate. Black stepped down as Hollinger CEO after being accused
by shareholders of being a crook.
As Black
goes down, Perle, who worked for the Bush administration and deserves as much
credit for the Iraq war as anyone, is going with him. A special committee
investigating Hollinger's financial losses accuses both men of
corruption.
Perle is
an important figure for he stands at the nexus of power and money. More than
most, he has advocated policies that would make him money.
Perle,
along with Henry Kissinger, serves on the Hollinger board of directors, as well
as on the board of the Jerusalem Post, part of Black's newspaper empire.
Perle
is paid because of his working knowledge
of Pentagon strategy.
Federal
laws place restrictions on the behavior of SGEs like Perle. Regulations Code 5
CFR 2635.702--barring the use of public office for private gain--also warns of
the "appearance of government sanction," and cautions against using public
standing "in a manner that could be reasonably construed to imply that his
agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities." Section
5 CFR 2635.807 bans SGEs from receiving money for speaking on matters in which
the SGE "has participated or is participating personally and substantially" for
the government. "Experts have to make a livelihood," a government ethics
specialist explained, "but they're prohibited...if there's a nexus between
public and private."
Perle's
high-profile articulation of Administration strategy blurs this line. Before the
Iraq war, members of the Defense Policy Board acted as unofficial spokesmen for
the Pentagon, with Perle charging networks while aggressively promoting the DOD
stance. "It's misleading to be charging money [for] selling policy," says Bill
Allison of the Center for Public Integrity. "It creates the problem of asking to
profit off of your government connection."
By ANTHONY
GANCARSKI
Article III, Section 3
of the US Constitution defines treason as giving aid and comfort, or "adhering"
to our enemies. I believe "adhering" sums up Richard Perle's job description
pretty well. The controversy surrounding Perle which occasioned his resignation
from the Chair of the Defense Policy Board should not be quelled because he took
that preemptive measure. Rather, it should force a deeper, public inquiry into
what has motivated Perle to encourage the US to make aggressive foreign policy
decisions inconsistent with both our overt national interest and historical
precedent.
In a letter Perle wrote to Rumsfeld on Wednesday announcing his decision to resign the chairmanship, his language rang with the unctuous tones of a feigned self-flagellation for public consumption. "With our nation at war and American troops risking their lives to protect our freedom and liberate Iraq, I am dismayed that your valuable time, and that of others in the Department of Defense and the administration might be burdened by the controversy surrounding my chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board."
Controversy? What could be controversial about this scenario, neutrally described by UPI in the following manner.
"Perle, one of George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers during the 2000 presidential campaign, was hired last week by the bankrupt Global Crossing telecommunications company to help it restructure a deal to sell a majority holding in the company to Hutchison Telecommunications and government-run Singapore Technologies Telemedia. The United States government -- particularly the Defense Department and the FBI -- has national security concerns about the deal, according to The New York Times. It would put Global Crossing's fiber optics network -- which the military uses -- under Chinese ownership."
They are absolutely right to have "national security concerns" about the deal. How is it possible for the Pentagon to talk of "full-spectrum dominance" when moves are afoot to create a situation in which the US leases its military's fiber optics network from what will be our most formidable global competitor in the coming decades?
Richard Perle represents a threat to our National Security as tangible as that posed by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. His actions throughout his public life require a thorough Congressional investigation, centering on answering the question whether or not Richard Perle has committed treason, whether in the incident described above or in any of his other dealings for which ample documentation already exists.
Top
War Profiteer Doug Feith Retires
Wealthy
By Evelyn Pringle
09/07/05 "ICH"
-- -- Douglas
Feith, the recently resigned undersecretary of defense, who just
happened to be one of the main people who for years on end advocated for a war
in Iraq, and who in large part developed the disastrous policies for the war in
Iraq, planned ahead for his retirement and will not be seen in the unemployment
line.
On January 27, 2005, the Washington Post announced: "A
principal architect of the Defense Department's postwar strategy in Iraq ...
will leave his post this summer."
The announcement came after years
of rumors that top administration officials had decided that Feith had to go,
but were dissuaded by Donald Rumsfeld who argued that his ouster would be viewed
as an admission that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But the administration had
definitely reduced Feith's authority over the past 2 years.
In
announcing his departure, Feith claimed he was leaving for personal reasons,
citing the desire to spend more time with his children. "For the last four
years, they haven't seen me a lot," he told the Post.
He used the
standard administration exit line. Sort of like the noticeably absent in light
of Katrina, ex-FEMA director, Joe Albaugh, who left his job to spend time with
his family. Joe was Bush's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas and his
campaign manager in 2000. Once Bush took office, Joe accepted a gig as director
of FEMA.
Like Feith, when he announced his resignation, Joe said,
"Now I am going to take the opportunity to spend some time with my wife and
children."
I sure hope Doug spends more time with his kids than Joe
did, because judging from hindsight, Joe should have been a psychic. He somehow
knew at the beginning of March 2003, that he should quit FEMA and go into the
business of securing reconstruction contracts in Iraq for wealthy clients before
the first bomb was dropped. And his family could not have enjoyed much quality
time at all with Joe, being he opened up New Bridge Strategies for business
within a few short weeks of leaving the White House.
At the time,
Josh Marshall, who writes a column for the Washington newspaper, The Hill, said
that he believed that each new piece of legislation needs a catchy title, and
came up with title "The Bush Crony Full-Employment Act of 2003," for the $87
billion allocated for rebuilding Iraq.
According to Josh, New
Bridge was actually an outgrowth of Haley Barbour's lobbying firm, Barbour
Griffith & Rogers. Josh says he reached that conclusion after he learned
that both firms were located in the same office space. And also because Lanny
Griffith was the CEO of New Bridge and Ed Rogers was the vice president. Sounds
like a logical conclusion to me.
When the company began, the New
Bridges official web site said, "the opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of
such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the
necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C., and on
the ground in Iraq." That phrasing was quickly changed.
How could
it get any sweeter than this? Joe quits FEMA, moves into the office space of one
of the most successful and powerful GOP lobbying firms in the country and starts
advertising for clients who want to win reconstruction contracts in
Iraq.
First Brother, Neil Bush, also jumped on this money train and
landed a $60,000 a year consultant contract with a principal in New Bridge.
According to Neil's testimony in his divorce deposition in March 2004, in return
for his salary, he took phone messages for about 3 hours a
week.
However, 3 people contacted by the Financial Times of London
reported seeing letters written by Neil that recommend business ventures
promoted by New Bridges in the Middle East. So we had Neil being paid an annual
fee to "help companies secure contracts in Iraq," the Times
reported.
I'm not too worried about Doug Feith ending up in the
unemployment lines because following in Joe's footsteps, Feith and his law
partner stayed very busy behind the scenes planning for Feith's retirement when
it came time to leave the White House.
The Iraqi International
Law Group
Before Feith was inducted into the Bush
administration, he was the Feith half of the Feith & Zell, law firm in
Washington. His partner, Marc Zell, simply renamed the firm, Zell, Goldberg
& Co, when they decided to set up shop to start cashing in on the Iraq
contracting business.
According to The Hill, Zell, was helping with
international marketing for a concern called the Iraqi International Law Group.
Billing itself as a group of lawyers and businessmen interested in helping
investors in Iraq, the venture was run by Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem, who
doubled as a legal adviser to Iraq's governing council, of which his uncle was a
member.
How powerful was Feith in awarding contracts? Extremely.
According to a June, 2004, by an article in Time Magazine entitled, "The Paper
Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal? Feith is the person who approved the
controversial no-bid contract for Halliburton in Iraq.
Time
Magazine quoted an email sent by Stephen Browning of the Army Corps of
Engineers, that said the contract for construction of oil pipelines was approved
by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith "contingent on informing WH
tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP,s [Vice
President,s] office.
Browning, later said in an interview that he
wrote the memo after he and retired Lt Gen. Jay Garner met with Feith. According
to Browning, Feith told him that he had already informed Cheney's office. The
email was dated March 5, 2003, and Halliburton was awarded the contract three
days later with no bids tendered by any other companies.
If he
could pull this off for Halliburton, what he could do for the IILG, goes without
saying. According to its web site, the IILG was made up of lawyers and
businessmen who claimed to have, "dared to take the lead in bringing private
sector investment and experience" to the war-torn country and offered to "be
your Professional Gateway to the New Iraq."
The way it was set up,
nephew Salem was charge of the IILG and Feith's partner, Zell, was in charge of
international marketing. The IILG's website claimed that it was the only firm
worth consulting. "At IILG, our task is to provide foreign enterprise with the
information and tools it needs to enter the emerging Iraq and to succeed," it
said.
"Our clients number among the largest corporations and
institutions on the planet" it said, "They have chosen IILG to provide them with
real-time, on the ground intelligence they cannot get from inexperienced local
firms or from overburdened coalition and local government
officials."
Imagine that, the top firms on the
planet.
"Many firms outside the country purport to counsel
companies about doing business in Iraq," the web site read. "The simple fact is:
you cannot adequately advise about Iraq unless you are here day in and day out,
working closely with officials at the CPA, the newly constituted governing
council and the few functioning civilian ministries [oil, labor and social
welfare, etc]."
The truth is, the IILG was nothing more than
another one of many front companies, in a web-like profiteering network, that
was specifically set up to funnel tax dollars through Iraq and back into the
pockets of the Bush gang.
And talk about blatant. When the company
was set up, its website was not registered to Salem Chalabi; it was registered
under the name of Marc Zell, located at the very same address as Zell, Goldberg
& Co.
According to Salem, quoted in the National Journal, Zell
was IILG's "marketing consultant" and had been contacting law firms in
Washington and New York to ask if they had clients interested in doing business
in Iraq.
This tied in with an announcement by Zell, Goldberg &
Co, that it had set up a "task force" dealing with issues and opportunities
relating to the "recently ended" war in Iraq, and to assist companies "in their
relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi
reconstruction projects as prime contractors and consultants."
Of
course Zell made no mention of the firm's ties to the infamous nephew Salem or
the IILG. Zell said it was working with the Federal Market Group, an
organization which specialized in helping companies win government contracts,
which boasted of having a
90% success rate.
Considering
all of its boasting about high level connections, IILG was also rather modest
about the family ties of its founder. The website did not mention that he was
the nephew of Ahmed Chalabi even once. Geez, I wonder
why.
Implementing The Iraq Profiteering
Scheme
Feith had been pushing for the ouster of Saddam for
years. In 1998, him and Richard Perle sent a letter to President Bill Clinton
proposing that the US team up with Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress to
get rid of Saddam. Clinton refused.
As we all know, Ahmed had
strong support within the Pentagon. In fact, two of his staunchest supporters
were Feith, and Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
Perle,
an assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, was appointed
by his old crony, Donald Rumsfeld, to lead the board in 2001. Its a well-known
fact that the board exerts tremendous influence when it comes to war
policies.
As soon as Bush took office, Perle, Feith and Ahmed
Chalabi all started working diligently together to get the war in Iraq off the
ground, with Ahmed providing bogus intelligence about WMDs and bragging about a
secret network within Iraq which could take over running the country after the
invasion.
"There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi
and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years," according to Seymour Hersh in
the May 5, 2003 the New Yorker.
"Their relationship deepened after
the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi's ties extended to others in
the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of
Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff," Hersh wrote.
"With the Pentagon's support, Chalabi's group
worked to put defectors with compelling stories in touch with reporters in the
United States and Europe," Hersh said, "The resulting articles had dramatic
accounts of advances in weapons of mass destruction or told of ties to terrorist
groups. In some cases, these stories were disputed in analyses by the C.I.A." he
noted.
Almost immediately after September 11th, "the I.N.C. began
to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information
connecting Iraq to the attacks, Hersh said.
For example, in a
October 14, 2001, interview on PBS "Frontline," Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army
captain, said that the 9/11 attack "was conducted by people who were trained by
Saddam," and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of
hijacking. Another defector, who was identified as a retired lieutenant general
in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students
being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training
camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
Feith then fed
this type of INC data into a fabrication mill operating at top speed known as
the Office of Special Plans and some of the information processed through the
OSP was not even shared with official intelligence agencies. In many instances
it was passed on to the National Security Council, Cheney, and Bush without
having been vetted by anyone besides this group of nitwits.
And
they had to know that much of the information was false. A former high-level
intelligence official told Hersh that American Special Forces units had been
sent into Iraq in mid-March 2003, before the start of the war, to investigate
sites suspected of being missile or chemical- and biological-weapon storage
depots. "They came up with nothing," the official told Hersh. "Never found a
single Scud."
A 46 page report, based on a 15-month investigation,
titled, Report of an Inquiry into the Alternative Analysis of the Issue of an
Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship, was released on October 21, 2004, which said, "There
is ample evidence that the Bush Administration had a predisposition to overthrow
Saddam Hussein before the 9/11 attacks."
The report accused Feith's
office of compiling "selective reinterpretations of intelligence" that went
beyond the views of American spy agencies in order to help make the case for an
invasion of Iraq.
The report concluded that Feith and his staff
were convinced that a relationship existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that
the office had advanced that perspective by trying to change the intelligence
community's views and "by taking its interpretation straight to
policymakers."
"That alleged relationship," the report said,
"coupled with the assertion that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), was the major argument presented by the Administration for
invading Iraq."
Relying on selective reporting, irrespective of
credibility and reliability, Feith's briefing concluded the
following:
. Iraq had "more than a decade of numerous contacts"
with al Qaeda;
. there were "multiple areas of cooperation" between
Iraq and al Qaeda;
. Iraq and al Qaeda had a "shared interest and
pursuit of WMD;" and
. there was "[o]ne indication of Iraq
coordination with al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11," presumably a reference
to the alleged (but doubted by the IC) Atta meeting in Prague.
The
report states that there are no known intelligence reports, other than those
provided by Feith's office, that could explain where this view originated. "A
pattern emerges of senior administration officials exaggerating the extent of
the relationship in public statements which more closely reflect the Feith
analysis" than those of the intelligence community, it said.
As an
obvious example, the report said Feith's office repeatedly asserted in the
months leading up to the war that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an
Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in the spring before the September 11
attacks, an account that the CIA dismissed because evidence existed that Atta
was elsewhere at the time.
And in at least one case, according to
the report, the Pentagon office included the purported meeting in a report sent
to the White House, but omitted it from the version of the same report sent to
the CIA.
The meeting was then constantly referred to by senior
administration officials, and especially Cheney, as evidence of a possible
Saddam link to 9/11. In fact, Cheney said the Feith analysis was the "best
source of information," according to the report.
However, not only
had the alleged meeting never been "known," at the time of the briefing to the
White House, the Intelligence Community was skeptical in late spring 2002 that
such a meeting ever took place. Yet in September of 2002, Feith called the
meeting a "known contact" in a crucial misstatement about the intelligence,
since it indicated a link which did not exist.
"The professional
objectivity and independence required in the assessment of the Iraq-Al Qaeda
relationship, a major reason given for going to war, were compromised to support
a predetermined policy -- to present the government of Saddam Hussein as a
serious threat to the security of the United States" the report
wrote.
Finally, relative to the attacks, the final 911 Commission
Report itself said that the "Intelligence Community has no credible information
that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida
strike."
Inventing bogus intelligence was bad enough but during the
pre-war planning, the military experts were systematically excluded from
participating in that process as well. In the end, Feith and the OSP had so
grossly underestimated the Iraqi resistance that it caused General Tommy Franks,
who led the invasion in Iraq, to call Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the
face of the earth," according Bob Woodward's book Plan of
Attack.
Feith and the Defense Policy Board
The
DPB is a group of 30 people, who for the most part were chosen by Rumsfeld and
Feith, that advises officials on whether to go to war or not. Many of its
members are literally making a fortune off a war which they had been promoting
for years. At least 9 members have ties to companies that won more than $76
billion in defense contracts during 2001 and 2002.
Feith excluded
many top Middle East experts from the State Department from playing any
meaningful role in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Feith's office and
the CPA were tasked with awarding reconstruction contracts in
Iraq.
So this was another sweet setup. Feith was deciding who would
get contracts, at the same time that his middleman law partner, Zel, was
hustling up business deals in Iraq for rich clients. Of course, for members of
the Bush war profiteering club, this was merely business as
usual.
Among the firms that have profited the most, are those with
consultants serving on the DPB, many of which were hand-picked by
Feith.
Some of the construction and defense companies with direct
ties to DPB members include Boeing, Bectel, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed
Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton, along with smaller players like Symantec Corp,
Technology Strategies and Alliance Corp, and Polycom Inc.
How much
money was up for grabs when it came to doling out defense contracts? For
starters, during the major combat phase of the war, the US military launched
over
800 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi forces, according to figures
released by the US Navy.
At a price of about $569,000 each,
replacing those missiles no doubt generated a lofty amount for Raytheon Systems,
the Pentagon contractor for Tomahawks. Close to a 100 more missiles were fired
during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Occupation forces
later launched over 19,000 guided munitions in Iraq, most of which came from the
US, according to a report on Operation Iraqi Freedom published by the US Central
Command Air Forces on 30 April 2003.
There was a $10.3 billion
proposal for the development of a missile defense program in Bush's 2005 defense
spending budget, of which Lockheed Martin would be heavily involved in,
according to a report from the World Policy Institute.
Northrop
Grumman, the country's third largest defense contractor, secured contracts to
build new weapons systems such as the unmanned predator drones. The firm is the
prime contractor for the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Bush
proposed $12 billion for UAV development for the years between 2004 - 2009.
Northrop earned a company record of $11.1 billion in defense contracts in
2003.
And Bush is funneling our tax dollars to known crooks.
Northrop's Vinnell subsidiary was awarded a $48 million contract to train the
new Iraqi Army, even though Northrop was forced to pay $191.7 million in
penalties over the previous 4 years.
In less than a year after he
took office, Bush got rid of regulations implemented by President Clinton that
barred contracts for companies convicted or penalized for crimes during the
previous 3 years. Clinton strengthened the rules before leaving office, and said
that repeated violations would make a company ineligible for new contracts. Bush
suspended the regulations within his first 3 months in office. By December 2001,
he had revoked them entirely.
In the end, I don't think its likely
that Feith will end up in the welfare lines. Due to careful post-White House
planning, I think its safe to say that Feith and his band of cronies will enjoy
financial benefits for life, just so long as their never-ending war policies are
carried on by their successor.
Evelyn Pringle
epringle05@yahoo.com
Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent
Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in
government
Occupation
official accused of Iraqi kickback scheme
WASHINGTON
(AP) — A former U.S. occupation official in Iraq bought real estate, cars, jewelry and home improvements with the
kickbacks he received from a businessman who won more than $13 million in
reconstruction work, federal authorities say.
Robert
J. Stein Jr., 50, of Fayetteville, N.C., and his wife, even used the money pay
federal taxes and restitution for Stein's earlier federal fraud conviction, an
affidavit made public Thursday said.
Stein
faces conspiracy, money laundering, wire fraud and other charges stemming from
his alleged role in helping Philip Bloom, a U.S. citizen who has lived in
Romania for many years, get the Iraqi contracts, federal authorities said
Thursday.
More
than $630,000 flowed to Stein and others from accounts Bloom controls in banks
in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Kuwait, prosecutors said. Bloom, 65, has
been charged with conspiracy and money laundering stemming from an investigation
that Justice Department officials say could result in additional charges against
others.
Suspect
in Iraq graft is no stranger to fraud
By
James Glanz The New York Times
FRIDAY,
NOVEMBER 18, 2005
NEW
YORK A North Carolina man who has been charged with accepting
kickbacks and bribes was hired as a controller and financial officer for the
American occupation authority in Iraq despite having served prison time for
felony fraud in the 1990s.
The
job gave the man, Robert Stein, control over $82 million in cash earmarked for
Iraqi rebuilding projects.
Along
with a web of other conspirators who have not yet been identified, Stein and his
wife received "bribes, kickbacks and gratuities amounting to at least $200,000
per month" to steer lucrative construction contracts to companies run by another
American, Philip Bloom, an affidavit outlining the criminal complaint says.
Stein's wife, whose name was not given, has not been charged with wrongdoing in
the case; Bloom was charged on Wednesday with a range of
crimes.
The
affidavit, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, said Stein,
50, was charged with wire fraud, conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen
property and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
But
the list of charges does little justice to the astonishing brazenness of the
accusations described in the complaint, including a wire transfer of a $140,000
bribe, arranged by Bloom, to buy real estate for Stein in North Carolina. The
affidavit also says that $65,762.63 was spent to buy cars for Stein and his wife
(he bought a Chevrolet; she a Toyota), $44,471 for home improvements and $48,073
for jewelry out of $258,000 sent directly to the Bragg Mutual Federal Credit
Union into accounts controlled by the Steins.
Stein's
wife even used $7,151.58 of the money for a "towing service," the complaint
says. Much of this money was intended for Iraqi construction projects like
building a new police academy in the ancient city of Babylon and rehabilitating
the library in Karbala, the southern city that is among the holiest sites for
Shiite Muslims.
After
Stein awarded contracts for this work to Bloom, the work often was not performed
or was done shoddily, the prosecutors allege. Bloom eventually received at least
$3.5 million himself, according to the complaint.
Stein
was arrested in North Carolina on Monday, the Justice Department said in a
statement. He appeared in court on Tuesday, represented by Jane Pearce, an
assistant federal public defender in North Carolina's Eastern District, said
Elizabeth Luck, a spokeswoman for the office. Luck said the office would not
comment on the case.
Little
is known about Stein except that he served in the army and was convicted in
federal court in 1996 for "access device fraud," a felony. Court papers show
that he was sentenced to eight months in prison and ordered to pay $45,339.25 in
restitution.
Stein
worked for Grundy Marine Construction, based in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, in
2001 and 2002, said the company's vice president, Pete Caruk, by telephone.
Stein was fired when he was found to be falsifying payroll records and making
out false invoices for nonexistent purchases of materials for a construction job
at an air force base, Caruk said.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A former U.S. contracting official in Iraq admitted he conspired to steal more than $2 million in reconstruction money and to award contracts to a businessman in exchange for more than $1 million in cars, jewelry and cash.
Robert J. Stein Jr., 50, of Fayetteville, N.C., was expected to enter his guilty plea in U.S. District Court in Washington today. His would be the first conviction in a federal investigation that has implicated at least seven people.
Stein, a former contracting official for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, acknowledged his role in the conspiracy in a signed statement filed with the court.
The businessman, Philip H. Bloom, also faces federal conspiracy and money laundering charges. Bloom is not named in Stein’s statement, but has been identified elsewhere by prosecutors and is in federal custody in Washington.
Five U.S. Army Reserve officers who worked in Iraq also were part of the conspiracy, according to court papers.
Rita Bosworth, a Federal Public Defender in Washington who is representing Stein, had no comment Wednesday. John Nassikas, Bloom’s lawyer, declined to comment.
Stein, who has an earlier federal fraud conviction, used the money — stolen or paid by Bloom — to buy a single-engine Cessna airplane, a top-of-the-line Porsche and other cars, grenade launchers, machine guns, diamond rings and other jewelry, and property in North Carolina, he said in his signed statement.
Stein said he helped steer more than $8.6 million in contracts to companies controlled by Bloom, a U.S. citizen who has lived in Romania for many years. The contracts were for less than $500,000 each, the limit of Stein’s authority as the top contracting official in Hillah, 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Projects won by Bloom’s companies included a new police academy for Hillah and renovation of the public library in nearby Karbala. Bloom’s Romanian-based companies are Global Business Group, GBG Holdings and GBG-Logistics Division, prosecutors have said.
The statement includes frank e-mails between Stein and Bloom about payments and phony bids for contracts. “I love to give you money,” Stein wrote after approving a $200,000 contract for the police academy in January 2004.
In another exchange, Stein apologizes for being “businesslike” and cautions Bloom to avoid using the same company name on all contract bids, which could arouse suspicion. Bloom agrees, adding, “Since we are paid in cash it really doesn’t matter tax wise.”
Bloom supplied Stein and others with “business class and first class plane tickets, watches and other jewelry, alcohol, cigars, sexual favors from women ... at his villa in Baghdad, and money laundering services,” for the stolen reconstruction funds, the statement said.
The U.S.-controlled CPA ran Iraq from shortly after the March 2003 invasion until June 2004. It had final say over spending from the Development Fund for Iraq, made up mainly of Iraqi oil revenues.
The case against Stein has its roots in audits performed by Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who is looking into Iraqi reconstruction contracts.
If Bloom and Stein will be
tried and convicted why hasn’t Perle also faced the same scrutiny and charged
with similar crimes of profiteering in violation of Code 5 CFR
2635.702?
WOOLSEY'S
WEB: STRUCTURAL CORRUPTION &
IRAQ
WALTER F. ROCHE JR. HAS AN ILLUMINATING
PIECE TODAY
in the Los Angeles Times on the clan Woolsey -- exposing some of the
Iraq contract connections of Suzanne Woolsey, the former CIA Director's wife. In
January 2004, she became a director of Fluor Corporation, which has $1.6 billion
in Iraq related contracts. She also serves as a director of the Institute for
Defense Analyses which also has war interests, and received modest compensation
for that role according to the article.
James
Woolsey serves as Vice President of Booz
Allen Hamilton with at least $89 million in Iraq defense contract
interests. Roche's article also points out that Suzanne Woolsey is also
affiliated with Paladin
Capital Group, a venture capital firm where her husband serves as a
principal and director.
A reader
of The
Washington Note entry on Woolsey tipped me off to James
Woolsey's Paladin connection last week -- and I was somewhat stunned
by the brazen language of the "Paladin
Homeland Security Fund" that Woolsey helps direct. I realize that
many intelligence and military officials make natural fits for defense related
firms when they leave public service -- but I think that big, inappropriate
lines get crossed when individuals help fan wars, in which people die, and
financially benefit from the result. A recusal from war profits should be
standard for talking heads and policy commentators when it comes to sending
American men and women into harm's way.
