Duckworth and the Auditors
Duckworth wants audits on Halliburton in Iraq.
She can find them here.
If she wants to be serious on National Security, she really needs to comment on Clinton's old SecDef, William Perry's -a fellow Unitarian Universalist too; we're not all pacifists- column calling for a preemptive strike on North Korea; because ABC is telling us they're getting ready to test a nuke.
As an old DoD auditor, we're just the guys who come onto the battlefield after the fighting all over, and tell everyone what they did wrong (there is a cruder way we used to put it.)
Gov hires pros to do that and you can check the IGs site for more reports than you'll care to read.
I want Duckworth to challange Roskam about tomorrow and what the United States should do.
20 comments:
Bill,
Congratulations on challenging a decorated combat veteran to "be serious on National Security."
Jeebus.
-- S.C.A.M.
Congratulations on challenging a decorated combat veteran to "be serious on National Security."
I bet she appreciates that challange more then when the Cegelis folks were calling her a stooge for Emmanual.
Remember those folks Austin?
War is the only reason Duckworth is a candidate.
And it's a good reason for her to be the candidate.
That's why I'm disappointed to hear her repeat the Halliburton lines when we have looming existential threat. Radical Islam means to destroy us and all they need is Korea to pass them a nuke.
She's smart. I've seen her show it. I want to hear her and Roskam talk about the issues. They need to talk about William Perry, not Halliburton.
S.C.A.M.
I’m sorry Mr. Mayor. But Bill is right. Major Duckworth is a war hero, but as a Congressional candidate, she is anything but serious about national security.
In fact, she really has no original or clear positions on “national security.” If she does, she should go ahead and post them on her website already.
Under Issues, for “Homeland Security,” her position is simply to institute the recommendations of the 9-11 commission. Not necessarily a bad position, but hardly a thoughtful or original one(or, to put it another way, “serious”).
For “Iraq,” it’s a mish-mash. And I quote:
“The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists
Moving forward, we need to make it clear to the Iraqi people that we will leave, sooner rather than later.”
Hmm...how exactly will we be leaving "soon," even though we can’t without creating a "security vacuum," you might ask? Back to her position paper:
“To bring our troops home, we need a much more aggressive plan and timetable than the Bush Administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.”
So her position is to essentially do exactly what the Administration is already doing, just BETTER and FASTER. Brilliant! Why didn't anyone else think of that!
Now, I'll admit, Roskam doesn't really have anything on his site about these issues. But he isn't making war/security the focal point of his campaign, the way Ms. Duckworth has. Now, as I think we'd all agree, there is nothing wrong with Ms. Duckworth making those issues the focal point......but if she is going to do that, she needs to have at least a few original, clear thoughts on it....not just an admittedly compelling story and service record.
Here's what Duckworth will say about North Korea:
"North Korea is a serious threat. Unfortunately, our ability to deal with North Korea is weakened because the Bush administration's failure in Iraq has gotten us so bogged down and over-extended, we don't have the military resources we need to have all of our options on the table. North Korea is just another example of how Bush's war in Iraq has made us less secure, not more secure."
Next question, please.
Well YDD, William Perry didn't recommend an expensive solution.
Would Duckworth (or Roskam) but since you're speak on Duckworth's behalf here, agree with Perry's preemtive strike?
Only a moderate Islam can defeat radical Islam. I'm hard pressed to see how allying ourselves with moderate Islam in Iraq doesn't contribute to that strategy.
And besides, now we worry about N.Korea passing off a nuke to Iran, Al Queda, or Hezballah instead of Iran, Al Queda, Hezballah, and IRAQ.
I don't know how we could be doing stuff like this without Iraq on our side,
The United States blocked an Iranian cargo plane's flight to Syria last month after intelligence analysts concluded it was carrying sophisticated missiles and launchers to resupply Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, two U.S. intelligence officials say.
Eight days after Hezbollah's war with Israel began, U.S. diplomats persuaded Turkey and Iraq to deny the plane permission to cross their territory to Damascus, a transfer point for arms to Hezbollah, the officials said.
We need allies in the Arab world. We let Iraqis down once and thousands slaughtered. We shouldn't do it again.
Baar is right. National security is an important issue.
I'm just curious as to why Baar does not see the U.S. cutting and running in Afghanistan as an issue.
Personally, I believe that defeating the Taliban is one of the most important issues facing America, since they did cooperate in 9/11.
Bush and Roskam disagree.
Where do Baar and GOP stand? Was Bush right to pull out of southern Afghanistan?
skeeter,
I reject the premise of your question. There are still over 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. There has been a reduction in troop levels, and the U.S. Has turned over control to NATO, but we have hardly "cut and run" or "pulled out."
I would think that, given the left's often hysterical criticism of Bush's 'go-it-alone' foreign policy in the past, you'd be praising him for the recent NATO hand-off, not attack him for it. And, it should be pointed out that the reduction in US forces deployed there last December was only about 10%, and was more than fully compensated with increased European forces.
Your spin and distortions notwithstanding, I will attempt to answer your question:
Is Afghanistan still important? Yes, very much so. But, since our European allies - who are perfectly up to the job - are willing to help out there, why not let them? If we really are so "over-extended," as the President's critics claim, why not reduce our forces there a little, and put them somewhere else - somewhere that they could help achieve an equally important mission on which, unfortunately, the Europeans seem less eager to help?
I personally think that defeating the people who attacked America on 9/11 is a job for Americans and it is a job that Americans must do and must do right.
We have now seen that as the U.S. has pulled out of southern Afghanistan, the Taliban is pulling in.
That is a fact. The Taliban is gaining strength and is controlling terrority in southern Afghanistan. Fact.
The U.S. is reducing troop strength in Afghanistan. Fact.
Americans must crush those who attacked us on 9/11. The Taliban attacked us. We cannot fail at that task.
Looks like you and I disagree on that issue. Perhaps Maj. Duckworth and Mr. Roskam can debate that issue for the district and let the district decide the issue.
Bill, how is North Korea getting the bomb Tammy Duckworth's problem? Doesn't it represent a failure of Bush's foreign policy?
...how is North Korea getting the bomb Tammy Duckworth's problem?
It's everyone's problem.
Doesn't it represent a failure of Bush's foreign policy?
It might.
That's what I'd like Duckworth and Roskam to explain.
And if they would agree with William Perry's essay that we need to strike now, preemtively.
Hezballah's war on Israel has demonstrated, per Michael Fruend writing in JP online,
...by transferring advanced rockets and weaponry to Hizbullah, Teheran and Damascus have just unwittingly proven one of the Bush Administration's central contentions regarding the need for preemptive action against rogue states in the global war on terror.
The two countries have demonstrated that they are ready and willing to share missile systems with a terrorist organization, thus strengthening the case that they must be prevented from obtaining weapons of mass destruction at all costs.
There is no doubt now terrrorists are united and work together.
Whether Amecians will is something I'd like to see Duckworth and Roskam debate.
North Korea going nuclear is a problem.
If it represents a failure for any administration, it's Bill Clinton's gang who thought they could trust that short dictator to keep a promise, which he broke almost as quickly as Blago does a campaign promise.
One aspect of the War on Terror is at least it has disrupted the nuclear trafficking by Pakistan and shut down Libya's ambitions.
Our problem in the Far East is that only Japan seems to realize the danger and when they start thinking about going on the offensive it upsets everyone else who still remembers World War II, which is understandable.
South Korea's leaders are the answer American Left's useful idiots during the Cold War who wanted nothing but to appease Communists. They're scared to death of offending their northern neighbors even though the Kims are certifiable.
Members of Congress vote for defense budgets, oversee intelligence, and are the first ones to head for a microphone when something big happens. Every Congressional candidate should be questioned on how we are supposed to deal with rogue states like Iran and North Korea and how we combat radical Islam.
I have three words that explain why a preemptive strike (military) against North Korea won't work.
Seoul. South. Korea.
With the amount of firepower Kim Jong Il has aimed at Seoul the entire metropolitan area would be wiped out within days. It would make Iraq look like a Cub Scout trip to the woods.
You really want to wipe one of the world's economic engines off the face of the planet? I don't think so.
PS Bill, I'm surprised you give Halliburton a free pass. Considering how many billions of our taxpayer money Halliburton has managed to lose they themselves are a national security threat. That money could've gone toward Kevlar and other defenses. I don't what's worse: war profiteering or "losing" battle money?
Last line should read: "I don't know what's worse: war profiteering or "losing" battle money?"
Time for much-needed shuteye.
I'm surprised you give Halliburton a free pass
I was a big advocate of the logcap procurement process and the notion of pre negotiating these contracts in advance of war, so when you have a war, you're not at the mercy of the contractors.
Liberals played politics with procurement reform at the expense of troops.
That's the reality when you get down to it...
Liberal criticism is what drove DoD to do really smart stuff like implement full Fed Acquisition Reg compliance on Iraqi contracting.
Junking that notion is recommendation number 1 on Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons Learned in Contracting and Procurement (SIGIR-06-004T) August 2, 2006 (it's a pdf file)
Democrats threw about 20 years bipartisan thinking on procurement right out the window trying to make politics out of the Cheney Halliburtion link.
It was totally false and Iraq reconstruction suffered the most.
I bet she appreciates that challange more then when the Cegelis folks were calling her a stooge for Emmanual.
Remember those folks Austin?
Bill,
I remember and stand behind everything I wrote during the primary. As a resident of the 6th District, I questioned whether Maj. Duckworth would be the best Democratic candidate to represent the interests of the 6th District. I stand by that.
And yet I still prefer Maj. Duckworth to the Republican candidate -- with his long-standing affair with the NRA, his "just disgusting" homophobia, and his ongoing ties to Tom DeLay.
Peter Roskam makes it very easy for this 6th District voter to line up behind Maj. Duckworth.
--SCAM
I questioned whether Maj. Duckworth would be the best Democratic candidate to represent the interests of the 6th District.
You thought she couldn't represent the 6th because you thought she was in Rahm's pocket.
I challanged her to get serious on what she knows best: National Security. It's the reason she's running.
You challanged her on her personal integrity.
Ask her what she thinks.
What is the evidence that the existing non-proliferation regimine has any chance of success?
What were the penalties for Israel going nuclear?
India? Pakistan? North Korea?
The genie is out of the bottle. We need to improve the way we deal with international conflict.
As for the people that think invasion or bombing is the answer, they simply don't know what they're talking about.
How did invasion work as a non-proliferation strategy in Iraq?
And does anybody think the Bush administration is declining to bomb North Korea out of respect for international law or unwillingness to shed blood.
There are people who feel like foreign policy is just about having the most military hardware and talking tough. Bush/Cheney has tried this foreign policy and what has it netted us?
We occupy a country that didn't have nukes or even usable chemical weapons.
We lack credibility for diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program.
And we don't have any viable options but bribery in dealing with North Korea.
So these wannabe tough guy diplomats ought to admit that we've tried their way and it hasn't worked.
But they won't because they don't approach problems from reasoning and cause and effect, but what feels good in their gut.
Read Rise of the Vulcans Carl.
Wolfowitz's Phd dissertation was on the dangers and instablitiy of an Israeli nuke.
I'd like to know who's arguing for invasion of Iran, or North Korea.
Both seem poor options for me.
There is an option for revolution in Iran and I think we should do everything to encourage that, to start with the complete isolation of the country and support extended to resistance groups and the expression of support to the minorities (Irans just 51% Persian) that we would support their National Liberation aspirations.
This is the kind of thing where Duckworth and Roskam need to tell us where their thoughts are.
I could care less about Roskam's ads, or what Roskam thinks of my sexual choices of all things...
...that was one of Austin's charges leveled somewhere.
Neither Dems nor Republicans articulate much that makes sense on foreign policy.
However, the GOP policies are completely insane. Waste money, lives, goodwill and leave the country less secure than before.
The Democrats think fixing the Republican screw-ups is as simple as stopping new screw-ups. Sorry. The Iraq occupation can't be fixed by avoiding mistakes.
Bush has left us with a multiple choice list of bad (not merely undesirable) options.
The Democrats are too wussy to tell the truth. They want to sell their own version of shiny BS to the public.
But the GOP agenda is for the people to fearful to actually do something constructive about their fear. See occams hatchet.
You thought she couldn't represent the 6th because you thought she was in Rahm's pocket.
Bill,
I thought that she would be a less effective candidate because her opponents in the general would make the very claim that you are attempting to put on me.
You've proven my suspicions correct.
-- SCAM
Post a Comment