WMD? Nope. Terrorism? Uh, no. Overthrowing Saddam? Nada Make a quick large buck for ourselves and our friends? You betcha! Read this story, war supporters, and tell me, with a straight face, that you still believe the lies of what is quickly replacing the Nixon Administration as the most corrupt administration in American history. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7jul07,1,7772685.story?coll=la-home-headlines Pentagon Deputy's Probes in Iraq Weren't Authorized, Officials Say By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — A senior Defense Department official conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts and used their results to push for lucrative contracts for friends and their business clients, according to current and former Pentagon officials and documents. John A. "Jack" Shaw, deputy undersecretary for international technology security, represented himself as an agent of the Pentagon's inspector general in conducting the investigations, sources said. In one case, Shaw disguised himself as an employee of Halliburton Co. and gained access to a port in southern Iraq after he was denied entry by the U.S. military, the sources said. In that investigation, Shaw found problems with operations at the port of Umm al Qasr, Pentagon sources said. In another, he criticized a competition sponsored by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to award cellphone licenses in Iraq. In both cases, Shaw urged government officials to fix the alleged problems by directing multimillion-dollar contracts to companies linked to his friends, without competitive bidding, according to the Pentagon sources and documents. In the case of the port, the clients of a lobbyist friend won a no-bid contract for dredging. Shaw's actions are the latest to raise concerns that senior Republican officials working in Washington and Iraq have used the rebuilding effort in Iraq to reward associates and political allies. One of Shaw's close friends, the former top U.S. transportation official in Iraq, is under investigation for his role in promoting an Iraqi national airline with a company linked to the Saddam Hussein regime. The inspector general's office — which investigates waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon — has turned over its inquiry into Shaw's actions to the FBI to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the sources said. The FBI also is looking into allegations, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, that Shaw tried to steer a contract to create an emergency phone network for Iraq's security forces to a company whose board of directors included a friend and one of Shaw's employees. Shaw, who held top positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, declined to comment for this article. In previous interviews, he has denied any financial links to the companies involved or receiving any promises of future employment or other benefit. Shaw justified his investigations under a special agreement with the Pentagon inspector general, Joseph E. Schmitz. The August agreement created a temporary office headed by Shaw called the International Armament and Technology Trade Directorate. Its mission was to cooperate with the inspector general on issues related to the transfer of sensitive U.S. technologies or arms to foreign countries. Shaw frequently cited the agreement in his dealings with reporters and the military, telling them it allowed him to "wear an IG hat" to conduct investigations. In a recent letter to the inspector general, he said the agreement gave him "broad investigatory authority." That contention is the subject of dispute, however. The agreement states that Shaw "may recommend" that the inspector general initiate audits, evaluations, investigations and inquiries, but it does not appear to give him investigative powers. "Jack Shaw was never authorized to do any kind of investigation or auditing on his own," said one source close to Schmitz. "The agreement was not for that. He's trying to cram more authority into that agreement than it gives him." Schmitz canceled the agreement two weeks after Shaw was first accused of tampering with the emergency phone network contract. Schmitz declined to comment, but in his letter canceling the arrangement, he praised Shaw for "outstanding leadership." Shaw used the agreement to win permission to visit Iraq last fall. In an Oct. 28 letter to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, Shaw said he wanted to "investigate those who threatened the national security of the United States through the transfer of advanced technologies to Iraq." Specifically, Shaw said he planned to identify countries that had smuggled contraband weapons into Iraq and catalog existing conventional weapons stockpiles. Although he did not mention it in the letter, Shaw also was interested in investigating operations at the port of Umm al Qasr. Last summer, Shaw was visited by Richard E. Powers, a longtime friend and lobbyist. Powers was representing SSA Marine, a Seattle-based port operations company that had won a controversial limited-bid contract in the early days of the war to manage the troubled port. He also was representing a small business owned by Alaskan natives called Nana Pacific. Under federal regulations, small companies owned by Alaskan Native Americans can bypass the normal process and receive unlimited, no-bid contracts. Powers suggested there were serious problems with dredging at the port that could be quickly remedied by having a no-bid contract awarded to Nana, which then could subcontract to SSA Marine, sources said. Powers did not respond to requests for comment. Public lobbying records show that Nana and SSA Marine paid Powers $80,000 last year for his work. In December, Shaw flew to Kuwait to inspect the port. The military refused to allow him into the facility, however, because of the danger involved, Pentagon sources said. Shaw and several staffers then went to the port dressed like employees of KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary that has a contract to supply the military with food and other items. In a KBR hat, Shaw and his staff spent less than an hour at the port, taking pictures and talking with soldiers, current and former Pentagon sources said. The group documented well-known problems there, including the presence of unexploded mines. A Defense official in Shaw's office acknowledged that they had entered the port despite the military's concerns. He described the disguise as an attempt to conceal Shaw's status, for safety reasons. He said the military's negative reaction to the proposed visit convinced him that there was serious trouble at the port. "This Army two-star said, 'We won't let you in the country.' I said, there's something there," said the Defense official, who did not want to be identified. "Everybody had declared victory at the port…. We looked at the port and there were still tremendous problems." When coalition officials learned that Shaw was at the port, they made a frantic effort to locate him, but didn't reach him until after his return to Kuwait. "I get this call from [the U.S. military command in Iraq] that said: 'We have an undersecretary of Defense roaming the countryside. We need to locate and secure him,' " recalled a former CPA official. "He's in the country illegally, but we can't arrest him, so we let him finish the tour." Shaw spent about a week in Iraq, meeting with top U.S. and Iraqi officials. He told several officials that the trip to Umm al Qasr had convinced him that work at the port had to be accelerated. He then suggested that the work could be expedited by awarding the contract to Nana, several former CPA officials said. "The only time I heard Nana's name was when [Shaw and his team] were in Baghdad," said a former CPA official involved in the ports. "The notion was that this might well be a vehicle where you could in fact get things moving quickly that needed to be done, such as dredging and so forth." Soon after Shaw's visit, the CPA granted Nana a construction and communications contract worth up to $70 million. Nana then subcontracted $3.5 million in work to SSA Marine, which recently completed the dredging. Nana also is linked to Shaw's other investigation. Late last year, Shaw began looking into the award of cellphone licenses in Iraq after receiving complaints from a longtime friend, Don DeMarino, who had worked under Shaw at the Commerce Department. DeMarino was a director of a consortium called Liberty Mobile, one of the losing bidders in the contest that awarded the cellphone licenses, potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to three other firms. Relying on information from DeMarino and Liberty Mobile's president, Declan Ganley, Shaw cast doubt on the validity of the awards by leaking to several media outlets information that he said showed corruption in the process, said current and former Pentagon sources. He also provided the evidence he had gathered to the inspector general. In December, the inspector general's office released a report saying that no basis had been found for Shaw's accusations. The office referred part of the complaint to the British government for further investigation of two British CPA officials involved in the licensing process, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Times. British authorities exonerated the men. Later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz wrote to the British ambassador clearing them. "The British ambassador in the U.S. has received notification that no British citizens are under investigation by the U.S." in the contract matter, a British Embassy spokesman said. Soon after Liberty Mobile lost the bidding war last fall, Shaw began pushing Nana to win a no-bid contract to build a communications system for the Iraqi police, fire and security forces, according to officials with the now-dissolved CPA and documents obtained by The Times. He then tried to change the language of the contract to allow the creation of a cellphone network, according to interviews and documents. Nana planned to subcontract the construction of the communications system to a company called Guardian Net. Guardian Net's board of directors was nearly identical to that of Liberty Mobile. It included DeMarino, Ganley and Julian Walker, who works for Shaw as a researcher, according to the documents. Ganley and DeMarino have acknowledged participating in the attempt to win a cellphone license. Walker could not be reached for comment. When CPA officials reported their concerns about the Guardian Net plan to Pentagon investigators, Shaw stepped up his investigation of the role of the CPA officials in the licensing process, Pentagon sources said. Even after the Pentagon canceled the agreement that Shaw had used to justify his probe, he unilaterally continued the investigation, Pentagon sources said. On May 11, Shaw delivered his report, which concluded that there was "serious, credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by U.S. government employees pertaining to taking official acts in exchange for bribes." He acknowledged that the report "directly conflicts" with the December report by the inspector general, which he dismissed as "worthless." Shaw's report, which The Times has reviewed, claims evidence of a conspiracy to take over Iraq's cellphone service led by Nadhmi Auchi, a British businessman who has been accused of links to Hussein and who was convicted last year in a French court in an unrelated kickback scheme. Auchi maintains his innocence and is appealing. Auchi, according to the report, paid bribes through a series of surrogates to win the three cellphone licenses and gain control of Iraq's cellular system. A spokesman for Auchi denied Shaw's claims. He acknowledged that Auchi has an indirect, minor stake in Orascom, one of the cellphone operators. He denied any ownership interest in the other phone companies. Shaw's report relies mainly on newspaper articles, rumors and secondhand conversations reported by the losing bidders or anonymous sources and "the Arab street," which Shaw calls "a reasonable sounding board for accepted truth." In the conclusion to his report, Shaw recommends that all the cellphone licenses be canceled and that the contract be awarded to one of the original bidders — as long as the bidder uses a technology known as CDMA, which Shaw describes as superior to other cellular technologies. Shaw sent his report to the inspector general's office, which turned it over for further investigation to the FBI. An FBI official confirmed that the agency had received the report and had just begun looking into the allegations of bribery. "While some of the evidence in this report is fragmentary, the dots are connected in convincing and important ways," Shaw said in the report. "Below the deadly serious efforts to restore security and legitimacy to Iraq lies a muted gold rush mentality."
Yawn. I don't believe the Administration started the war to reward their friends with contracts. This article doesn't have any evidence to prove otherwise. And I believe Grant's administration is considered the most corrupt in American history, not Nixon's.
I don't either; at most it was a fortunate side effect; the administration, war or no war, was going to reward its backers no matter what, like many administrations, although the audacity with which this one has might be remarkable.
I agree the 'audacity with which this one has' is remarkable. Originally I was saying things like 'Halliburton is one of the top companies in the field, and so is naturally a good choice for the projects' for example. But at this point it does seem to be going well beyond that.
The article not withstanding....But do you really belive that NO ONE had that IDEA ($) before the start of the war? Really? No one? I'm mean, we're talking BILLIONS! We're not talking your average American here. We're talking about some of the most powerful elites in the world. I think you underestimate some peoples greed. When talking such large sums of money... The phrase, "War, at any COST" takes on a more realistic meaning.
here is the real reason why we went to war in iraq... bush went to war in iraq to cause fear over the safety of the american oil supply which would cause oil and gas prices to rise and sabotage his re-election bid!!!! yes! thats it! he did it all for his old oil buddies!!! way to take one for the team bush! i hear bush also wanted take over the ANWR by force so he could drill in it for his oil buddies! but instead he thought it would be a better idea to go to an area of the world that hates our guts!! great ideas guys...lets keep em coming
The reason we invaded Iraq is because a shallow, easily influenced and inexperienced man was "elected" President and promptly surrounded himself with bad advisors. They advise him still.
What? This is nonsensical. No, again, I do not believe the war in Iraq was started so Bush's pals could make money on reconstruction. Its just silly to even discuss it because its an accusation you can NEVER come close to proving. Yes, its a biproduct of the war. But to say that was THE motivation for the war is just stupid.
Hayes, to be fair: it is then *at least* as absurd to say that WMD were THE motivation for the war or that an Al Qaeda connection was THE reason for the war. All the reasons I've ever seen are 'just stupid' because Iraq did not attack us or threaten us, and all evidence points to them being less than a threat to us. i'm not trying to stir a fight, but would you agree to the extent that all reasons in isolation are stupid. I understand that some people make an argument for the accumulation of reasons. I get that.
Does it bother anyone else that we are almost 900 deaths into this thing and we're still trying to figure out the motivation?
No. It bothers me that there are always people that think they are the first generation that sees the "truth" about those that run things in this country. It bothers me that people dehumanize the leaders of this country and honestly, in their souls, believe that these leaders are running the country like a big game. They think that the leaders don't care about dead soldier's and beheaded civilians. If Bush had a stroke and died and didn't win by the landlside I have predicted, or better yet, if he got busted with some blow or something and lost the election, I would not feel hate for President Kerry & VP Edwards. I may disagree with his politics but he's not a bad, evil person with a twisted agenda of personal power. Niether is GW. He's not a moron. Neither is GW. He's not un-American. He, like Bush, is a politician who truly believes his philosophies for running this kick-ass country are better than his opponents. I wish some of my fellow conservatives would approach the election like this. I also wish some of the non-Republicans on this board would do this.
Great post, Chance. Dehumanizing definitely makes political arguments a little easier, and I'm guilty at times. I don't hate Bush, and I've argued (believe it or not) passionately before in defense of the *motivation* of neocon pax americana, even while I disagree with the philosophy's viability. Where I have a really, really hard time is Cheney. Maybe if I can rehumanize him in my mind that will be some sort of progress. The other day a friend was wondering if she should break up with her boyfriend. She was going on and on about how dishonest he was, etc, etc, and then she said "but there are some good things." I told her she should break up with him. I said look there are always a few good things about every single person... Then I said I couldn't think of anything good for Cheney, but otherwise all humans would show you positive things. I'll work on it.
I do believe its an intersection of interests that led to the intervention in Iraq. Saddam was thought to be a WMD threat, and asserted as much himself, he was a tyrant, he was a state sponsor of terror, he tried to kill Bush Sr, he was a core reason for US troops in SA - which led to 9/11, 9/11 brought a paradigm change to proactively deal with threats in foreign policy, Iraq's population is fairly educated so is well suited to be a democracy in the middle of the ME. All of these things intersected - a combination of interests came together and led Bush to say go. That's what I believe. But its still much much more plausible that it happened because of (insert: WMD, humanitarian, attempt on Bush Sr., reaction to 9/11) in isolation, than as a moneymaking scheme.
Of the administration. We're trying to figure out the motivation of the administration, not whether or not the war was justified. That's altogether a different question of whether or not we feel the 900 deaths happened on for a just cause.
HS, Edit that a little bit. Step back and look at the whole picture...(I didn't mean that money was the ONLY reason. I meant, that it exist at a high level in THIS administration because of the global ties this president has with big time players; billionaires of many countries). I really believe that WMD was never a main reason; to those in the know. I feel that it was an idea of the administration to use WMD in order to achieve their agenda. Regime change at any cost. I feel they went in knowing this from the start. But the question was..."How do we get the American people to support a war?" Well, "fear works." Lets use WMD as catalyst to war; fresh off national trauma from 9/11! Pure Politics. "Humanitarian efforts," attempt on Bush Sr., war profiteering, stability of ME, are all factors used to leverage that first objective. So, that gets to the question about imminent danger and preemption. This is where the lies come in.
Re: the big picture: The thread started with the assertion that the 'real reason' we invaded iraq was for war profiteering. I don't think that's a solid argument and you apparently don't either. Re: profiteering: its just plain silly to suggest they started a war for profits. The President has so many ways to make money for his partners, its unrealistic to suggest he would go to war for it. Open ANWAR, sure, I'll buy that. Although it philosophically is consistent with who I think GW is, so its not that he believes he's sacrificing the environment for profit, he thinks you can have drilling without sacrificing the environment. He's wrong but not maliciously trying to screw the planet. War, which could endanger his Presidency, he does not do for profit. Its simply a side benefit, and I'm even admitting that it looks sketchy in some of these deals. But that's a long way from the premise of the thread. Re: regime change. Not following you here. Regime change in itself is both obvious and not the answer. Yes, they wanted regime change. The question is 'why did they want regime change?' I say its a combination. A rare intersection of interests coming together at the same time. The thread was started with the assumption that profit was the reason 'why.' I think that's ridiculous and false.
HayesStreet, go back and read my first post. I asked you if you thought there was "NO ONE (administration and associates), before the war, that had the IDEA of profiteering on the war." Not that it was the SOLE REASON. I mean, to think that "NO ONE in the administration" didn't have some vested interest in this, is denying the powerful human desire of: greed. It does exist, you know? Next... Regime change. Yes, many reasons; oil, American legitimacy, world influence, globalization, ME security, establish a west-friendly infrastructure that would allow for globalization of that region, all an effect on the rest of the ME as well. You need to start thinking like a CEO/capitalist. What happens if Coke had saturated the US/European market? What's in your best interest to your stock holders? Hmmm? Wouldn't it be nice if you could sell your products to billions of people in foreign lands, those of which at the moment are not available because of barriers, lack of infrastructure, and unfriendly dictatorships? Are you seeing the big picture here? Stop thinking like HayesStreet, and put yourself in the shoes of a CEO billionaire. I mean, haven't you even read anything about globalization and the dynamics involved?
Hello? The THREAD was started with a different assumption. If you'll look back I responded about the article and title at the beginning of the thread (The Real Reason We Went To War in Iraq * see above), and you responded to me. How saying it was ONE of the reasons backs the original assertion is beyond me. Don't be a punk. You don't have any idea how much or what I've read. Is there an interest in open markets by CEO's? Uh, yes. Does that mean, as the beginning assertion in the thread contends, that it was the 'real reason' we invaded Iraq? No, it doesn't. Are you seeing the big picture? Further, although its irrelevant to the question at hand - no, I don't think the Administration invaded Iraq to expand our markets. There are far less expensive and dangerous policies to both expand our markets generally, and to fill 'his friends pockets,' specifically, than invading Iraq. That's just absurd. Why haven't we invaded Cuba so we can sell Coke there? Do you think we're threatening action in N Korea mainly for the market? No, I'm sure its not the question of Japan and S Korea going nuclear in response or China's response to a rearmed Japan, lol. It's so we can sell Coke. To remove ALL the other variables that have far more significance from the decisionmaking vis-a-vis invading Iraq is pure folly and more Chomskyesque overstatement. And it is empirically false. We didn't intervene in Bosnia to expand our market, nor in Somalia, nor in Haiti. If that was the overriding concern as dictated by those billionaire CEOs you think you know so much about, then those interventions never would have happened.