Hasn't the reconstruction in Iraq already outstripped spending on the Marshall Plan (in constant dollars)?

I keep hearing that factoid. Would like confirmation. If true, it kinda darkens those rosy scenarios.

Keef

"I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate  in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to  some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

The best part was the final summation. And a reason to exhort everyone in the US to VOTE! Vote often, and vote always with
whatever mechanism you are given. Whether a writer's keyboard or an election lever. VOTE. The US could very easily end up this way. VOTE. Even if you do not like the presidentlial candidates. Register and VOTE. Apathy, and cynicism only plays into the hands of anarchists and dictators. VOTE. You might lose it if you
don't USE IT. Do not let anything stop you from voting.

Laura, you know that Saddam announced his candidacy yesterday, right?

I'd like to hear from more of our troops. What are they saying about how the situation has changed?
Doppler

Someone ought to challenge Wolfie on his history. Security, crime and lawlessness were not prevalent in either Germany or Japan. And our troops were not subject to attack.

The Marshall Plan was designed to provide assistance for the European countries to rebuild - and, of course, to counter Communism. Local countries decided how best to spend the money. They were not directed by young idealogues from the AEI and there was no pressure to 'privatize' and cede control of critical industries to foreign investors.

And Europe was not flooded with foreign workers/mercenaries...

Are there no history majors in the press today?

That's nice. Things are going well.

Doppler,

It is unlikely that any of us will hear more from our troops, unless they echo the Bush administration's rosy forecasts.

Here is an excerpt from Eric Boehlert's latest column:

"An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.

The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq."

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon37.htm

As for Paul Wolfowitz, he also testified before Congress that our troop levels would be down to 30,000 by Autumn 2003. It is now Autumn 2004 and...

When the reporter is talking about the kidnap chain, gangs-Bathists-al Queda, does he mean Zarqawi affiliated people when he says al Queda?

Eric Martin,
Great post. I wonder what the absentee ballots will look like from Iraq? Maybe the Republicans will want to sample a few of them before going to great lengths to make sure they all get counted.
Doppler

portions of Jane's used to be available on Lexis. I seem to remember it went off after 9/11, but not sure if it ever came back.

Laura - You'll want to file this one...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1096344040248&apage=1

On Janes request:

Laura, you (unlike myself) live near the second best ( a very close second mind you) library in the world. The library of congress. I have often done great research there. I humbly suggest you avail yourself of that wonderful place.

"Bible-believing, evangelical Christians respect character. They believe in the Ten Commandments, not the "Ten Suggestions." In spite of the lobbying powers of Jew-hating bigots worldwide, the land of Israel is the Bible Land in the minds of Bush's core support group."

Liberty,

Hmmm, the politics of fear reminds me very much of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I will only say be careful what you wish for Likudniks. These Evangelicals believe in the prophecy of John, so much so that they have actually acted within the United States government to make it occur. They can hardly wait for Armeggedon. You really do not want to know how many people still walk the corridors of power with this vision. They actually
believe that Tim LaHaye's series on "Left Behind" holds a true vision of the future. IT IS SCARY!!!!

On the other hand, I feel far more comfortable with John Kerry. I share his belief that the number one threat, not just to the US but to the world, is nuclear proliferation. So did John F. Kennedy. He appears to have reasoned it out, that indeed it is 1960 all over again, perhaps in a different form.

I do not believe in Aramaggedon. It is a symbolic dream of someone who perhaps experienced the power of opiates. And like Kerry, I want the US to be first in the world militarily, economically, but more importantly morally in order to stop that from ever occurring. It really must stop now.

Farnaz Fassihi.

There's one name that you won't see much longer in the pages of The Wall Street Journal.

That's Neoconservative, all-is-wonderful-in-Iraq country.

Just ask Peggy "I'm on Vacation" Noonan and the entire WSJ editorial staff.

Mr. Fassihi wrote a very honest, perceptive email to a friend, an email based upon his experiences.

Unfortunately, like Frank Quattrone, another WSJ boy, Mr. Fassihi allowed that email to fall into the hands of the enemy.

In the case of the WSJ editorial staff and Ms. Noonan, the enemy is the truth.

Sadly, Mr. Fassihi will lose his career.

More importantly, far, far, far more importantly, may Mr. Fassihi make it out of Iraq safely and in one piece.

Mr. Fassihi can get another journalism job. Life comes one to a person.

Be safe. Be well. Make it home alive.

I found this fairly amusing... especially since Monday Night Football had commercials about this genre of show and viagra. And then there is LOST, the show and upscale surfer's attire.

"Now along come Wife Swap and Trading Spouses, two TV shows that cater to a woman's need to both escape her home and family and make them over. While appearing to be throwbacks to pre-feminist notions of domestic hierarchies—both shows feature a wife and mom switching place with another for a few days (and both assume that fathers' jobs are too important to fuss with)—they are, instead, the curious outgrowth of the post-feminist dilemma. Having learned the hard way that women just can't have perfect homes, kids, and jobs, we're offered a chance to escape our own impossible choices, and an opportunity to completely remodel someone else's. None of us, it turns out, can decide if we want to be Laura Bush or Teresa Heinz Kerry, but Wife Swap lets us at least try out both. Happily, women utterly failing to "have it all" with their own families, then switching lives with other women who have failed as well, makes for fabulous theater."

Since I believe that a great deal of power will be in the hands of woman in the 21st century, I wonder if it would be possible to create a show where American woman might "swap" with an Israeli woman who happens to be married to a Palenstinian. It could be a combination of "swapping" and "survivor". Perhaps a
reality show that might actually spark a learning experience.

"Hasn't the reconstruction in Iraq already outstripped spending on the Marshall Plan (in constant dollars)?"

That's a little unfair Kent. The United States was the proud recipient of 75% of the world's money supply at the end of WWII. A very, very sensitive sore point with the British who found themselves in the midst of a horrendous economy at the end of the war. Should we have kept it? It would have allowed us to exercise more economic control. No other nation had ever rebuilt the economy and infrastructure of their enemies.. as they was always that chance of retribution...

a good example of this might be Israel and the Palenstinians.

Instead, the fearless giants of that generation said no, we can rebuild them, we can make them better, stronger, faster... ~smiles~ and so today there exists the European Union and Japan Incorporated.

And then Kennedy, (also of that generation), followed up the Marshall Plan with Foreign Aid, (We still had a good bit of that
money in the treasury.) in order to help the developing nations, the so-called third world countries.

What would you have done?

Building 14 permanent bases. All his accusations about mixed messages sets Bush up for criticism for a mixed message about our long-term goals in Iraq. Kerry alluded to the construction of 14 bases, but we could use some sharper focus here. What is the purpose of the bases. What is the course we should be staying? How are they perceived by the Iraqis? I believe Wolfowitz or another neo-con is on the record somewhere about the Utopian goal of an Iraq like a Post WWII Germany, disarmed and under the thumb of permanent US bases, and enjoying economic prosperity as the fruit of western style democracy. Is this the goal? Or is Iraqi self-determination, whatever dark anti-US/anti-Israel form that might take, the goal? Isn't this mixed message to the Iraqis a major factor in the growing anti-Americanism? Do we take out Moqtada? Or do we give him a pass and encourage him to take his virulent anti-Americanism on the campaign trail?
Doppler

Doppler,

My impression on the strategic nature of these bases is far less ambitious. Think G.I. Joe versus Cobra. These are staging areas for anti-terrorist operations in the Middle East. They would basically be minimally populated until such time that the US needed to stage military operations in the area.

The pentagon, the military does not have the manpower or the wherewithall to build the sort of presence one found in Germany at the end of WWII. Massive numbers of men, tens of thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, tactical nuclear weapons, literally thousands of aircraft, and the infrastructure to support them.

Lots of US style shopping centers in Frankfort... LOL and are those people angry about the US pull-out. It will most definitely have a debilitating effect on their economy.

The closest thing in Iraq to what one found in Germany would be the US embassy in Baghdad. The largest in the world. Mostly populated by intelligence assets.

From Froomkin's WP White House Briefing:

Bush on the twins: "I'm trying to put a leash on them."

The latter elicited this comment from blogger Andrew Sullivan: "No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash."

Doppler

Bush on the twins: "I'm trying to put a leash on them."

The latter elicited this comment from blogger Andrew Sullivan: "No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash.

To which Kerry responded, "I found that that doesn't work."

Yes, first thing he posted on his blog after the debates... hmmm...

To all the pundits who didn't listen carefully when the candidates were talking... and are more interested in form rather than substance...

John Kerry said, "The number one threat to the US is nuclear proliferation"

George Bush: [agreed] called them "weapons of mass destruction" but then added the following unnecessary and lethally dangerous qualifier: "only in the hands of terrorists".

Excluding North Korea and Iran for the moment. Are Pakistan and India terrorist nations? Is Brazil? Is Japan? Is China? Is Vietnam? Is Indonesia? ... the list goes on...

The choice seems very simple to me... either you believe in the wonderful world of Peter Pan and Never Never Land, and the Universe according to Timothy LaHaye, or...

You believe that the REAL clear and present danger is the exponential rate at which nuclear materials and weapson may be spreading...

To any democratic "handlers" looking forward to the Vice-Presidential debates, please remind John Edwards to mention this: (And everyone, don't forget to register and vote! I am out
there trying to get people (I don't care what party.) to register and vote as I am tired of seeing figures about people who are disinclined to either! REGISTER. VOTE. MAKE ITY SO.)

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Vice President Dick Cheney was against the Iraq war before he was for it:

"In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting 'bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'"

From Juan Cole's website: Laura this is about as scary as it gets!!!!

"Moreover, some of this zigzagging reflected very poorly on Bush's judgment. I have it from insiders that in April, 2003, Jay Garner let it slip to some of his staff that his charge was to turn Iraq over to Ahmad Chalabi within six months. The staffers were shocked and some contacted the State Department to see if this was known there. It was not. So they blew the whistle on Bush with Colin Powell. I was told that Powell then made a coalition with Tony Blair and that the two of them went to Bush and got him to change his mind."

Interesting interview of "Le Simone" in La Reppublica: the two claim they were never accused of being spies. It appears that
they were never asked this question.

I am still very curious about "The List".

http://www.repubblica.it/2004/i/sezioni/esteri/itaraptre/grandepaura/grandepaura.html

Karl Rove must have known things didn't go well when the New York Post asked him whether this was the worst debate of President Bush's life. No, Rove insisted. This was one of the president's best debates, and one of John Kerry's worst. "Really?" asked the reporter, Vince Morris. "You can say that with a straight face?"

Wolfowitz wants to compare Iraq to Germany & Japan in 1947? Germany & Japan were completely disarmed. The U.S. army in those days didn't bypass captured weapons & ammunition warehouses and leave the destruction to Halliburton days later. If there was anything left.

I recall seeing on a reputable web site a few weeks ago that there were ZERO military deaths from hostile fire during the WWII post-war occupation.

Laura please consider adding this important public service announcement to your blog:

From Obisidian:

##################################################
These are excerpts from a press release one of Markey's staffers just emailed me:

The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.

This provision was not part of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and the Commission actually called upon the U.S. to "offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors." The Commission noted that "The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach to the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law." These standards prohibit the use of torture or other cruel or degrading treatment....

Rep. Markey said, "When the Republicans 9/11 bill is considered in the House, I intend to offer an amendment to strike the torture outsourcing provisions from the Republican bill and replace it with restrictions restoring international law as provided in my bill. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Republican Leadership has decided to load up the 9/11 Commission bill with legislative provisions that would legitimize torture, particularly when the Commission itself called for the U.S to move in exactly the opposite direction."

There is no possible way for a suspect being detained in secret to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he will be tortured if he is deported--especially when he may be deported to a country where has never been, and when the officials who want to deport him serve as judge, jury and executioner, and when there is never any judicial review. This bill will make what happened to Maher Arar perfectly legal, and guarantee that it will happen again.

Markey's staffer wrote to me that "this bill could be on the House floor as early as next week."

To everyone: Please, please, please write to your Representative and tell him (or her) to vote against the bill and/or for Markey's amendment.

To other bloggers: Please consider linking to this post. This bill will pass unless people know about it, and no newspaper has reported on it. The press coverage of the CBS memos showed that blogs can break a story and have an effect--and this story is about 100 times more important than Bill Burkett's shenanigans and CBS news’ negligence.

#################################################

"it is Kerry who is the practical conservative in this race; and Bush who is the airy-fairy idealist. If Bush didn't have the abstract theological support of evangelical Christians, he wouldn't have a, well, prayer."

---- Andrew Sullivan.

I would add the following qualifiers: It is dangerous to put legion numbers of nuclear weapons ( weapons of mass destruction) in the hands of people who belong to a pseudo-theocracy that believe in the following dogma:

1.) Christ cannot return unless arabs are removed from the Holyland.
2.) Timothy LaHaye and the Apocalpytic vision define the near future.
3.) All nations, and especially Jews, must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior before that event occurs.
4.) Homosexuals, such as Andrew Sullivan, are "faggots of wood" to be thrown in the fire and burned.
5). Women were created to be subjugated to men.

This defines Evangelical foreign policy for far too many US government functionaries. It is dangerous and reckless to allow them to attain and hold that power, even if they do provide strong support for Israel's current policies. But at what cost!? It may be hard for you take my word for it. Unfortunately, it is all too true.

Bush condemns Kerry for saying the US must pass the "the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Bush thinks it is a point in his favor that he is willing to send our troops into war where he can't pass that test. Kerry should make the point that, if Bush were wiser, as his father was, he wouldn't make a reckless decision like rushing into an unnecessary war, alienating the rest of the world, and distracting from the hunt for Al Queda. He should make the point that we cannot afford another such collossal strategic blunder. He should then pledge to be wiser and smarter about fighting the war on terror during his administration, so that we make real progress, not unnecessary blunders. And he's not going to seek their permission, but will so conduct our affairs that the free world, indeed any wise observer, will unite behind us and support our effort without question or reservation.
Doppler

Doppler,

Bush is an Evangelist, before that he was an addict and a poor businessman. Then he became governor. His father was a professional schooled in congress, head of the CIA, ambassador, and vice president. His father served honorably in the military during WWII.

These really are two different people.

Evangelists like Bush are indeed reckless. They believe that their faith gives them certainty and it also makes them right. "Their God is not your God". Beware! These people they are far more dangerous than the Likud and the Likud is reckless and dangerous enough.

And again, as Kerry stated, nuclear proliferation without any qualifiers is the clear and present danger. These people should not have control of nuclear weapons.

On this topic, Frank Rich has a discussion of the GOP film "GWB: Faith in the White House".

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html?oref=login

Rich alludes to the fact that "Jews for Jesus" play a supporting role in its production. I have a feeling that, not unlike 100 years ago in Europe, "Jews for Jesus" will become a growth industry in America as the Xian-Facsists force us to the brink of Armageddon. The imperial aims of the new Bush-Christological front are truly bottomless. This is a staggering consequence of al-Qaeda's attack 3 years ago. Instead of expanding liberty, the foundation and birthright of the American nation, the reflex, of power, has instead been to capitalize on our shock and attempt to convert America into a mirror image of the absolutist fundamentalism that attacked us. If for no other reason, this makes it imperative to remove Bush from office.

"Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has emerged as the dominant figure in the new Iraq. Sistani this month forced U.S. occupation czar L. Paul Bremer to abandon his plan for regional caucuses to select a transitional government. The cleric said yesterday he would accept an interim government if elections were held by the end of this year. But his statement cautioned that the interim government shouldn't make "binding" decisions, which could prevent it from approving a future U.S. military role in Iraq -- as American officials had hoped."

I'm not sure where Igatius is coming from on this... but based on reading what George Cave has written it seems more the case that the theocracy in Iran fears Sistani gaining too much power. In terms of authority, he is the senior Shi'ite cleric. Regional / non-secular power in Iraq could easily translate to power in Iran. Particularly given his successful endeavors against the political forces supported by the Americans and their allies.

Again, I do not believe that pundits, government officials, and people really understand iran, the region and the interrelationships there. Which is why we are in over our head.

What is it with the NYTimes piece yesterday about how the Administration got crosswise on the nuclear weapons program; in such a lengthy piece, why is there no mention of the Niger forgeries?
Doppler

Doppler if the wall street journal is going to muzzle one of their reporters... and 60 minutes shut down their story, (the forgery was at the heart of it), until after the elections.. well I think it seems clear that there is a conspiracy to censor that information.

If the Panorama artcile I translated from Italy is correct, the Niger forgeries are as close as one can get, at this point, to the "smoking gun". I note in passing that the current Italian government is structured in ways that draw easy parallels with ours. Their center-left is very much like John Kerry and the Dems and their right, Berlusconi and the conservatives, are much like Bush Republicans. Articles about the Niger forgeries are difficult to find in most of their mainstream publications.

Because Italians are probably the most open-minded, and openly expressive in terms of their politics and opinions and just in general I find that by reading their news I can avail myself of new, previously unknown information.

"What is it with the NYTimes piece yesterday about how the Administration got crosswise on the nuclear weapons program; in such a lengthy piece, why is there no mention of the Niger forgeries?"

"Doppler if the wall street journal is going to muzzle one of their reporters... and 60 minutes shut down their story, (the forgery was at the heart of it), until after the elections.. well I think it seems clear that there is a conspiracy to censor that information."
Manoppello,
Thank you for all your great posts. My wife asks me sometimes if I don't think I'm being a little paranoid, and I don't think I could tell her that the NYT, WSJ and CBS might be conspiring to suppress news until after the election, without her looking at me with either pity or alarm (for the state of my mind, not the state of our country). And it has always been my view that, while people can and will conspire, there is a pretty small number of conspirators/secret-holders beyond which it is totally unrealistic to expect information to remain secret. How many people would it take to pull off such a conspiracy among news organizations? Way too many to keep it secret, I would assume. But then, what do I know about the decision making of such news organizations?
It has been my hope that the Fitzgerald investigation would produce something tangible, such as allegations that the person that outed Valerie Plame was the same one or knew who forged or tried to pass a Niger document and who blabbed to Chalabi about cracking the Iran code, all proven by Chalabi's hard drives, which would set the press to feasting on the story of our times. It would be a shame if such relevant information is suppressed until after the election, since this, like few other elections, is a referendum on the Administration's actions, style, and policies.
Doppler

"Hasn't the reconstruction in Iraq already outstripped spending on the Marshall Plan (in constant dollars)?"

My read is that reconstruction has stalled- some reading:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6151149/
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/10/01/f284.raw.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092604E.shtml