Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq

Washington Post ^ | 09/17/2006 | Rajiv Chandrasekaran

[kenavi]

Getting sent to Iraq must have been a real political plum.

[ikez78]

This story is pure BS.
I know Larry Diamond, Lydia Khalil and others who worked there and told me of the anti-Bushies who were working over there.

Pure bullshit.

[VictoryGal]

> No, I'm not saying they did a perfect job. I'm just wondering why the press only runs this kind of story when Republicans are involved.

Well, this is pretty blatant. I know Clinton's appointees were incompetent, but they at least had some credentials that sounded reasonable on paper. But-- OMG, a recent grad with no background in accounting tapped to handle a $13 Billion (that's "B" as is "B"loated ) budget? Dang.

It's regrettable that the reporter is a WaPo simp. I would rather it be reported by someone who is interested in constructively learning from mistakes instead of wanting to beat up their political rivals. But I would also rather it be reported rather than it remaining unknown-- you never get rid of the vermin in your house unless you're willing to acknowledge the chewing and rustling sounds in the walls.

I'd never last in Washington-- I'd become unpopular fast with all the firing of incompetents I'd do. Starting with the glad-handing boobs who do the hiring based on whose butt was kissed rather than merit.

It just makes me furious... I'd like to think that the money torn from my bank account to plump up the government actually get things *done*. Ya know?

[Cicero]

Well, I won't argue with you. I suspect that if you combed through any large government project, you would find plenty of incompetents. You'd just have to find one of the worst and write it up.

The same in war. The allies fought the Second World War for the most part with great competence, and there were really plenty of geniuses, such as Patton and MacArthur. But if you comb through all the officers, you can still find incompetents, people promoted beyond their abilities because of their connections. So it depends where you choose to focus the story.

[Hot Tabasco]

But does this book reflect the truth? And can we discuss possible failings without it turning into a political brawl (meaning will democrats simply grab this and use it to bash republicans again, instead of learning from it)?

Ask Alegra, she should be able to answer your questions.....Personally I think the article is complete bullship since there were all kinds of companies assigned to Iraq for the reconstruction and none of them connected to the whitehouse.........

[ikez78]

and our "patriotic" msm ALWAYS choose the anti-Bush side.

[Enchante]

Slow down..... if you believe anything presented as "fact" in a WaPo hit job like this then you truly have a lot to learn. Maybe these anecdotes are accurate, maybe most are not, maybe there are some grains of fact scattered among the author's tendentious ranting..... but let's remember that not only this author (who has written total steaming piles of lib crap in the past), and his paper, but also the people who were likely to express their criticisms to him have a left-leaning agenda.

I don't doubt that there are plenty of things to criticize about the CPA, obviously, but this smells of the usual liberal smear-job.

btw, Republicans should be better and more competent, no doubt, but let's not ignore that every international project dominated by Demagogue/UN/EU types will have its own agenda and that there may be plenty of sour grapes here from people of the liberal socialist State Dept. variety who weren't able to have free rein to do things their way.

Also, I would not assume that the inexperienced 24 years olds cited were really "in charge" of (as opposed to merely on the staff for) entire projects like the Iraqi Stock Exchange or a "13 billion dollar budget"..... maybe, but I'd want to see a lot more corroboration that the charlatans at WaPo before I'd believe it.

[kenavi]

Thanks, first hand experiences are worth hearing.

We know an ex-Marine who worked under Bremer on the Iraqi infrastructure. He gave up a cushy life to work there, and spoke respectfully of the Iraqis under him.

[ikez78]

I can't speak of everyone but these two people worked in the CPA, among many others I've talked to.

These people certainly weren't Bush cronies in any way. The way they depicted things to me, their coworkers weren't either.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

See Ramesh Ponnuru

[Enchante]

FYI, there are comments on NRO today indicating just what I suspected, that the WaPo article is a ridiculous hit-piece written in ignorance and utilizing distorted, fabricated, and/or tendentious claims:

---

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGFlNGY3NDU0ZWI5YTQzMzJiMTEyMzY3MDIyMzZmNWY=

Imperial Farce [Ramesh Ponnuru]

(Full disclosure note: Jim O’Beirne is a friend, as is his wife, my colleague Kate O’Beirne.)


Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s front-pager in yesterday’s Washington Post, about how Jim O’Beirne allegedly hired Bush loyalists over experts to staff the Iraqi occupation, was a hit piece, pure and simple: thinly sourced, fantastic in parts, and propagandistic. Note, for instance, the photo accompanying the story. It shows two “U.S. troops” relaxing in a swimming pool in the Green Zone, where, according to the caption, “many Coalition Provisional Authority officials spent their days.” (In the pool?) This has nothing at all to do with Chandrasekaran’s thesis—O’Beirne, even on the reporter’s account, was in charge of political appointees, not the R&R of troops. But the implication is clear: O’Beirne was sending these political appointees to cushy jobs in Iraq. The article is excerpted from a book titled Imperial Life in the Emerald City.


Chandrasekaran repeats some of the innuendo of earlier iterations of the Iraq-cronyism charge, notably the claim that “the daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator” was “tapped to manage Iraq’s $13 billion budget,” even though she had no “background in accounting.” That’s a double lie: The woman in question, also a friend of mine, does have a background in accounting, and she wasn’t managing the budget.


To get to the main point of the article: O’Beirne wasn’t in charge of staffing the Coalition Provisional Authority; he didn’t have a “staff” of his own, let alone one that could ask crudely political questions of applicants; he didn’t ask anyone he interviewed about his views on Roe v. Wade (a claim that, careful readers will see, Chandrasekaran doesn’t quite tie to O’Beirne); he was eager to find Arabic speakers; and he has never been deluged with job applicants who opposed the Iraq war and the Bush administration but wanted to serve in a war zone (surprise, surprise). Much of the article recapitulates the well-known rivalry between the State Department and the Pentagon (where O’Beirne works), with some extra bitterness added by Fred Smith, a CPA official who was forced out. Great story otherwise!


The bloggers who have decided they believe the Post’s account—some of whom distrust the Post in general—don’t know a thing about O’Beirne, but are happy to accept the veracity of an account that gibes so well with all of their prejudices.
Posted at 11:05 AM

[Cicero]

Thanks for the update.

[Allegra]

You been there, done that, got the pictures. What do you think of this piece?

From about the first sentence, I was gagging on the spin. Then, I looked at the source and it was all clear.

I personally think the article is chock-full of horse-hockey. The negative slant and blatant exaggerations are hard to miss.

I'll be back in Iraq at the end of the month where I can get the real story again instead of the steady diet of distortion I have been fed by the media on my brief (but delightful!) sojourn back to the States.