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

[aps]

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I find this whole concept truly appalling.

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

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html

So when people applied for jobs for rebulding Iraq, they were asked questions like this:

1. Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?
2. Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror?
3. Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

What does that have to do with someone's expertise? If someone is applying for the job, I would be very surprised if the sole purpose was to go over there to make matters worse. For some people, it's not about whether they support the war but whether they care about Americans and Iraqis.

To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.

Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.

That is absolutely appalling. No wonder Iraq is such a mess right now. I just cannot fathom this mentality.

Some 24-year old who had no experience in finance was hired to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. He had graduated from Yale and had 2 years experience at a real estate firm. When he was told he was going to be in charge of reopening the stock exchange, he said:

"Are you sure?" Hallen said to Foley. "I don't have a finance background."

It didn't matter. He was hired anyway. The stock exchange did not reopen until after Foley left Baghdad.

A man by the name of Frederick Burkle was overseeing the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system. Here are his qualifications:

a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.

He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."

One week after Baghdad was liberated, Burkle received an e-mail from a senior official at USAID stating that the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. He was replaced by the following man:

Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.

Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.

That is truly amazing....absolutely amazing.

Could all of this loyalist hiring have added to the quagmire we have in Iraq? You bet, and I hope the GOP suffers serious repercussions as a result.

 

[BWG]

Critize this administration and get kicked to the curb, as former Inspector General of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Clark Ervin found out.

Ervin lost his job in mysterious fashion. He was appointed by President Bush in December 2003 when Congress was out of session. "The decision not to renominate Clark Kent Ervin was purely a White House decision," said Elissa Davidson, spokeswoman for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.


It's not like he wasn't qualified or an outsider.
He served in the first Bush White House from 1989 to 1991 as the Associate Director of Policy in the Office of National Service.
He served as the Inspector General of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
He served in Texas state government as the Assistant Secretary of State of Texas.(1995 - 1999)
He served as Deputy Attorney General, General Counsel, and Director of Administration in the office of then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn.(1999 - 2001)(John Cornyn is the current junior United States Senator from Texas)

He was educated in the appropiate field.
He graduated from The Kinkaid School in 1977, Harvard College in 1980, and Harvard Law School in 1985, all with honors.


So why was he dumped?
What he did do was expose waste, fraud, and incompetence.

"There are still all these security gaps in the country that have yet to be closed," Ervin said. Meanwhile, he added, Homeland Security officials have wasted millions of dollars because of "chaotic and disorganized" accounting practices, lavish spending on social occasions and employee bonuses and a failure to require competitive bidding for some projects.

Asked what's wrong with the department, he said, "It's difficult to figure out where to start."

USA Today



It's who you know and blow, over what you know!! sad

 

[PeteEU]

Now the response will be one of the following if not all.

1) Liberal media lie
2) Lies from the left
3) Do you want Saddam back?
4) Terrorist supporter!
5) Its Clintons fault!

and if that fails, ignore it totaly.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wtf.............

 

[aps]

Interesting how none of the republicans/conservatives respsonded to this thread.....very interesting. This article was plastered all over the front page of the Post. I cannot wait to read the lettes to the editor.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

what's that saying..."If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention"

*looks around*

I'm not seeing much outrage.

 

[oldreliable67]

Bush's tendency to reward the faithful (i.e., cronyism to his opponents) is well known. He seeks out those whom he trusts and puts them in positions of responsibility. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out -- FEMA's Micheal Brown may be the best known example. I've criticized Bush's staffing choices at DP, previously, so no need to reiterate them here. But, nonetheless, there are some obvious faults with the AP piece. Powerline articulates those faults much better than I could...

the Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran doesn't manage to make the case. He shows that seven senior-level members of the Coalition Provisional Authority had ties to President Bush, his administration, or another Republican administrations. But the scant pieces of information he provides about the seven don't show a lack of "know-how" (for example, the senior adviser for transportation had been the deputy secretary of the U.S. Transportation Department; the senior adviser for higher education had been a college president; the senior adviser for education had been Bush's education policy adviser). Nor does Chandrasedaran show that any of these senior advisers performed poorly overall in Iraq.

Instead, he focuses on three other individuals. The first is Jay Hallen, a 24 year-old staffer who was assigned by his boss in Iraq (not the administration in Washington) to reopen the Baghdad stock market despite a lack of background in finance. Chandrasedaran does not claim that Hallen had any meaningful GOP connections -- apparently, he didn't even support the war in Iraq. So, while one can certainly question giving this assignment to Hallen, it was not a case of GOP ties trumping know-how. Moreover, in Chandrasedaran's telling, Hallen's "failing" had nothing to do with lack of financial expertise. He stands accused, rather, of trying to create a modern stock market instead of simply reopening the market as it was. In the end, according to Chandrasedaran, Hallen was outflanked and his vision was not realized. An interesting story, but no scandal.

Chandrasedaran also finds fault with James Haveman, who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system. Haveman had been the director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care overseas, so he did not lack relevant experience. Nor does Chandrasedaran show him to be a GOP insider, although he had been a community health director (additional relevant experience) under a Republican Governor, John Engler of Michigan. Haveman apparently tried various market-based strategies to keep costs down, and he sold the "dysfunctional state owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies" to a private company. His critics say Haveman's approach proved unsuccessful. But even if that's true, it wouldn't be a case of GOP ties trumping know-how; it would be a case of a market-based approach not succeeding. And Chandrasekaran provides little reason to believe that a different approach would have worked significantly better.

Chandrasedaran's final target is former New York police chief Bernard Kerik. Chandrasedaran concedes that Kerik was dispatched to Iraq not because of his GOP ties but because of his "star power." So again, Chandrasedaran's examples don't support his thesis. Kerik stands accused of the opposite offense of Haveman -- instead of imposing his theories, Kerik allegedly ignored the details, courted the media, and left the real work to the State Department expert in international law enforcement. Chandrasedaran's sources say that Kerik was "the wrong guy at the wrong time." Kerik says he wasn't given sufficient funding to hire foreign police advisers or establish large-scale training programs. Either way, given the presence of Kerik and the State Department expert, the problem does not appear to have been lack of policing know-how.

Chandasedaran's piece also suffers from an apparent failure to appreciate the inherent difficulties of nation-building. These difficulties are not magically overcome, as Chandasedaran implies, by having international bureaucrats run the show. Certainly, the U.N.'s performance in delivering services and keeping the peace in areas less perilous than Iraq is not without its critics. This is not to deny that some some administrators are better than others, and that some administrators selected by the Pentagon did not perform well. But Chandasedaran falls short of demonstrating that the approach our governement used to select administators for Iraq was fundamentally flawed.

BTW, Bush's tendency to employ those who have demonstrated some loyalty is nothing new, it takes place at every level in government, including the Presidential level. Every President since George Washington has done the same. In Bush's case, the extraordinary visibility of politicians today coupled with the extreme rancor imbued in those afflicted with BDS show his mistakes in a much harsher light, in much the same way, attitude-wise, as Clinton's opponents did with his peccadiloes. Just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[RightinNYC]

This just doesn't seem to be much of a story. Yes, there's patronage in government, its just how it works. I defy anyone to show me a governing body that doesn't have some measure of it. And as the link that old reliable posted up above shows, I see no evidence that this patronage was any more egregious than the standard fare.

 

[aps]

This just doesn't seem to be much of a story. Yes, there's patronage in government, its just how it works. I defy anyone to show me a governing body that doesn't have some measure of it. And as the link that old reliable posted up above shows, I see no evidence that this patronage was any more egregious than the standard fare.

Can you tell me when the last time we, as a country, tried to spread democracy in another country and the nepotism that was shown under those circumstances? Thank you.

 

[RightinNYC]

Can you tell me when the last time we, as a country, tried to spread democracy in another country and the nepotism that was shown under those circumstances? Thank you.

nep·o·tism (nĕp'ə-tĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives

Can you show me the relatives who are being shown favoritism? Gracias.

 

[aps]

Can you show me the relatives who are being shown favoritism? Gracias.

nepotism: Favoritism shown by person in high office to relatives or close friends especially in granting jobs.

Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1994, page 790.

 

[mixedmedia]

Can you show me the relatives who are being shown favoritism? Gracias.

Well, yeah, but I think you know what she meant.

With all we have hinging on our success in Iraq, you'd think they'd want the best people for the job. Not the best people they also happen to like.

LOL, then again, maybe not. :roll:

 

[akyron]

Interesting how none of the republicans/conservatives respsonded to this thread.....very interesting. This article was plastered all over the front page of the Post. I cannot wait to read the lettes to the editor.

Blah. Non Issue.

It happens every day in every town in every city in every country in every state in every country worldwide.

Why would Iraq be any different?

Hiring friends of friends...

"we highlighted the fact that candidates' preferred method for finding a new job was through a personal referral channel. That's to say a consultant's career path can be greatly influenced by the opinions of friends and alumni - and that they are particularly likely to apply to a firm where an existing contact has been able to get them a "foot in the door". Firms with really cutting edge referral schemes are able to gain a big advantage as a result."

2006 recruitment channel report


Im not saying its right. We should expect more from our leaders but in the end they are only human and will follow human trends.

 

[mixedmedia]

Blah. Non Issue.

It happens every day in every town in every city in every country in every state in every country worldwide.

Why would Iraq be any different?

Hiring friends of friends...

"we highlighted the fact that candidates' preferred method for finding a new job was through a personal referral channel. That's to say a consultant's career path can be greatly influenced by the opinions of friends and alumni - and that they are particularly likely to apply to a firm where an existing contact has been able to get them a "foot in the door". Firms with really cutting edge referral schemes are able to gain a big advantage as a result."

2006 recruitment channel report


Im not saying its right. We should expect more from our leaders but in the end they are only human and will follow human trends.

Yes, but firing qualified people for those less-qualified for a project such as rebuilding a country that is in our most vital interest to do capably is a pretty extreme example. It's one of those "What the hell were they thinking?" revelations.

 

[aps]

Yes, but firing qualified people for those less-qualified for a project such as rebuilding a country that is in our most vital interest to do capably is a pretty extreme example. It's one of those "What the hell were they thinking?" revelations.

mixed, the Bush apologists will not acknowledge that anything was wrong here. So what if they asked people who they voted for in 2000? :roll:

 

[akyron]

"What the hell were they thinking?"

Apparently the same thing almost every other company in the world was thinking.

I agree the process needs an overhaul worldwide. Perhaps a giant centralized database... encompassing a global database..uhh.nevermind.

 

[TurtleDude]

Its a non-issue that is being used to slake more BDS issues. Every administration does this stuff. Does anyone think that say Mike Espy, Web Hubbell, Jocelyn Elders or Donna Shalala were anywhere near the best choices for their respective duties? Three were part of the "arkansas mafia" and one a close friend of hillary. Janet Reno-rated the worst major City DA in America was the THIRD choice of Hillary for AG.

 

[mixedmedia]

Apparently the same thing almost every other company in the world was thinking.

I agree the process needs an overhaul worldwide. Perhaps a giant centralized database... encompassing a global database..uhh.nevermind.

:rofl

But seriously, this is not just another middle east construction project. These were people charged with making Iraq as functional as possible in a hostile climate with the whole world watching.

I'm not trying to make a huge deal out of it. It's done now. But you have to admit it's more of an eyebrow-raiser than your typical example of cronyism. Of course, there's that Michael Brown fiasco, as well, to put it all in perspective.

 

[PrimBabUB]

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

Makes perfect sense to me. We have all witnessed what the rabid GOP haters are capable of doing to undermine progress in Iraq from the shores of America. I shudder to think of the damage they could have done from within Iraq.

 

[mixedmedia]

Makes perfect sense to me. We have all witnessed what the rabid GOP haters are capable of doing to undermine progress in Iraq from the shores of America. I shudder to think of the damage they could have done from within Iraq.

Gee, I guess it's a good thing there are no liberals or Democrats in the armed forces, eh? Just imagine all the damage they could do over there in Iraq. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Gee, I guess it's a good thing there are no liberals or Democrats in the armed forces, eh? Just imagine all the damage they could do over there in Iraq. :roll:

we don't plan on surrendering so the white flag battalion hasn't been activated :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[mixedmedia]

we don't plan on surrendering so the white flag battalion hasn't been activated :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

oh...man.....that is soooooo.....(not) funny. :lol:

 

[TurtleDude]

oh...man.....that is soooooo.....(not) funny. :lol:

its sort of the polar opposite to the French Foreign Legion (which was brave and effective because it didn't have french regulars:mrgreen: )

BTW Happy Birthday MM

 

[mixedmedia]

its sort of the polar opposite to the French Foreign Legion (which was brave and effective because it didn't have french regulars:mrgreen: )

Perhaps, but it's for certain that they wouldn't have been such snappy dressers if they hadn't been the French Foreign Legion.

BTW Happy Birthday MM

Thanks. :2wave:

 

[TurtleDude]

[

Perhaps, but it's for certain that they wouldn't have been such snappy dressers if they hadn't been the French Foreign Legion.

Yes, while the British Red Coats wore easily targeted jackets so their enemies couldn't see them bleed, French Regulars wore Brown trousers-and camouflage was not the reason :mrgreen:

SYL