In the Post story, O’Beirne was described as, “a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts.” His most important criteria for applicants, though, “was loyalty to the Bush administration.”

“O’Beirne’s staff,” the article continued, “posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.”

Among those he appointed were Simone Ledeen—the daughter of conservative pundit Michael Ledeen—who, though she “lacked experience managing the finances of a large organization,” was hired to take control of the Iraqi budget, and Jay Hallen, a White House job applicant, who with no finance experience was hired to head the reopening of the Iraqi stock exchange.

…we wouldn’t be havin’ all these problems…

“Before Carney left Iraq in June 2003, he tried one last time to persuade Bremer to rethink his refusal to repair more than a handful of state-owned factories. Iraq’s government-run businesses employed more than 100,000 people before the U.S. invasion. To Carney, it was a no-brainer: Fixing the factories would allow thousands of Iraqis to get back to work, not only allowing them to provide for their families, but also keeping them occupied. He knew from his time in other post-conflict societies that the idle and unemployed are the best recruits for insurgencies.

Wow. To read that, you’d think that maybe Carney knew something about reconstruction and that maybe he had tried to do the right thing there and was ignored. I wonder if that’s why Waxman wanted him to testify. Maybe, just maybe, Carney was going to testify about what he told Bremer and it would make it apparent that Bremer really screwed things up. But, without Carney here, Bremer can just say that things were really a mess when he stepped in and he did the best he could under the circumstances.

Does that sound like too much of a stretch for you, v.v.?

Only a bona fide idiot would think a mission to Iraq in 2003 might relect what should be done NOW. But we do appreciate you trying to participate.

Thanks for pointing out once again your inability to comprehend the article and the purpose for the hearings. Waxman is reviewing the administration’s blunders in the Iraq reconstruction. You see, Congress was supposed to provide oversight, but the Republicans who were running everything at the time didn’t think it was necessary. And all this time, since 2003, Waxman has been gathering data and trying to get the Republicans interested in doing their job, but no dice. Now that the Dems are in charge and Waxman is heading the committee, we’re going to review what was done, what was done wrong, and hopefully we’ll be able to keep the administration from doing it again.

So, yes, a mission to Iraq in 2003 is relevant. I’m sure his 32 years as a career foreign service officer say something about his expertise and the value of his testimony in assessing the handling of the reconstruction from whatever perspective Rep. Waxman is looking for.

With regard to your tactics, v.v., you switched from asking “If Carney hasn’t started the job – what is he supposed to tell you – his ‘vision’?” to saying that what he did in the past is irrelevant. So, first you wrongly assumed he didn’t have any experience and then you say the past doesn’t matter. I really think you should just put the shovel down.

Comment by Marie — February 6, 2007 @ 10:31 pm

Do you know his name?

“Before Carney left Iraq in June 2003, he tried one last time to persuade Bremer to rethink his refusal to repair more than a handful of state-owned factories. Iraq’s government-run businesses employed more than 100,000 people before the U.S. invasion. To Carney, it was a no-brainer: Fixing the factories would allow thousands of Iraqis to get back to work, not only allowing them to provide for their families, but also keeping them occupied. He knew from his time in other post-conflict societies that the idle and unemployed are the best recruits for insurgencies.

But Bremer and his chief economic adviser, Peter McPherson, didn’t want to pour money into inefficient state-run firms. They believed private investors would buy Iraq’s government factories and set up new businesses to employ the populace. So they refused to give Carney money to reopen the plants.

The day before he left, Carney sent a note to McPherson titled “Fatal Flaws in Budget Policy towards State-Owned Enterprises.” He argued that the CPA was violating the Geneva Conventions by undermining “assets of the Iraqi people.” He also accused McPherson of drawing up policy “without adequate Iraqi participation.”

“Instead of transparency, with major concerned Iraqi Ministries and academics engaged,” he wrote, “the policy seems to be the thinking of a small group in the Coalition Provisional Authority.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372_pf.html

Actually a BONA FIDE IDIOT would think anything can still be done in Iraq.

But we do appreciate you trying to participate. Thanks for playing – Two CASES of Rice a Roni will be delivered in 4-6 weeks. Comment by valiant venus — February 6, 2007 @ 6:14 pm

Your directions to the free clinic have been mailed to you, please try to get your syphilis and drug addiction treated before it destroys your few remaining blood cells.

Henry Wax – If Carney hasn’t started the job – what is he supposed to tell you – his “vision”? The purpose of Henry Wax is not to gather info about Iraq – his singular mission in life is to hold hearings. Too bad he’s “deaf”.

Comment by valiant venus — February 6, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

Then we have original thread that mighty aphrodite didn’t bother reading.

On Jan. 10, when President Bush first made his plans for escalation public, he also announced plans to “appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.” The next day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named career diplomat Timothy Carney to the position.

I could sware that January 11, 2007 comes before February 6, 2007.

Can somebody help me with the troll math/logic here?

Henry Wax – If Carney hasn’t started the job – what is he supposed to tell you – his “vision”? The purpose of Henry Wax is not to gather info about Iraq – his singular mission in life is to hold hearings. Too bad he’s “deaf”.

Hey, just for kicks, why don’t you try clicking on the words “Timothy Carney” that are underlined and in red in the article above? C’mon, it’ll be fun.

Well, v.v., if you had done that and read the article it linked to, you could have saved yourself from looking stupid again. Okay, that’s not true. You’d still look stupid but for a different reason. But, you’d have found that it says the following about Carney:

More recently, before his retirement in 1999, Carney was the ambassador to Sudan and to Haiti. In 2003, he worked in Iraq with the Ministry of Industry and Minerals, and he has lectured Army and National Guard units preparing for deployment.

I’ll just bet that his time in Iraq at the Ministry of Industry and Minerals might have something to do with the testimony he was expected to give.

By the way, the committee chair is Henry Waxman, not Henry Wax. Too bad your reading comprehension sucks.

Irony is the dumb calling others deaf!!!