In 2004, the UN’s International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) — the international group that oversees the use of Iraqi money on Iraqi reconstruction — wanted to know more about Halliburton. Specifically, they wanted to conduct an audit of Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root’s single-source, oh-so-lucrative Iraq contract, $1.6 billion of which came straight from Iraqi coffers. After much foot dragging, the White House finally complied, sending the IAMB heavily redacted versions of audits the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) had conducted into Halliburton’s use of the money.

Blacked out of the redacted report was the fact that Halliburton may have bilked the U.S. military out of about $100 million. Also blacked out were statements critical of KBR like “KBR was unable to reconcile the proposed costs to its accounting records” and “KBR did not always provide accurate information.”

Here’s where it gets really interesting. Wondering why the extensive redactions blocked all of the negative findings, the crack researchers in Rep. Henry Waxman’s office looked into the matter. It turns out the White House gave Halliburton a copy of the negative audit and let the company scrub out all of the negative stuff itself before it was sent to the UN group. A letter from KBR dated 9/28/04 to the Army Corps of Engineers states “we have redacted the statements of DCAA that we believe are factually incorrect or misleading and could be used by a competitor to damage KBR’s ability to win and negotiate new work.”

[The Bush administration has launched a 60-day public relations campaign to sell its Social Security privitization plan. ThinkProgress helps you keep up with all the action.]

Has Bamboozlepalooza stalled?

Days 1-10: Lots of action every day.

Days 11-13: Zilch.

Update: Looks like they are rolling again. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce Eric Stewart is barnstorming North Carolina.

David Horowitz has been campaigning to end the vast left-wing conspiracy on college campuses. To support his claims of inappropriate political bias, Horowitz has been talking about a student at Northern Colorado University who was asked on a test to “explain why George Bush is a war criminal.” According to Horowitz’s account, the student wrote an essay explaining why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal and received an F.

As it turns out, Horowitz’s tale was almost completely fabricated.

Inside Higher Education revealed today:

1. The question the student answered was not “Explain why George Bush is a war criminal.” Here is the relevant part of the actual question:

Cohen’s research on deviance discussed this process of how the media and various moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers can conspire to create a panic. How does Cohen define this process? Explain it in-depth. Where does the social meaning of deviance come from? Argue that the attack on Iraq was deviance based on negotiable statuses. Make the argument that the military action of the U.S. attacking Iraq was criminal.”

2. The question was optional. The student could have chosen not to answer it at all and written an essay on a completely different topic instead.

3. The student did not receive an F.

4. The professor who asked the question “is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket.”

Horowitz meekly “responds” to the charges on his website today but doesn’t actually try to defend the original facts of the story. Here’s a sample:

Until I hear from the student I have no comment on the matter of the grade but it is conceivable to me that if this were an “A” student and she received a “D” or even a “C” on this exam, in her mind it might as well be an “F.” And, finally, it is quite plausible that since there were two required and two optional questions she might have been confused as to which were which…

In yesterday’s press briefing, Scott McClellan stated that the president “is hearing from members [of Congress] about some of the survey results, the survey results that show that the American people recognize that there are serious problems facing Social Security.” The president may be hearing the survey results, but he certainly isn’t listening to them, or else he would have packed up his 60-stops-in-60-days trips before they even got started:

When asked whether they approve or disapprove of — or are confident or uneasy about — the way President Bush is handling Social Security, respondents said:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll: 35% Approve / 56% Disapprove

Associated Press/Ipsos Poll: 37% Approve / 56% Disapprove

CBS News/New York Times Poll: 31% Confident / 63% Uneasy

CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll: 35% Approve / 56% Disapprove

Think maybe that’s just the “liberal media bias”?

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll

Q: Do you think you would be better off or worse off if George W. Bush’s plan for Social Security passes?
A: 27% Better Off / 41% Worse Off

Despite their claim that there “is no higher priority than continuing to train, equip and mentor Iraqi armed and police forces,” the White House continues to shortchange Iraq’s security forces while wildly inflating their size and capabilities to the American people, according to a new GAO report. We combed through the document so you don’t have to — below are some of the more disturbing findings:

White House Still Misleading about Progress in Iraq:

– U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped. [p.2]
– The reported number of Iraqi police is unreliable because the Ministry of Interior does not receive consistent and accurate reporting from the police forces around the country. The data does not exclude police absent from duty. [p.2]
– The reported number of security forces overstates the number actually serving. Ministry of Interior reports, for example, include police who are absent without leave in its totals. Ministry of Defense reports exclude the absent military personnel from its totals. According to DOD officials, the number of absentees is probably in the tens of thousands. [p.8]
– The departments of State and Defense no longer report on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required weapons, vehicles, communications equipment, and body armor. [p.4]

U.S. Must Invest in Faltering Iraqi Forces:

– Coalition leadership has yet to develop a system to assess the readiness of Iraqi military and police forces so they can identify weaknesses and provide them with effective support. [p.4]
– Many police remain untrained and unvetted, according to Department of Defense (DOD) officials. [p.6]
– Recent reports indicate that some Iraqi security personnel continue to cooperate with insurgents. For example, a February 2005 report cited instances of insurgent infiltration of Iraqi police forces. Police manning a checkpoint in one area were reporting convoy movements by mobile telephone to local terrorists. Police in another area were infiltrated by former regime elements. [p.17]