It's time to sit down and have a very frank talk about the contractors responsible for servicing our troops in Iraq. Thus far, America as a whole has generally looked the other way on a variety of issues, choosing quiet outrage when tens of billions of taxpayer dollars go missing, when reports of rape in companies in Iraq pop up, when reports of contractors playing football with bricks of hundred-dollar bills (more taxpayer money) show up, etc.

I could go on. I could, really! It's not that difficult. What's difficult is finding someone in the Republican Party outraged over this. When the Republicans were in charge, there was absolutely NO oversight of the billions of tax dollars spent on contractors in Iraq. Now, the Democratic Party is holding massive oversight investigations (thanks in no small part to Congressman Waxman--drop him an email and thank him if you have the chance), and the stories keep on coming.

Let's take a look at one of those contractors, KBR. This particular company--despite its numerous complaints--has just tripled its first-quarter profits.

Rape -- Multiple women who formerly worked at the company have come forward accusing co-workers of rape. Every woman involved has offered a similar experience: following the rape, they were told any reporting to any authority would result in immediate termination. The justice department is NOT pursuing the investigation.

Electrocution of Troops -- Democratic chariman Henry Waxman is currently investigating whether the accidental electrocution of troops could have been avoided. According to a recent article by the New York Times, which found massive evidence suggesting KBR was intentionally cutting corners, there's good reason to believe this tragedy could have easily been avoided: "One electrician warned his KBR bosses in his 2005 letter of resignation that unsafe electrical work was “a disaster waiting to happen.” Another said he witnessed an American soldier in Afghanistan receiving a potentially lethal shock. A third provided e-mail messages and other documents showing that he had complained to KBR and the government that logs were created to make it appear that nonexistent electrical safety systems were properly functioning."

Stealing -- A former KBR employee was promoted after she was caught stealing from taxpayers. According to sworn testimony by two former co-workers, this was a regular occurrence. One even allegedly went so far as to melt down gold to make cowboy boots.

Tax dodging -- More than $500 million dollars in taxes has been saved by KBR thanks to very crafty, very devious tax-dodging schemes that involve off-shore shell companies.

Contaminated Water -- the Pentagon dismissed this report of KBR failing to provide safe water to troops in Iraq, suggesting that the water in Iraq is tainted to begin with and everyone should be drinking bottled water. There's only one problem: this report deals mainly with water used for cleaning clothes and bathing, and KBR's unwillingness to even provide this has resulted in numerous problems.

This is just one of the contractors in Iraq taking hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money every year. Why was there no oversight before the Democrats took control of Congress, despite that fact that billions of dollars went missing and multiple reports of contractor abuses were already being brought forward?

Here's a link for Congressman Waxman's page. Keep an eye on it. He's one of the best representatives we have in Congress, and he's doing an excellent job despite the stonewalling of every Bush administration official in Washington.

Patriotism is not blindly following leaders. Patriotism means finding the truth and always questioning, no matter what. What's happening in Iraq belongs to the Bush administration. No presidential administration will ever come close to this one, but that won't stop neoconservative historians from whitewashing history. I strongly encourage you to watch Bush's War on Frontline. Know the truth behind this war, and understand that the Bush administration will not fix this problem. The Bush administration will pass this trillion-dollar quagmire onto the next president, and there will be no easy solution.

Try to count how many laws were broken. Count how many lies were told, how little planning went into the post-invasion, how little intelligence there was. Learn from this. 

Click here to watch Bush's War on Frontline. 

John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

The total count of American soldier deaths in Iraq has officially reached 4,000. While John McCain runs around the country convincing people the war in Iraq is going well (and having quite a few "senior moments" to boot), the reality on the ground is much, much different.

The fact of the matter is the "surge" is creating some decreased level of violence in Baghdad, and this makes sense: when you put 30,000 more troops in an area, obviously things are going to improve. But what else is at play here? The fact of the matter is a good portion of the "calm" in Iraq is due in large part to the fact that the Al-Sadr militia is in a ceasefire.

And now the ceasefire is showing signs of breaking. Rogue militias are breaking off and continuing violence, which is occurring today even as I write this. 

What will happen when this ceasefire completely unravels? Does anyone out there even remember how much money we're spending on Iraq, money we're borrowing which will eventually have to be paid off? Or is everyone falling under the influence of John McCain's hopelessly optimistic musings just like the press? 

Let's hold some hearings and find out where all this money is coming from, and maybe even try to get some answers out of the Bush Administration.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

I think from now on I'm just going to dedicate my Sunday post to correcting the flaws in columnist Patrick Mcilheran's editorials. Why? Because there are so many, of course! That's flaws, not editorials, for those of you slightly confused.

This week, Patrick made the same dubious claim that there was a connection between al-qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Let me state something unequivically to you: Patrick MciIheran is a liar. He is flat-out lying to you and I'm not afraid to state this.

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

Need more?

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

Still not convinced?

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda. 

Patrick Mcilheran is attempting to prove a connection by citing a handful of out-of-context sentences from 600,000 pages of documents in order to prove his point, hoping you will be convinced if you believe there is still some sort of mythical liberal bias in the media, hoping against hope that you are still ignorant enough to believe the neoconservative hype that the war in Iraq has been a "good thing."

Patrick is clutching, desperately, to anything he possibly can, knowing full well that America no longer believes it. I think, deep down, he knows that he's wrong, and yet he's still unwilling to admit it, unwilling to believe that he himself was deceived and used as a propaganda tool by the Bush administration to cheerlead our country into an illegal occupation. 

I'm going to post every Sunday to expose Mcilheran's misleading statements for what they truly are. If I can convince just one of his readers to actually go out and look at the actual facts, then this entire blog will be worth it.

Every Sunday. 

There's not better way to celebrate the 5-year anniversary of the illegal Iraq Occupation than with a birthday cake of truth. Yes, fine citizens, it's time for you to come to grips with the painful truth that often coincides with this particular type of mistake. In this, case, the mistakes came from our so-called "experts" on the Middle East who helped cheerlead us into war.

No doubt you know a lot of people right now who still argue that, given the facts involved, the U.S. had no choice to go into war. "Everyone was fooled," they say. "You can't blame the Bush Administration just because their intelligence was faulty." Others you know might even take it a step further and say, "Well, even the experts believed Iraq was a threat. They went on TV and said so!"

Guess what? There WAS a handful of reporters who actually went out to find the truth before the war. Their names were John Walcott, Jonathon Landay, Warren Strobel and Jonathon Landay, among others at the Knight Ridder Newspapers bureau. While Bush was handing off lies as quickly as possible, Knight Ridder was questioning the links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, questioning every lie that was being spread on the Network news stations. The reporters at Knight Ridder were actually talking to real experts in the middle east, and they were finding no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, no connection to Al Qaeda, and nothing but lies being spread by the Bush Administration.

Click here to read the full story, courtesy of the Huffington Post.

So why weren't these reporters taken more seriously? Why couldn't the Network News anchors find this information themselves? Why did every half-blown "expert" go on TV and completely cheerlead us into a war that's cost us over $1 trillion?

Find the answer.