Entries from October 2009 ↓

“McChrystal argues that only a massive infusion of U.S. troops, and a corresponding “surge” of American civilians, can achieve the stability necessary to transform Afghanistan from the failed state it is today. A viable nation capable of self-government….”

If this is what the DC warlords want to achieve (above), hand out the congrats cards and backslaps. It’s done.  Afghanistan is, “A viable nation capable of self-government….”, right now.  Smart imperialists should say what they mean, keep their yaps shut or at least tell better lies.  What the raving crazies really mean is, “transform Afghanistan from the not-submissive, independent state it is today, into a viable nation capable of being managed for profit by the U.S. government….”.

All who want to accuse me of being willing to leave a sick bunch of adolescents like to Taliban in place to brutalize women – ease your little cheeks. I just want our government to stop doing what it’s doing to people. Who wants the Imperial armies of some other whacked out nation coming to pound the people of the U.S., because we have our own adolescent government?  Besides, it’s making the sane citizens in the U.S. look bad.  It also puts us in real danger – I imagine at some point someone will get fed up with it and really retaliate.  I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet.  But we do see the world starting to take sides and set up lines to stop U.S. advances.  What I find most unnerving about the current administration is it’s desire to militarize the public.  Rahm Emanuel is probably the most dangerous person who has ever been in the white house.  Cheney was just a greedy pig, Bush was just fulfilling his contract, but Rahm is a zealot, like Ashcroft.  So here is the story from Scott (someone I always listen to…)

McChrystal Doesn’t Get It—Does Obama?
By Scott Ritter

There is a curious phenomenon taking place in the American media at the moment: the lionization of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan. Although he has taken a few lumps for playing politics with the White House, McChrystal has generally been sold to the American public as a “Zen warrior,” a counterinsurgency genius who, if simply left to his own devices, will be able to radically transform the ongoing debacle that is Afghanistan into a noble victory that will rank as one of the greatest political and military triumphs of modern history. McChrystal’s resume and persona (a former commander of America’s special operations forces, a tireless athlete and a scholar) have been breathlessly celebrated in several interviews and articles. Reporters depict him as an ascetic soldier who spouts words of wisdom to rival Confucius, Jesus and Muhammad.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent Gen. McChrystal to “fix” the war in Afghanistan in the way that his boss, that earlier military prophet Gen. David Petraeus, “fixed” Iraq. Whether by accident or design, McChrystal’s mission became a cause célèbre of sorts for an American media starved for good news, even if entirely fabricated, coming out of Afghanistan. One must remember that the general has accomplished little of note during his short tenure to date as the military commander in Afghanistan. His entire reputation is built around the potential to turn things around in Afghanistan. And to do this, McChrystal has said he needs time, and 40,000-plus additional American troops. There are currently around 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s request would raise that number to around 110,000 troops – the same number as the Soviets had deployed in Afghanistan at the height of their failed military adventure some 20 years ago.

McChrystal, or more accurately, his staff, has authored a not-so-secret report that outlines the reasoning behind this massive increase in American military involvement in Afghanistan. Rightly noting that the American-led effort is currently failing, McChrystal argues that only a massive infusion of U.S. troops, and a corresponding “surge” of American civilians, can achieve the stability necessary to transform Afghanistan from the failed state it is today. A viable nation capable of self-government, the new Afghanistan could maintain internal security so that terrorist organizations like al-Qaida will not be able to take root, flourish and once again threaten American security from the sanctuary of a lawless land. This concept certainly looks good on paper and plays well in the editorial section. And why shouldn’t it? It touches on all the romantic notions of America as liberator and defender of the oppressed. The problem is that the assumptions made in the McChrystal report are so far removed from reality as to be ludicrous.

McChrystal operates under the illusion that American military power can provide a shield from behind which Afghanistan can remake itself into a viable modern society. He has deluded himself and others into believing that the people of Afghanistan want to be part of such a grand social experiment, and furthermore that they will tolerate the United States being in charge. The reality of Afghan history, culture and society argue otherwise. The Taliban, once a defeated entity in the months following the initial American military incursion into Afghanistan, are resurgent and growing stronger every day. The principle source of the Taliban’s popularity is the resentment of the Afghan people toward the American occupation and the corrupt proxy government of Hamid Karzai. There is nothing an additional 40,000 American troops will be able to do to change that basic equation. The Soviets tried and failed. They deployed 110,000 troops, operating on less restrictive lines of communication and logistical supply than the United States. They built an Afghan army of some 45,000 troops. They operated without the constraints of American rules of engagement. They slaughtered around a million Afghans. And they lost, for the simple reason that the people of Afghanistan did not want them, or their Afghan proxies.

Some pundits and observers make note of the fact that the Afghan people were able to prevail over the Soviets only because of billions of dollars of U.S. aid, which together with similar funding from Saudi Arabia and the logistical support of Pakistan, allowed the Afghan resistance to coalesce, grow and ultimately defeat the Soviets and their Afghan allies. They note that there is no equivalent source of empowerment for the Taliban in Afghanistan today. But they are wrong. The Taliban receive millions of dollars from sympathetic sources in the Middle East, in particular from Saudi Arabia, and they operate not only from within Afghanistan, but also out of safe havens inside Pakistan.

Indeed, one of the unique aspects of the Afghan conflict is the degree to which it has expanded into Pakistan, making any military solution in one theater contingent on military victory in the other. But the reality is that the more one employs military force in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, the more one strengthens the cause and resources of the Islamic insurgents in both places. Pashtunistan, once a fanciful notion built around the concept of a united Pashtun people (the population in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan are primarily drawn from Pashtun tribes), has become a de facto reality. The decision by the British in 1897 to separate the Pashtun through the artificial device of the so-called Durand Line (which today constitutes the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan) has been exposed today as a futile effort to undermine tribal links. No amount of military force can reverse this.

More from Scott Ritter

“It sounds to me like a few members of the choir are beginning to wake up….DgsWilson”

Article from organic consumers.org

Who’s in the Obama Administration? It’s sort of a “one for you, two for me” kind of arrangement.

President Obama and the biotech industry gets the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. While Iowa Governor, he was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming. He was recently caught in the act of trying to promote biotechnology as the answer to world hunger.

The First Lady and the sustainable agriculture movement get the Deputy Secretary. Kathleen Merrigan is a stellar organic advocate who is working hard to facilitate local food systems through the Know Your Farmer program. But, as the political director of the Organic Consumers Association, I have to admit, it doesn’t look like Bush Administration policies that weakened organic are unlikely to be overturned quickly. Concentration is increasing in the organic dairy industry, with bad-actor brands like Horizon expanding factory farm-style feedlots, but Merrigan doesn’t want to admit there’s any such thing as a “factory farm.” She also says she has no plans to address blatant fraud in the organic cosmetics industry where brands like “Jason: Pure, Natural & Organic” advertise themselves as “organic” without being USDA certified.

Of the Under Secretaries named so far, Rajiv Shah, Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist, Kevin Concanon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, Jim Miller, Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services, Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, and Edward M. Avalos , Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, none are champions of organic agriculture, and only Shah is a outright biotechnology advocate. (Under Secretaries for Food Safety or Natural Resources and Environment have yet to be appointed.)

Rajiv Shah, Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist
Agricultural policy experts initially that Shah, Director of Agricultural Development Programs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, lacked real experience in agriculture. Shah was the founding director of the Gates Foundation’s agriculture program, which has donated $37 million to GM research.

Directly under Shah is Roger Beachy who is steering the direction of US agricultural research at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Beachy is a long time Monsanto collaborator who directed an institute established by Monsanto and academic partners with a $70-million pledge from the corporation. It’s effectively a Monsanto front.

Shah’s senior adviser for energy and climate is Maura O’Neill. O’Neill ran a public-private life sciences venture called Explore Life, dedicated to drawing biotech companies to the Seattle area where the Gates Foundation is based.

Shah has brought in Rachael Goldfarb to work for him as counselor. At the Gates Foundation, Goldfarb was special assistant to Tachi Yamada, president of the foundation’s global health program.

Shah’s team has already awarded $11 million in Coordinated Agricultural Project grants to four research universities to study “plant genomics and ways to improve the nutrition and health values of important crops.” Expect more GMO tomatoes, potatoes, barley, soybean, and trees. And be on the lookout for new, GMO legumes embedded with cholesterol and diabetes drugs.

According to a USDA press release on the awards, “Because humans consume more legumes than any other crop, this research has the potential to reduce cholesterol and sugar levels, which in turn can prevent or alleviate certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The irony is that there’s a GMO legume already on the market, soy, that has found its way into just about all processed and fried foods in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil (a.k.a. trans fat). Will the result of this research be a new GMO trans fat that treats diet-related diseases caused by other GMO trans fats? It would certainly be a first for the field of genetic engineering. In fact, any new GMO crop that actually improved the nutrition and health value of an important crop would be a first. Contrary to popular belief, to date, there is not one health or nutritional benefit associated with any GMO crop. They’re all genetically modified to either withstand or produce pesticides (usually manufactured by the chemical company that genetically engineered the crop).

Jim Miller, Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services
Jim Miller was the President of the National Association of Wheat Growers, which has taken a pro-biotech position, but his term was in the 80s, before GMOs were an issue. In 2002, while Miller was the National Farmers Union’s chief economist, NFU asked the government for a moratorium that would temporarily discontinue granting patents on GMOs. The organization wanted to prevent large companies from gaining control of genetically modified products. So, Jim Miller can’t be characterized as a biotech booster, but one of the divisions he oversees, the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), always has been and that doesn’t seem to have changed with new appointments.

Michael Michener, a former lead Iraq policy officer at the State Department who was a foreign policy adviser to Vilsack during his brief presidential campaign, now heads the FAS. On May 26, 2009, the FAS posted a pro-GMO report titled, “The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production.” After thousands of angry letters from Organic Consumer Association activists, the agency was forced to pull the report and print a retraction explaining, “[T]he report does not represent the policy of the United States Government.” Nevertheless, the USDA, along with 3 of the world’s top 5 seed companies (Monsanto, Syngenta, Land O’ Lakes) and a host of other multinational agribusinesses, sponsored the 2009 Borlaug Dialogue. On the agenda was “Harmonizing Organic and Sustainable Agricultural Practices with Modern Technology and Genetics.”

Dallas Tonsager, Rural Development
Tonsager’s top priorities for USDA’s Rural Development include expanding economic opportunity from bioenergy, including biofuel, biomass and cellulose. This is likely to result in short-term economic gain for many farmers and rural communities. Unlike other parts of his plan, including capitalizing on the economic benefits of local food systems and increasing broadband access, bioenergy can have hidden long-term costs for the economies and ecology of rural communities. On one hand, there are small farmers who produce biofuels responsibly and local biodiesel collectives that recycle spent cooking oil. (What’s not to like? I’m the proud driver of a veggie diesel car, myself!) But, that’s not where the majority of government subsidies go. According to the Rainforest Action Network:

Agribusiness, oil, energy and auto companies are rapidly consolidating control over the entire agrofuel sector. The power of these corporations is staggering: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) lobbied the U.S. government for three decades to promote adding ethanol to gasoline, resulting in $2 billion of government subsidies—most of which has gone directly to ADM. Automakers exploit a biofuels loophole in fuel economy regulations to avoid reducing vehicle oil consumption and tailpipe greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

That $2 billion makes the $13 million in loans and grants the USDA recently awarded to 233 renewable energy projects under the Rural Energy for America Program look pretty puny. Between 2003 and 2008, the Department of Agriculture awarded $140 million in grants and $197 million in loan guarantees to more than 2,000 projects in all 50 states, including wind farms, anaerobic digesters, biofuel production, solar electric systems, and efficiency upgrades. $99.3 million has been appropriated for REAP in 2010.

Edward Avalos, Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Edward Avalos is the USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which includes the National Organic Program. This uncontroversial figure worked for 29 years at the NM Department of Agriculture. In 2008, he named Sunland Peanut, the largest producer of organic peanut butter in the country, the New Mexico Agricultural Marketer of the Year.

Kevin Concannon, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Concannon, another uncontroversial state administrator, has been director of health and human service agencies in Iowa (under Governor Tom Vilsack), Maine, and Oregon. He’s taking on food assistance at a time when nearly half of U.S. newborns are eligible for the federal Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. WIC is available to families with incomes up to $33,874 for a household of three — 185% of the federal poverty level. He recently presided over a change at WIC that, while not increasing benefits, will allow WIC vouchers to be used, for the first time, for fruits, vegetables and whole grains, in addition to milk, cheese, juice and eggs. Currently, there is a de facto ban on organic in WIC, but big conventional food processors like Sara Lee are already cashing in on the new market that’s been created for them.

Concannon’s Deputy is Janey Thornton. She’s a school nutrition director who played a leadership roles in both the School Nutrition Association and the School Nutrition Foundation. Grist.org food editor Tom Philpott was the first to look into SNA’s industry ties:

The SNA’s list of “industry members” is password-protected, but it does name its “industry member advisory board,” which includes execs from high-fructose-corn syrup giant Archer Daniels Midland and Conagra. And its “current industry patron list” makes bracing reading for anyone who would like to see school-lunch reform. It includes ADM, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill Kitchen Solutions, PepsiCo Foodservice, Sara Lee Foods Foodservice, Coca Cola, Tyson Foods, Chicken of the Sea International—a kind of roster of our nation’s most powerful food processors.

The Grist.org piece, “Obama’s school-lunch chief not much of a reformer,” reviews Thornton’s resume of cafeteria menus:

When we think of the sugar, fat and salt children are consuming, we cringe. When we think about the multi-national agribusiness companies this type of school food service system supports, we cringe. And when we think about the negative overall effect that this system has on People, Planet and Sustainable Profit, all sense of optimism just drains away.

If the state of affairs at USDA weren’t depressing enough, many biotech and pesticide promoters have been appointed to other agencies dealing with food and farming, as well, notably:

Michael Taylor, FDA
The senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety is Michael Taylor. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it.

Islam Siddiqui, USTR
Islam Siddiqui has been nominated as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. If Congress confirms him, he will use the post to continue the lobbying he has done for CropLife (a front group for chemical agriculture), promoting chemical-intensive, genetically modified products that undermine local food security in developing countries.

Croplife America’s regional partner, Mid America CropLife Association, notoriously “shuddered” at Michelle Obama’s organic garden and launched a letter writing campaign in protest.
Another Washington insider using the revolving door between employment in government and big business, Siddiqui worked for Clinton’s USDA. Siddiqui led the first phase of development for national organic food standards in the United States. The Organic Consumers Association was formed in 1998 due to the massive backlash consumers had against Siddiqui’s proposed regulations for organic food that would have outrageously allowed for toxic sludge, irradiated foods and genetically modified organisms to be labeled “organic.” Only after an unprecedented 230,000 consumers wrote USDA to protest Siddiqui’s rules were they strengthened.

Jill Long Thompson, Farm Credit Administration Board
Jill Long Thompson has been nominated for a seat on the Farm Credit Administration Board. After a political career, she became CEO of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, a non-profit founded to research biotechnology, pesticides, U.S. farm and food policy and international trade and development. The National Center produces a yearly “Update On Impacts On US Agriculture Of Biotechnology Der… that attempts to make the case that biotechnology-derived crops increase yields, reduce the use of chemicals and improve economic conditions for farmers. National Center trustees include university administrators, a former cabinet secretary, and representatives of agribusinesses including Altria, Blythe Cotton and ConAgra.

Aneesh Chopra, United States Chief Technology Officer
According to a press release for the “Emerging Technologies/Emerging Economies: (Nano)technology for Equitable Development” conference, to be held from November 4-6, 2009, in Washington, D.C., Chopra will address the conference to ” discuss using technology to solve environmental, energy, water, food security and health problems in developing nations.”

U.N. Can’t Account for Millions Sent to Afghan Election Board

by T. Christian Miller and Dafna Linzer
For – ProPublica – October 29
http://www.propublica.org/article/un-cant-account-for-millions-sent-to-afghan-election-board-1029

nincompoop www.etymonline.com

The United Nations cannot account for tens of millions of dollars provided to the troubled Afghan election commission, according to two confidential U.N. audits and interviews with current and former senior diplomats. (Read both audits.)

As Afghanistan prepares for a second round of national voting, the documents and interviews paint the fullest picture to date of the finances of the election commission, which has been accused of facilitating election fraud and operating ghost polling places. The new disclosures also deepen the questions about the U.N.’s oversight of money provided by the United States and other nations to ensure a fair election in Afghanistan.

“Everybody kept sending money” to the elections commission, said Peter Galbraith, the former deputy chief of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. “Nobody put the brakes on. U.S. taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a fraudulent election.” Galbraith, a deputy to the senior U.N. official in Afghanistan, was fired last month after protesting fraud in the elections.

The audits come as President Barack Obama is struggling to craft a war policy for Afghanistan that would establish a stable government in a country with few democratic traditions. Senior aides have made clear that Obama will not commit to sending additional troops until there is a legitimately elected government in Kabul. On Wednesday, insurgents stormed a housing compound primarily occupied by U.N. election officials, killing eight people, including two election workers.

Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission initially reported that President Hamid Karzai had won the majority of votes in the August election. A recount was ordered after another U.N.-backed panel uncovered evidence of widespread fraud. After weeks of prodding from the Obama administration, Karzai agreed last week to a runoff.

The U.N. audit reports, which are near completion but still in draft form, are likely to fuel debate over the Afghanistan election commission’s ability to carry out the new round of voting. Karzai’s challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, has suggested he may boycott the elections unless Karzai dismisses the chairman and two other commissioners.

In interviews, senior U.S. and U.N. officials said that U.N. leaders had ignored warnings as far back as 2007 that the election commission was a pro-Karzai body with few internal controls.

Another top official in the U.N.’s Afghanistan mission, Robert Watkins, acknowledged in an interview that some commission employees had contributed to the fraud in the first round of voting.

“It’s clear that some of the people” working for the commission at the polling centers “were complicit in fraud,” Watkins said. “Some of the staff hired were not working in the best interests of impartial elections.”

But Watkins said the United Nations is working to improve the commission’s performance in the runoff. He said the U.N. planned to slash the number of poll workers and blackball any that may have been implicated in fraud in the August elections.

As of April 2009, the U.N. had spent $72.4 million supporting the commission, with $56.7 million of that coming from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the audit said. Total election costs are now estimated at greater than $300 million, with the U.S. providing a third to half the total funding, according to one senior U.N. official familiar with the elections process.

The draft audit reports indicate that as many as one-third of payroll requests from the Afghan commission to the United Nations included “discrepancies,” such as incorrect names or amounts.

In another instance, the U.N. Development Program paid $6.8 million for transportation services in areas where no U.N. officials were present. Auditors found that the development agency had “inadequate controls” over U.S. taxpayer money used to fund the commission.

A UNDP spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said he could not comment on specific findings in the audits, since they were still in draft form. However, he said the agency strived to rigorously account for spending despite operating in a war zone.

“The insecurity, the lack of infrastructure, the pervasive corruption and harshness of the terrain make the implementation of any project extremely difficult,” Dujarric said. “That being said, those challenges in no way absolve us of constantly doing our utmost to ensure that monies given to us by donors are properly spent and accounted for.”

Watkins acknowledged that the U.N. had concerns about the commission as elections approached. The development agency works closely with the commission, paying salaries, buying supplies and handling logistical questions.

However, he said no evidence had surfaced that money flowing to the commission had been used to buy votes or bribe officials. “The indications were that (the commission) did not have sufficient controls in place. I can’t jump to the conclusion that the money was misappropriated.”

Watkins said he was “much more confident” about the commission’s spending practices after the U.N. tightened controls this summer. “I think we have a good partner” in the commission, Watkins said.

The U.N., he said, had suggested cutting the number of polling workers from 160,000 to 60,000 for the runoff election, in part to ensure better-trained workers. The smaller work force also reflects an effort by the U.N. to have fewer polling stations and fewer workers per station. He also said the U.N. would blackball at least 200 workers who had been linked to voting centers where fraud was alleged.

In public statements, commission officials have not yet committed to reducing staff or polling stations. A commission spokesman did not return a request for comment.

The confidential reports are being written by two U.N. audit agencies to examine charges that the U.N. had failed to safeguard $263 million in money from the U.S. Agency for International Development that was channeled through the development agency to fund the elections and rebuilding projects. USAID money accounted for about 40 percent of U.N. spending in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2009, the audits said.

Overall, the audits found that U.N. monitoring of U.S. taxpayer funds was “seriously inadequate.” Auditors could not find receipts, work plans or documentation to back up costs for projects such as roads and bridges. U.N. officials did not conduct site visits to confirm work and did not prepare financial reports for donor countries like the U.S., the audits found.

The main focus for criticism, however, was U.N. support of the election commission, a seven-member board whose members were appointed by Karzai. Using U.S. money, the U.N. development agency paid for commission salaries, helped contract out services and was supposed to train the commission to carry out its election responsibilities independently.

But the audit found that the development agency project was “not well managed” and contained several “weaknesses.”

Auditors found that the U.N. development agency had sent more than $7 million to the elections commission — including cash payments to temporary staff — without proof of expenditures.

The commission also failed to send any financial reports to the U.N. between September 2008 and June 2009, despite a requirement for monthly statements. The U.N. sent $9 million in total to the commission without ever receiving a financial report, the audit said.

The auditors made no findings as to whether the money that flowed to the commission was implicated in the fraudulent vote counting. Auditors said that they had hired an outside audit firm to conduct a more detailed review.

Harry Edwards, a spokesman for USAID, said the agency had not seen the audits and could not comment.

Galbraith cautioned against drawing conclusions as to whether U.N. oversight of financial issues played a significant role in the voting fraud. He blamed Kai Eide, the Norwegian diplomat who is the senior U.N. official in Afghanistan and his former boss, as well as himself, for not flagging problems with the commission earlier. Eide has denied any effort to cover up evidence of fraud in the elections process.

“The flaw was not a management flaw,” Galbraith said. “It was a political flaw to put all this money into an institution that was not as advertised. It was a political judgment not to say, ‘if you want us to pay for these elections, then we insist you do them in this way.’”

One former U.N. official with knowledge of the elections process said that the allegations of financial mismanagement were not surprising. The official, who did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the topic, said that neither the U.N. nor the elections commission had a well-developed accounting program.

The commission “had no control over their financial management side,” the U.N. official said. “It was chaotic. There was no outside oversight.”

Instead, this official said that senior U.N. and U.S. diplomats pushed for the U.N. development agency to “deliver” the election by working with the elections commission — despite warnings that the commission was not truly independent.

“Nobody was paying attention. Nobody wanted to do anything about” the problems at the election commission, the official said.

The draft audits are the latest sign of problems with U.N. oversight of U.S. money in Afghanistan. Last year, the USAID inspector general issued a report charging that the U.N. had failed to complete U.S.-funded rebuilding projects and stonewalled an investigation into the $25.6 million program. USAID’s inspector general continues to investigate Gary K. Helseth, who headed the U.N. Office for Project Services between 2003 and 2006, in connection with the rebuilding program, a spokeswoman said. Helseth’s attorney did not return a request for comment.

The U.N. audits, however, also criticized the work of USAID’s inspector general. The USAID report, for instance, contained allegations that Mark Oviatt, the senior UNOPS official who replaced Helseth, had used USAID money to renovate a guest house for himself. Instead, the audit found that the U.N. had paid $35,000 out of its own pocket to conduct the renovation. Oviatt declined comment.

The U.N. audits also chastised the inspector general’s report for attempting to shirk USAID’s responsibility for problems with the development projects.

Donna Dinkler, a spokeswoman for USAID’s inspector general, said, “They can say what they want, but we stand by our findings.”

Afghanistan
Elections
Hamid Karzai
Independent Elections Commission
Peter Galbraith
United Nations
United Nations Development Program
USAID

by Sofia
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=216616

Think of the US economy in the form of Uncle Sam as a circus performer walking a tight rope. We the working people sit comfortably perched upon Sam’s mighty shoulders.

Free and unencumbered , Sam nimbly walks back and forth across the wire without a problem.

Then the state comes along and starts adding all kinds of shit on Sam’s back…taxes, regulation, litigation, debased currency, endless debt, etc.

After enough state sponsored dumping on his mighty back, Sam starts to falter and wobble a bit. A few of the little people slip off of his shoulders and smash into the ground.

The liberal statists come along and start whining “People are getting hurt. You see, free market Sam doesn’t work anymore. We must act!”

So these socialists build a “safety net” to catch the falling little people and “save them.” They then put the weight of the safety net’s heavy cost onto -you guessed it- Sam’s sore back.

And the process repeats itself again and again until Sam himself eventually collapses, leaving us ALL not only in need of “the safety net,” but actually grateful for it!

WOE UNTO THE STATESMAN WHO TRIES TO TAKE THE SAFETY NET AWAY!