Does God see the greed in Iraq??? this story has been missed

At least they don't have to worry about disappearing at night, only to find out they have been in one of Saddam's torture chambers for a period of time. (If they DID return home.)

 

Does God see the greed in Iraq? I am not sure what greed you are talking about. Certainly we are spending billions of dollars of American money to rebuild their country. Some American contractors are making good money, but they are also risking their lives and working hard. They should get paid for that right?

From Whitehouse.gov

 

So Bush should have appointed someone who opposed him politically, an atheist, opposed to the war, and only then if they were experienced with groups that frequently have an anti-US agenda? Yep. That sounds like the liberal mindset for what conservatives should do.

The Guardian and other media outlets should have been reporting more good news than bad... they should not have wittingly or unwittingly aided and abetted our enemies by influencing the public against the effort.

"Should haves" are pretty easy things to say. The effort "should have" been over if the press hadn't helped the enemy much like they did in Vietnam... by discouraging the American public. National morale on efforts like this are critical... but the press has this high and mighty idea that only they get to choose which wars are justified... and those ordered by conservatives are immediately disqualified on that basis alone.

That is categorically untrue. But even if it weren't, Saddam at the same time was summararily persecuting anyone he thought might be disloyal.

Notice the qualifier in the statement above? "disgruntled Iraqis". Interpretation- we found some people that weren't happy with the progress and printed their comments without any effort toward balance or fairness.

Only opinions that run against US efforts and policies count.

Good article on that same theme:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/socialism_makes_people_worse.html

Yes... and the effort would have been benefitted how by making people think the US wasn't in control? BTW, nice choice of people to speak... someone who was fired by the guy she was asked to criticize.

So we should have distributed aid to those who were actively working against us? Of course rewarding political loyalty is OK when liberals do it... just not when conservatives do.

That is absolutely inane. Only one completely and totally blinded to all reality by their bias would make such a statement.

 

Correct! Our contractors are making money - that's why they're in business - but they're also providing a service in fair exchange for that money which, by the way, frees up a lot of troops for military work.

Here's a little extract from a recent report from a soldier in Iraq right now:

KBR gets paid to do the laundry. It's a small item but they troops don't have to do it themselves or have more support troops doing it for them. That option would likely be more expensive than the contractors and take away soldiers from their primary duties.

 

"Liberal" media aside, Bush was wrong to appoint Haveman to this position. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Haveman is as qualified for this job as Brown was for FEMA. Americans just don't care because it does not directly affect them. I'm sure if enough people raised a stink about his ineffectiveness and inexperience Bush would have to remove him too. It has nothing to do with his political allegiance or religious affiliation. It has EVERYTHING to do with his INEXPERIENCE in international health work. Why is that too much to ask? It has nothing to do with a "liberal agenda", it is just common sense.

 

Before beginning his job as senior advisor to the Iraqi Ministery of Health James Haveman served as director of the Michigan Department of Community Health, a position he held for 7 years. During that time he oversaw a 9.1 billion dollar budget and more than 6,000 employees responsible for publicly funded health programs within the state.

In 1991 he was appointed as Michigan’s state mental health director. Before that he was a county mental health director for 7 years and head of an adoption agency.

In 1997 he received the National Governors’ Association Distinguished Service Award for his work in Michingan.

In 2003 he was named one of the Michiganians of the Year by the Detroit Free Press. In 2004 he formally handed the Iraqi health ministry back over to Iraqi control and then he came home.

It is true that Haveman did not have any international experience before this and he is not a doctor or a nurse. He came through the healthcare ranks as a social worker and holds a master’s degree in social work from Michigan State. But he had extensive healthcare management experience and his budget in Iraqi was still a fraction of the budget he managed in Michigan. With 10 million residents Michigan bigger than a lot of nations.

James Haveman was well qualified for this position and did an excellant job. Of course for over a year now the Iraqi Ministry of Health has been back in Iraqi control and they will have to start taking care of themselves in this area just like they are in others.

He hosted a question and answer session from Iraq in December 2003 that you can read here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20031204-2.html

 

Unfortunately he wasn't. How can you claim he did an excellent job? International healthcare mangement is an entirely different ballgame than healthcare management in the US.

 

Lets review the real facts:
</font>

• Hospitals, once reserved for only bathist members of Sadam’s political party are now open to every citizen of Iraq regardless of religion or ethnic minority.</font>
• All 240 public hospitals and 1200 clinics in Iraq are open. Another 70 private hospitals are open although they are not free like the public hospitals are.</font>
• All 240 public hospitals and 1200 clinics in Iraq are open. Another 70 private hospitals are open although they are not free like the public hospitals are.</font>
• 100,000 healthcare professionals are employed throughout Iraq and salaries are up ten fold from before the war.</font>
• 30 million childhood vaccinations have been given. Routine vaccinations are now available to newborns, children, and mothers every day at Ministry of Health facilities across the country and are promoted nationally through immunization days on the 22nd of each month.</font>
• Heathcare spending has grown from 16 million per year under Sadam to over 1 billion per year. In 2002 Iraq spent 68 cents per citizen on healthcare, the United States government spends over $4000.</font>

According to the World Health Organization in 2004:

Is healthcare perfect in Iraq? Of course not, but it is better now than before the war. The problems being overcome daily are not the result of the invasion, but of years of neglect under Saddam. Doctors and professionals are targeted by terrorists who are intent on the failure of the new Iraqi government.

And don’t forget that as of 2005 the Iraqi ministry of Health is in charge of these hospitals, not the Americans or British.

 

Is healthcare perfect in Iraq? Of course not, but it is better now than before the war. The problems being overcome daily are not the result of the invasion, but of years of neglect under Saddam. Doctors and professionals are targeted by terrorists who are intent on the failure of the new Iraqi government.

And don’t forget that as of 2005 the Iraqi ministry of Health is in charge of these hospitals, not the Americans or British. </font>[/QUOTE]I love positive news like this! It's great to be a citizen of nation that helps make things like this happen.

 

Here is a good article about what is really going on:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sep2005/a092605wm1.html



Here is one of 58 primary healthcare centers currently under construction. Oh and by the way all of the physical construction has been subcontracted to Iraqi firms creating jobs and putting the money directly into the local economies

 

Is healthcare perfect in Iraq? Of course not, but it is better now than before the war. The problems being overcome daily are not the result of the invasion, but of years of neglect under Saddam. Doctors and professionals are targeted by terrorists who are intent on the failure of the new Iraqi government.

And don’t forget that as of 2005 the Iraqi ministry of Health is in charge of these hospitals, not the Americans or British. </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't this just great? I wonder at the audacity of the reporters who irresponsibly refuse to report on things like this.

 

Now who might that be?

You simply can't abide good news can you AP?

 

ASLANSPAL, do you ever have comments to make without attacking President Bush and anyone that supports what he, and our Congress, have committed our nation to do as our freely elected leader and representatives? Do the positive reports bother you that much?

This site is an official US Dept. of Defense web site so, in that respect, it's biased. I don't think anyone is hiding that fact. News reports from the government itself do have to be tempered with independent news. That's why a free press is so important. However, this site does provide a lot of very good and accurate information about what the military is actually doing in Iraq that just isn't going to be provided by the profit driven biased news media. It fits with the stories told by the men and women themselves who serve our nation.

On the other hand, the private news media - the alleged guardian of freedom - is largely consumed with negative news that sells and presents the story they want to present. The major news vendors are no longer purveyors of truth but of their own agenda. They have become less reliable for telling the truth than the government! If it's bad and negative and supports the agenda of quitting then it makes the headlines but if it's good and positive and supports what we're doing it doesn't. The general new media is pushing the quitter's agenda.

Which one of the quitter's news media outlets do you find credible, ASLANSPAL?