The privatization of war

By Ellen Ratner
In an attempt to make some sense out of last week's bombing attack on London, I have sifted through the mass quantities of the news and analysis on the event. Most of the information is based on conjecture. All sides of the global terrorism argument can manipulate last week's events to say: "We are right and you are wrong." But terrorism itself isn't about right or wrong as I have come to realize.



In all the sound bites and all the print and all the books that have covered the landscape of our world after Sept. 11, 2001, the most insightful thing I have heard about terrorism came from the Saudi Foreign Minister on a BBC panel during the build up to the war on Iraq. He said simply, "Terrorism [is] the privatization of war." It's business.

Many things have made this private venture of terror possible. Ready supplies of explosives and "Bomb making for Dummies" cookbooks can teach even a teenager how to bomb his neighbors' mailboxes. Weapons ranging from shoulder-launched missiles to mortars are plentiful, and as we have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq, have a very long shelf life. So it behooves us to choose our friends wisely, lest they one day decide to turn those weapons on the nation that originally supplied them.

No private venture is complete without cash. Money is oxygen. Granted, Timothy McVeigh didn't have a Swiss bank account, and the London bombings, or so far as we know, were likely not a particularly costly operation. But the venture of terrorism does take capital to recruit, house, train, equip and secure a cell-like network. The sources of venture capital are varied and include everything from counterfeit cigarettes to fresh poppy from the fields of Afghanistan to the money collected by "charity organizations."

Of course, no up-start company or terror operation can succeed without advertising. Terrorists enjoy what we call in the news business "free earned media." They blow stuff up and the press covers it until the next terror attack and then we cover that one. As far as the terrorists are concerned, it really doesn't matter if they are condemned or praised. Bad visibility is better than no visibility at all. As long as they are the story being covered every day, they can recruit and fund new ventures.

In keeping with the privatization-capitalist-venture capital theme, perhaps a new model for stopping terrorist attacks would be to turn the "terrorist bombers" into "Dot Bombers." Remember the dot-com wave of the '90s that imploded around the end of 2000? During the boom, companies that had no assets were trading at a higher market capitalization than General Motors. If the world "corrected" like the market did during the Dot Bomb, al-Qaida would become like the dot-bombs. They would go away.

Al-Qaida – and its dozens of al-Qaida wannabes – are similar to many of the dot-coms in that they have very little to offer their customers. They don't produce anything for the people they claim to represent. As one Palestinian told me in the West Bank, "Osama bin Laden? He is just a drug dealer." Al-Qaida sells fear and we buy it, by the truckloads. We then enable them to turn a profit by allowing our fear to bankrupt us financially and morally.

It is doubtful that al-Qaida will be stopped by any bullet or weapon America holds in its arsenal. You want to kill something, take away its oxygen. Take away the air-time venture capital, and suddenly it's not so fun to be part of al-Qaida. Tony Blair gave a great example of this new mindset last week when he stood up at the G8 summit and thanked the other leaders for their support and then moved onto G8 business – as if to say, we are handling this and I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of terrorizing me.

Halliburton's 5-finger discount

By Ellen Ratner
Much has been said about the famed Halliburton "no-bid contracts." The public's interest in these contracts has been, in a word, cyclical. Since before the invasion of Iraq, Halliburton has sporadically appeared on front pages throughout the country. Yet, until this past week, Halliburton was able to escape a public lashing from the government that lavishly butters its bread.



Last week, the "Democratic Policy Committee" held a hearing based on a report prepared for Sen. Byron Dorgan and Representative Henry Waxman that shows Halliburton has fraudulently overcharged the taxpayers $1.4 billion (over $1 billion discovered by government auditors and $442 million in "unsupported" charges).

This hearing was unique in that it was convened by a small group of concerned legislators vs. the committees charged with overseeing government contracts. Each committee member stated in opening remarks that he had formally and informally requested hearings on Halliburton's alleged fraudulent practices for several months. Yet the Republican-led committees refused to bring Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root in for questioning.

One would think the fact that Vice President Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton through the year 2007 is cause enough for men and women of integrity to want to clear the air, but not so in this case. It is better for the Republicans to avoid, deny and delay than act against their own interests or the interests of their friends.

The individuals who testified did so at great personal risk. The lead testimony came from Ms. Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, a 20-year career contract specialist at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She detailed the highly unusual and unprecedented manner in which Halliburton obtained the no-bid contract in Iraq before the war began. One of the most lucrative contracts was called "RIO," Reconstruction of Iraqi Oil. Ms. Greenhouse objected to the Army Corps of Engineers having anything to do with this contract because they lacked professional competencies in this area. She mentioned that the Corps had nothing to do with oil reconstruction in Kuwait after the first Gulf War and that it was strange that the secretary of Defense would have total control over an oil contract.

It gets better. Ms. Greenhouse testified that Halliburton accomplished the cost estimate for the project and then was awarded the contract. She again mentioned the word, "unprecedented." She said normally the company that does the cost estimate is excluded from being awarded the contract in order to guard against having a "conflict of interest."

She also went so far as to hand write her objection to an anti-competitive contract extension clause in Halliburton's RIO contract next to her signature. This objection ultimately cost Ms. Greenhouse her job as it was discovered by a journalist who got a copy of the contract by filing a Freedom Of Information Act request. Ms. Greenhouse became a political liability to the Army Corps of Engineers and she was removed from her post.

Rory Mayberry, a former KBR Food Manager, testified via video tape (since he is currently in Iraq) that he was ordered to serve expired food to our troops. He was also required to order more food than necessary in order to make it look like they were serving more troops. When Mr. Mayberry reported these fraudulent practices to visiting auditors, he was shipped out to Fallujah, which was, at the time, the most dangerous post. His convoy was attacked enroute.

Allen Waller and Gary Butters of Lloyd-Owen International, a transportation and security company that supplies fuel to the Iraqi people, detailed Halliburton's deliberate attempt to sabotage Lloyd-Owen by preventing them from using the military checkpoint between Kuwait and Iraq. They also stated that the cost they charge the Iraqi government for fuel transportation exceeded the price the U.S. government is paying Halliburton by several times.

Speaking of Halliburton's overcharging for fuel, remember all the hoopla over this issue last year? Ms. Greenhouse told the committee that the major-general in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers "waived" the penalty for overcharging. Halliburton skated.

The Bush administration and the Republican-led House and Senate are enabling Halliburton's "five-finger discount" practices. They are doing so at a time when six out of seven Marine Corps humvees have no armor. In addition, Jim Nicholson, the secretary of Veteran Affairs testified the day after Sen. Dorgan's Halliburton hearing that our veterans are under-funded by $1 billion for 2006. Ironically, this is the same amount of money government auditors discovered Halliburton overcharged.

Sen. Dorgan's hearing was not a partisan attempt to splash egg on the Bush administration's face, but a last ditch attempt to hold a favored company accountable and put money back into the business of saving and caring for the lives of our troops and veterans.

The Summer of Discontent

By Ellen Ratner
No matter how you measure it or who does the measuring, the majority of Americans believe that President Bush is doing a lousy job. Our president now has the dubious distinction of possessing the lowest second-term approval ratings of any president since Nixon. In fact, the latest Times-CBS survey showed the president tied with Nixon's approval ratings during Watergate – a dismal 42 percent.



Other polls are not much better. The Associated Press-Iposs Poll showed a 43 percent approval for the president. The Gallup Poll was 47 percent. The Washington Post-ABC News Poll was the rosiest at a whopping 48 percent approval.

To make matters worse, only 33 percent of Americans believe the country is on the right track. The president's sales pitches obviously don't measure up against the realities of an anxious America. Name any Bush initiated policy and the numbers will stink. Social Security, War in Iraq, Terri Schiavo ...

The administration acts like it is not worried. Their appetite for polls is selective. Like selective memory, Team Bush uses the polls they like and loses the one's they don't like. Their response to the unfavorable polls is that polls don't matter. They simply play reruns of the "strong leader" show.

"A strong leader governs from conviction, not by focus groups," they say. What does that mean? No one said anything about focus groups. Americans are dying daily in an unpopular war. At home they are losing their pensions, losing their jobs, losing their health care ... fuel is pushing $60 a barrel. If it stays there, say "bye bye" to "Miss American Pie," because there's not going to be much left for anyone. It's time to listen up Mr. President. Your nation is tired of your lines. It's time for leadership, not swagger.

The president's only saving grace is that his numbers are not as bad as those of the Republican-led Congress. As they say, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. The Republican House has fallen from 54 percent approval to 40 percent in recent months. Polls show that Congress is, in a word, useless.

Of course, for all the bad news about the president and his Republican-led Congress, there is very little good news about the Democrats. As one frustrated voter said to me the other day, "The Republicans have bad ideas and the Democrats have no ideas."

I have come to the cynical conclusion that we would be better off if our government took the summer off. Bush could go back to Crawford and clear brush for the month of August like he did in the August of 2001 when the nation was in imminent danger of a terrorist attack. Congress could go back to their constituents and raise money all summer since that seems to be the only measurable result they are capable of achieving.

Two-thirds of our nation believes we are being led in the wrong direction by our government. Perhaps it is time to rethink the journey. As I learned as a child, when you are heading the wrong way, it's best to stop.

Girl Power

By Ellen Ratner
I have covered the White House and Capitol Hill for Talk Radio New Service for over 13 years. I have watched presidents, senators and representatives attempt to address the major issues of our day. I frequently find myself frustrated and disillusioned with the nature of American high-stakes politics. Big money and big special interests – the two of which are often aligned – wield a heavy hammer and frequently crush measurable progress.



Despite my liberal leanings, I was raised by a father who believed that the individual, not government was best suited to help others. I was reminded of the power one person can have last Friday night at a Girl Scouts Gold Award Ceremony in New York City. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Gold Award, it is the highest honor earned by a Girl Scout, just as Eagle Scout is for the Boy Scouts. The Gold Award is earned through service to others. I would like to dedicate this column to the New York City Gold Award Recipients who renewed my belief in what can be accomplished by one person's love for their fellow citizens.

The projects chosen by the girls show their understanding of the major societal problems of our day. Here are some highlights:

Our federal government cut after-school programs for thousands of our kids, but one girl initiated an after-school math and reading tutoring program that helped all of the children tutored to improve their grades and resulted scores of 85 percent and higher on their school tests. Another young woman created a literacy program for young children by reading to them, creating art work around the readings, discussing their readings and creating mini-summer libraries for each child.

Cities do not have the resources to spend on local beautification projects, so a few girls planted their own flower gardens and enlisted their communities to adopt plants and flowers in order to create their own parks.

Funding has been cut for school meals as well as nutrition educational programs, so some of the girls initiated a campaign to teach children not only what foods are healthy, but how to prepare healthy and safe meals while their parents work. Another Girl Scout started a weekly fitness club for local kids to learn about body image, weight loss, fitness and making healthy lifestyle choices.

Many states and cities have had to cut funding for recreation for the disabled so some girls recruited their friends to make gifts and crafts to share with the residents of the six Cerebral Palsy residences in Brooklyn.

Nearly 3,000 teens take up the habit of smoking cigarettes every day in the United States. Some girls initiated anti-smoking campaigns through innovative educational programs. They wrote and distributed their materials to schools, youth centers, clinics, hospitals, politicians and anti-smoking organizations. They also educated teens on the manipulative tactics tobacco companies use to target young people.

Often times, the support a young mother gets to have a child ends at birth. One young woman initiated a clothing-and-supply drive for needy families. She personally sewed 24 pillows and made 12 special picture frames to give these families a sense of pride and celebration for their newborn child. She also held a special baby shower for the families in Brooklyn served by the family service center.

Many of the girls spoke to the hearts of those who do not have the means to celebrate life's most precious moments. One girl created "birthday parties in a box" for children who live in shelters for homeless families. Another girl organized homeless children and taught them how to paint a mural of dreams – their dreams – of what they want to be when they grow up. This mural gave these children the gift of imagination.

America seems to be more culturally divided than ever before. Some of the girls completed cultural and community awareness projects where people of diverse backgrounds in the neighborhood celebrated and shared their differences through food, dancing, music and family movie nights. Another girl researched several countries and developed cultural and music lessons for children at a Queens Community Center.

Funding has been cut for simple things like school supplies. Two girls took it upon themselves to supply five different schools for the emotionally and physically handicapped children in Queens.

Many women who live in shelters do not have the skills to obtain employment that can sustain them and their families. A young woman harnessed her computer expertise to refurbish donated computers and reloaded them with software and initiated a computer training center to help the Cross Roads Foundation in Staten Island. She also collected over 400 books and built a library for the facility.

One Girl Scout created coloring books to teach children about seatbelt and fire safety as well as safety around strangers.

There were also several environmental projects that included dumping awareness through signs and pamphlets to local clean ups. Another project increased awareness about New York City's "wildlife," and enabled others to appreciate the precious few natural lands that still exist around the city.

Several Girl Scouts initiated programs to minister to the elderly ranging from "Adopt a Grandparent" to feeding shut-ins, crocheting for seniors, to beautifying local nursing homes.

Many not only volunteered in soup kitchens, but they initiated food drives for under-stocked food kitchens and community pantries.

The girls not only recognized a need, they inspired others to help them execute their plan to fulfill that need. I could write five more pages detailing the tremendous results that these 35 young women were able to achieve. Perhaps we should instead send them to Washington to teach our government a thing or two about leadership.

Press conference ala 'Saturday Night Live'

By Ellen Ratner
I spent my Tuesday morning last week on the White House lawn with the president and 49 seated journalists. Surprise, surprise: The president didn't call on me. While this fact is disappointing, I have adjusted to my invisible status. I have two odds working against me: I'm a liberal and I'm a woman.



When it comes to the press corps, President Bush seems to be a little gender blind these days. Women were allowed only two out of 35 questions in the last two press conferences even though we make up a quarter the journalists. The president's gender bias is the least of my worries, however. Bush's press conferences have degenerated into nothing more than the same ol', same ol'. "Spreadin' democracy, culture of life, lookin' forward to workin' with the Congress ..." – it's deja vu all over again. "Saturday Night Live" should have plenty of presidential parody to work with.

Here are a few highlights ...

Question: The former head of Russia's oil company, Yukos, was sentenced to nine years in a prison camp today. Do you think the Kremlin went after him because he was a political threat? Are there any repercussions to U.S.-Russian relations as a result of this case?

President Bush: I expressed my concerns about the case to President Putin because, as I explained to him, here you're innocent until proven guilty, and it appeared to us, or at least people in my administration, that it looked like he had been judged guilty prior to having a fair trial.

It's funny that the president should be preaching "innocent until proven guilty." After all, it was his administration that lost the Supreme Court case of Rasul vs. Bush. The same court that decreed George W. Bush would be our 43rd president, ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have a right to petition federal courts. The Supremes can take a rain-check on that decision. As Amnesty International reports, "almost a year later, none of the more than 500 detainees of some 35 nationalities still held in the base ... has had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed.

The U.S. administration continues to argue in the courts to block any judicial review of the detentions or to keep any such review as limited as possible and as far from a judicial process as possible. Its actions are ensuring that the detainees are kept in their legal limbo, denied a right that serves as a basic safeguard against arbitrary detention, "disappearance and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

It is as though Bush is telling Putin, "Do as I say, not as I do." Perhaps the president should revisit the words of Christ in Matthew 7:3 before lecturing Putin on justice, "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?"

The president was also asked about Amnesty International 'sreport quoted above which ultimately characterized our prison in Guantanamo Bay as being a gulag. The president's response to the question was that the report is "absurd." This reminds me of the Iraq war documentary titled, "Control Room." One of the Arabs interviewed in the movie said that the victors get to write the history. And in this case, if the word is spoken by the most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world, it is truth.

My question for the president on the subject of Guantanamo would have been: "The FBI, the International Red Cross, our military's internal investigations, and now Amnesty International have uncovered and documented systematic abuse of detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, yet you and Vice President Cheney deny this. Who is telling the truth?"

Of course the administration likes to argue that these prisoners are the most hardened of hardened terrorists. While that may be true in some cases, dozens of so-called "detainees" have been released from Guantanamo Bay after having spent over three years in sub-human conditions without ever having been charged for anything. For those who think the detainees have been on holiday, I would encourage you to look at some pictures and interviews on www.guantanamo.com or www.cageprisoners.com and honestly ask yourself how you would feel if these were Americans being held by another government without so much as a hint of judicial review (even after that nation's highest court ruled that our detainees had a right to that review).

Last Tuesday proved to be another exercise in masterful denial and hypocrisy. I regret to admit we have given the president the platform to speak with impunity. President Bush concluded the press conference by saying he had to hop back to his office and chuckled. After his masterful performance as the "strong leader," he likely felt entitled to carry a bit of a skip in his step.