Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNot to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn't on the payroll of Lockheed Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush's pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated Cold War-style weapons systems.
Lockheed Martin, the nation's top weapons manufacturer, reaped a 22 percent increase in profits, while rivals for the defense buck, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, increased profits by 62 percent and 22 percent, respectively. Boeing's profits jumped 61 percent, spiked this quarter by its commercial division, but Boeing's military division, like the others, has been doing very well indeed since the terrorist attacks. As Newsweek International put in August: "Since 9/11 and the U.S.-led wars that followed, shares in American defense companies have outperformed both the Nasdaq and Standard & Poor's stock indices by some 40 percent. Prior to the recent cascade of stock prices worldwide, Boeing's share prices had tripled over the past five years while Raytheon's had doubled."
Not bad for an industry in serious difficulty with the sudden collapse of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s, when the first President Bush and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, were severely cutting the military budget for high-ticket planes and ships designed to fight the no-longer-existent Soviet military. Sure, they had Iraq to kick around, but the elder Bush never thought to turn the then very real aggression of Saddam Hussein into an enormously expensive quagmire. He both defeated Hussein and cut the military budget.
Not so Bush the younger, who exploited the trauma of 9/11 as an occasion to depose the defanged dictator of Iraq and thus provide a "shock and awe" showcase for the arms industry, which continues to benefit obscenely from the failed occupation. The second Iraq war, irrationally conflated with the 9/11 attack that had nothing to do with Hussein, provided the perfect threat package to justify the most outrageous military boondoggle in the nation's history. The bin Laden boys only had an arsenal of $3 knives, but Bush claimed Hussein had WMD. Sadly for the military-industrial complex, Hussein's army collapsed all too suddenly. But the insurgency, much of it fueled by the Shiites, who were ostensibly on our side, provided the occasion for pretending that we are in a war against a conventionally armed and imposing military enemy.
Of course, we are in nothing of the sort with this so-called war on terror, a propaganda farce that draws resources away from serious efforts to counter terrorism to reward the corporations that profit from high-tech weaponry that has little if anything to do with the problem at hand. As Columbia professor Richard K. Betts points out in Foreign Affairs magazine: "With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets-the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them, and the capabilities most applicable to this task are intelligence and special operations forces. ... It does not require half a trillion dollars worth of conventional and nuclear forces."
That half a trillion only covers the Pentagon budget for expenses beyond the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Department of Homeland Security. Those last three items total more than $240 billion in Bush's 2008 budget requests. Add to that the $50 billion spent on intelligence agencies and an equal amount of State Department-directed efforts and you can understand how we manage to spend more fighting a gang of mujahedeen terrorists, once our "freedom fighters" in that earlier Afghan war against the Soviets, than we did at the height of the Cold War.
"The Pentagon currently absorbs more than half of the federal government's discretionary budget," writes Lawrence J. Korb, "surpassing the heights reached when I was President Reagan's assistant secretary of defense. ... And, much like the 1980s, we are spending billions of dollars on weapons systems designed to fight the Soviet superpower."
Thanks to bin Laden and Bush's exploitation of "war on terror" hysteria, the taxpayers have been hoodwinked into paying for a sophisticated military arsenal to fight a Soviet enemy that no longer exists. The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11; they should give bin Laden his cut.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2007 TruthDig.com
29 Comments so far
Show AllAnd what amount of these billions were ever used for protecting our ports or borders? And just how rich has this lying jerk Bush made with kick backs from the military complex? And has the general public noticed just how this criminal sounds more like a Dictator when he addressed the press than a morally conscientious President of the people?
KEM PATRICK November 1st, 2007 8:39 am
"I have to agree with Daniel David, we have a choice of a bunch of lousy repubicans, or a bunch of lousy democrats."
Nobody argues with that. What a lot of people, myself included , argue with is Daniel David's assertion that electing more Democrats will solve or even alleviate the problem.
Lobo Gris
Hey, we need the Star Wars missle defense. It not only will protect us from a massive missle attack by a random terrorist group in the hills of Pakistan, but also against an unanticipated attack by the five-legged green lizard creatures from the hidden planets in the outer solar system.
vdb,
The constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies with regard to adding duties or obligations on citizens, not removing them. It is common practice to undo a prohibition and to make it apply retroactively, though sometimes the choice is not to make it retroactive.
As for a bill of attainder, that is to specifically name the individual the law applies to, usually with regard to capital punishment for the individual.
So the legislation does not offend the constitution, but it should offend anyone with a sense of decency or fairness.
I do know we went after Osama in Afganastan, ___ that's why we attacked Iraq.
If you honestly think about it, without this war, what would we be doing here in America? We don't make much of anything else anymore except weapons of war. Hell, if we'd all join in and support every war, support a draft and all play hardball, we'd all be wealthy and wise.
Imagine those who have kids of draft age, they get their military trainng, serve three years and then get a job with Blackwater making $6 to $700 a day in wages and don't forget Haliburton. The war may be costing $170 million every single day, but Halliburton gets about half of that, it's good economics. What goes around comes back. Some of you people just don't get it.
I have to agree with Daniel David, we have a choice of a bunch of lousy repubicans, or a bunch of lousy democrats. The best of them all by far will not win of course, because he is usually correct on every issue, is intelligent, brutaly honest and the press attempts to make him look foolish.
Therefore, barring a miracle, we will end up with Hillary and Julie-ano to fight it out. Which of the two do we choose? ____ Sorry I have to agree with Daniel David, or stay home and hate myself for not voting. Vote Green? Only to say I did and know I wasted my vote. I could write in Gore, or Imus, whom I would prefer over Hillary. ___ Anyway, this is just another argument that we have all heard about 50,000 times so far this year.
Personally, I believe there won't be an election and we will be in the midst of a depression soon anyway and all of these discussions will be moot.
Daniel David October 31st, 2007 3:29 pm
"Sorry you don’t like my tone. I’d encourage you to read carefully the “tone†you’ll probably see coming from some of my other critics. Some of it’s pretty wild."
You post here knowing full well that the position you take is unpopular and yet you drone on and on incessantly about it. Considering that fact, I don't think that you should wonder that occasionally someone lashes out at you in frustration. Just be thankful that the posters here truly believe in free speech.
Lobo Gris
curmudgeon99 October 31st, 2007 2:09 pm
These are the ones who have hired the government including all elected lickspittles who keep changing laws retroactively to protect them.
Section. 9.
Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or EX POST FACTO Law shall be passed.
Hello?
anyone paying attention?
It is true that the Dems are fucked, but things might have been different if Gore had been in the white house. They would not have been perfect. They never are. But they might have been better.
Paulbk: Why would they go after one of their own CIA assets?
Anyone ever get the feeling the U.S. does not really want to get Bin Laden? That he is worth more to the U.S. government alive than dead? He sure helps the government continue this hysteria they seem bent on promoting, much like Russia during the Cold War, and apparently it was very convenient for the Russians too, concerning the U.S. threat to them. Always keep the people in fear, don't let them see what is happening at home, keep their eyes focused elsewhere.
This discussion, like so much we all read on CD and elsewhere, stems from the same malady that plauges our political, social and religious scenes today. And like those other facets of life in America, little is bound to change any time soon. The reason, as I see it, is one of bullyism.
On the playground, the big, obnoxious, mean-spirited kid is easily spotted as he pushes the weaker kid to the ground. But what do you call it when the big, obnoxious, mean-spirited nation pushes the weaker nation to the ground? In recent years we've called it preemptive action. America abounds with bullies. They cut you off with their moster trucks in traffic. They scream at you from conservative radio, conservative blogs and FOX News. They assail anyone who questions their motives as "anti-American", "unpatriotic" and "godless". They reign from on high in Washington and Wall Street and Houston, making backroom deals that favor only their own kind, and to hell with everyone else.
And just like the playground bully, who is too often in a position of power to be avoided, much less stopped, we are faced with a glut of bullies in public offices, military headquarters, megachurches and corporate boardrooms. They have the power. We have the bitter taste of dirt in our mouths.
What sick folly -- all of it! What was once the sincere (non-perfect) vision of a dream for people and a country has transformed into a corporatized, military oligarchy which has cast dark, dark shadows smothering everyday people and worlds -- all in pursuit of unshared quests for selfish power. The ultimate product of this folly is blow-back -- by either fellow humans -- or nature herself. What stupidity! What obscenity! What idiots! To this we are commanded to give the earnings of our time -- and surrender and sacrifice our children? What's the point? What's the purpose? Who "among" us is truly uplifted by any of this?
I couldn't agree more RebelFarmer. We have to stop acting like abuse victims and see what's what. We, the people have been in an abusive relationship with our supposed "representatives" for way too long. It's time we let them know that their number is up and they cannot placate us any longer with empty promises that they will reform. We've got to take this country back, even if it takes the next 10 election cycles to do it. I refuse to vote for any degree of evil!!!!!
jjohnjj (THAT'S a lotta "j"'s!): The only way we can stop war spending is to stop making wars. Period!
Daniel David: Since you asked - your logic is SOOOO 2004 - 2006. We have already been there, done that. Voting for the lessor of two evils still equals evil. As long as both parties are corporate owned, neither represents WE the PEOPLE. Maybe in the '40's and '50's the letter behind a candidates' name (D, R, I) actually meant something. But not today. Hillary may look less frightening to you than Guiliani, but she will take us down the same fascist path. Maybe she will just be a "Friendlier" fascist than the Repug, but a fascist all the same. So, pick your poison. Me, I'm going to vote for a candidate that I know will defend the Constitution, will put us on the path to peace, and will represent people over corporations. Poison just isn't my cup of tea.
Star of the Sea: You got it, but with more detail. Thanks.
Tone or no tone, Daniel David, you ignore a couple of very important points. The Dems stood by and watched the last several elections get stolen and did not raise a voice to protest. It was as if they didn't want to assume the reins of power. And as long as their individual race wasn't tampered with, they watched their compatriots get their elections stolen. If the Dems had simply stood up and defended the millions of African Americans who were disenfranchised, they would have merited some respect, not to mention won subsequent elections. Sorry, DDavid, they are not going to save us because their dishonesty makes them more dangerous than the Rethugs, who at least let us know in no uncertain terms that they don't care give a flyin f--k about the "people" of this nation. Please, don't kid yourself. I am 61 years old and have some perspective. Appart from some notable exceptions, they are not a whole helluva lot different than their opponents. We need to work with all our might to give our kids and grandkids some real choices.
BOEING has been advertising heavily on NON commercial PUBLIC TV.
BOING, makers of the CRUISE MISSILE, Nuke tipped ones even.
Time to stop supporting non commercial public television, they make plenty from advertising.
Uh, Osama was on the CIA's payroll and probably still is.
pleasethink,
As I've told many mad readers of my posts, no one pays me anything, I'm not affiliated with organized Democrats, and I'm disappointed about many things, too.
I also know THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE except having Republicans in The White House again.
The Dems in Congress since 2006 have faced the choice of just defunding the war and possibly having an unforeseen event or consequence remove them from office for a generation as punishment for being unpatriotic, or trying to ride the fence. So far, they're doing the latter, and their goal is to get The White House, not lose it by a landslide of epic proportions.
I don't know if they're right to do it this way or not, but I do know the consequences of another Republican administration ain't good---not for me, and not for anyone of the ilk to be a visitor to CD. That's the whole reason I advocate here for Democrats. A few listen to me, most don't.
Sorry you don't like my tone. I'd encourage you to read carefully the "tone" you'll probably see coming from some of my other critics. Some of it's pretty wild.
But at least said war profiteers incorporate honest, transparent bookkeeping so we know where every one of our dollars has been spent.
"The Army improperly awarded one of its largest contracts — a 10-year, $150 billion deal to support U.S. troops around the world — and should reconsider its decision, a government agency said Tuesday."
"A U.S. State Department audit of a Dyncorp International, LLC contract under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund released Tuesday found that investigators were unable to determine what the company had provided under the contract or how $1.2 billion in funds were spent."
"The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent."
"One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency. Auditors discovered that the key to a vault was kept in an unsecured backpack."
We can thank both the Democrats and Republicans equally for this raping of the US Treasury. In the meantime, while we build another nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier, our troops keep getting ripped off with not enough money for adquate armor for their vehicles, health care, or other personal needs. I hope all of the imbeciles cheering for Bush and the war someday can see this. All of our polititians' grandchildren will be millionaires while our grandchildren will still be paying for this war. What a country.
Daniel David:
The Dems have been in control of Congress for nearly two years. Please describe what they have accomplished, in concrete detail, to date to mitigate the illegal actions of the Bush administration. I supported the Dems in 2006 and believed that happy days arrived when they seized both houses of Congress. I am wallowing in disillusionment watching them betray the people who elected them. What are they waiting for? Why are they waiting for 2008 if their will TRULY is to counteract the all-powerful Republicans? I am judging their actions, not their "reputation." I find your speeches about the miracles that the Dems will perform in 2008 utterly empty, unconvincing, and scarily propagandistic. Your tone lacks any sense of sincerity or authenticity, and whenever I read one of your posts I wonder who is paying you from the DNP.
jjohnj:
Don't you get it yet? It's all we talk about on here. The problem is not that the Dems don't have "nerve." It's that they are making as much money as everyone else (or their supporters are). They are not the party of the "people." They are in the "oligarchy." Let us please, once and for all, call a spade a spade.
Indeed, the folks hyping terror phobia (Republicans) have hijacked your federal budget, many of your civil rights, and the current value of your dollar. The only real question is whether you will allow them to be elected again in 2008, whereupon the entire debacle of their past actions will be blamed squarely on the growing menace of Social Security and Medicare. Your choice folks, get the Democrats to mitigage the Republicans somewhat, or watch another travesty. The candidates who don't get elected don't fix your problems.
The Democrats in Congress could outflank BushCo if they had the nerve.
Instead of attaching conditions to the Iraq war appropriations, they should cut the big-dollar high-tech military programs and divert those funds to "support the troops" on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House would be flummoxed and pretty quickly the Senators from Lockheed-Grumman-Boeing-Dynamics would be calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Unfortunately, the big war industries employ millions of voters and their subcontractors employ hundreds of thousands more. These are the last good manufacturing jobs left in America.
The Pentagon's largesse is felt in every congressional district in the nation. Cutting military spending in your home district is politcal suicide.
We gotta find a way to free our local economies (and Congressmen) from the addiction to war spending.
These are the ones who have hired the government including all elected lickspittles who keep changing laws retroactively to protect them.
'Rule of Law' - Hahaha
More like 'Rule of Wal(l street)'
The jingoist oligarchs rule!!!
The only thing that will put a stop to this will be huge numbers of Americans going totally broke. It's already happening. The dollar is the weakest it ever has been (Mastercard just announced a 60% jump in profits due to Americans spending more abroad...spending more because the exchange rate sucks) and millions are losing their homes, or working 2 or 3 lousy jobs to keep their homes. The oligarchy has been bleeding us dry since 9/11. We are the destitute people who the bully keeps touching for another buck, and we will keep coughing it up until it really hurts.
What a bonanza for these basturds! The two party one brain system will allow this to go on until we suffer a major defeat like Vietnam and retreat and give the world a breather before embarking on our next big slaughter.
Once the public's BS meter tops out with regard to "Islamo-fascism," the sophists of the military-industrial complex will quickly shift back to demonizing China (though Putin seems to want some of that action). If the Dalai Lama could not be used in that game, he would never be mentioned by the administration or the corporate media, much less invited to the White House.
The oligarchs plan for every likely contingency, and certainly public fatigue with being frightened of cave-dwelling madmen with boxcutters will come soon, so they are already at work developing the new bogeyman.