Comments (27)

Todd wrote on July 5, 2007 3:10 PM:

So when did Henry become a (R)

LS wrote on July 5, 2007 3:16 PM:

Henry's on the case!

Sorry to get all pedantic on you, Spencer, but you don't really mean that the Right Honorable Rep. is "(R-CA)" (2nd graf) do you?

Kart wrote on July 5, 2007 3:16 PM:

You should probably give Waxman his "D" back before he opens an inquiry into Muckraker.

Steve W. wrote on July 5, 2007 3:24 PM:

All we've done is rebuild the Twin Towers in the form of an embassy in Bagdad. I think it was done to send a message of who is really in charge and as a slap in the face of Arabs. Kind of a "bring it on" statement.

uncle vester wrote on July 5, 2007 3:25 PM:

Well, IF the original game plan for the war was a bid to control the oil reserves of Iraq as the world enters the era of petrochemical resource depletion (whatever it may devolved into by now), it appears to have collided head-on with the urge to rake in as much short-term profit as possible, the long term be damned.

Savor the irony. These people could f*ck up stealing candy from a 5-year-old.

TexDem wrote on July 5, 2007 3:38 PM:

OOOpps. Waxman (R-CA)?

Otherwise, I'm looking forward to what Henry finds.

Security code tight, as in the editing wasn't so tight here.

Ruby wrote on July 5, 2007 3:41 PM:

Henry Waxman is not an R. See paragraph 2, line 1 of your piece.

Ruby wrote on July 5, 2007 3:42 PM:

Henry Waxman is not an R. See paragraph 2, line 1 of your piece.

T Barr wrote on July 5, 2007 3:49 PM:

Finally, an investigation into this unbelievably huge secret Embassy!

Did I miss something? When did Congress authorize building a million or was it a billion dollar Embassy?

Good! Let's shed some light on this fiasco!

Henk wrote on July 5, 2007 3:55 PM:

Does anyone else remember the our Embassy in Russia. It was so infested with "bugs" (electronic) that we had to scrap it?

Okay here's a more recent one: Does anyone remember those hundreds of tons of high explosives looted from the bunkers that the UN had under lock and key. (I know the media doesn't remember be we do right?)

The Russians were into easedropping. These crafty brown devils are into blowing things up.

How surprised would we be if they've found a way to mix all that looted TNT into the concrete used on the embassy. When all is said and done, someone sticks a very long fuse into the corner of one of the buildings, lights it and runs like hell. Kind of like one of those Road Runner cartoons.

I know chemistry gets in the way of my fantasy, but do we trust Bush appointeees to make sure that our Multi-Billion investment is not being sabotaged in a more realistic fashion?

gcs wrote on July 5, 2007 4:18 PM:

I hope Waxman has read the history of Truman's war profiteering investigation and rips these bastards to shreds, starting with Cheney's payoffs from halliburton.

JamesRobert wrote on July 5, 2007 4:56 PM:

I don't get this mammoth embassy thing. Wouldn't it be more in keeping with Bush's avowed goal in Iraq to build the Iraqis a beautiful new government headquarters, with space for a senate, a lower house, various ministries like justice, agriculture, oil -- maybe a Supreme Courthouse? What the hell do we need with a mega-embassy there?

johnnydoughey wrote on July 5, 2007 5:00 PM:

"A State Department Inspector-General's report found no evidence of such wrongdoing"

Okay guys, here's the deal. We're going to raid this place 'cause we've been told that it's a crackhouse.

I called them today and let them know we'd be knocking their door down next March 5th, so you all need to keep that date open. Oh, I also asked them to have those special fruit crepes available when we get there.

Tom wrote on July 5, 2007 5:43 PM:

If you read the PDF OIG report, notice the DOS IG is Howard Krongard. Sound familiar? If you do some research, he has an amazingly similar history as one BUZZ Krongard. In fact, one could believe they are brothers.

bloke wrote on July 5, 2007 5:59 PM:

Just a second 1,200 "Embassy Guards"! all "private contractors". What happened to the US Marines? Don't they get to pull gaurd duty at Embassies? But 1,200 security personnel that a batalion and a half!!! Good grief thats enough personnel to take out a small town. Is this an embassy or one of those permanent bases with its own private army.

mo1 wrote on July 5, 2007 6:38 PM:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, “''Combating War Profiteering: Are We Doing Enough To Investigate and Prosecute Contracting Fraud and Abuse in Iraq?” this March.
Leahy then introduced the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 119).which is now
on the Senate Legislative Calendar ( as of May ).
House has similar bill, now in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Guess both bills are still siting in Committee.

bill (in washington dc) wrote on July 5, 2007 8:56 PM:

The so-called "NEC" -- New Embassy Compound might be more appropriately named "the Alamo" in a year or two..

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 9:04 PM:

Savor the irony. These people could f*ck up stealing candy from a 5-year-old.

Posted by: uncle vester
Date: July 5, 2007 3:25 PM

Yeah, but we wouldn't hear about it because the 5-year-old would be shipped to Guantanomo and subjected to the fun of waterboarding.

Deb Tinsley wrote on July 5, 2007 11:58 PM:

Berger Devine Yaeger Inc., is the US architectural firm that was contracted to design the massive facility in the Iraqi capital's "Green Zone". If you do a Google search on "new embassy Iraq", you can find pictures of mock ups.
They used to have pictures at the firm's website, but the government made them take them down. This embassy is amazing. It's huge, a city within a city and will replace the Green Zone if it's ever built.

But why build it? That's the $24 billion dollar question.

FurGaia wrote on July 6, 2007 1:59 AM:

And how about the 'permanent bases'? Are there glitches there as well?

johnnydoughey wrote on July 6, 2007 3:16 AM:

Have any of these people actually been convicted of fraud? Apparently, this term can only be used for the everyday citizen.

I was under the impression that War Profiteering has been illegal for 40 years. Apparently, there were a few loopholes that will now be plugged, making future acts illegal... except for the ones actually committed, in which case, further refinements will be needed... later.

erland wrote on July 6, 2007 5:42 AM:

Hmmm, "slated to be finished by September." I wonder if the surge might magically "work" by the time this thing is completed...

gussmith wrote on July 6, 2007 10:30 AM:

Yes, the entire "contract" needs to be thoroughly investigated from concept through bidding. It is unbelievable to create such a monstrosity and palace in the midst of a city and country that we have devastated with our illegal military action.

Kevrobb wrote on July 6, 2007 12:07 PM:

Everybody is missing the point about this story, which is not at all what it seems on the surface.

This key paragraph from Kessler's story in the Washington Post hints at the real truth:

'The guard base "has been constructed to the approved design specifications," (James) Golden (managing director of the embassy project for the State Dept's Overseas Buildings Operations) wrote, adding that "none of the issues raised in the cable has merit" and that "it appears [the embassy] and KBR simply do not want to operate the camp for other reasons".'

'In a cable dated June 8, he berated personnel in Baghdad for sending their message over an open embassy system, rather than keeping the complaints in-house.'

Another key fact is that these 1200 guards (yes, 1200 guards for one embassy that's already within another defensive ring!) were to live in prefabricated trailers.

Got it yet? Here's the final fact: The Green Zone has come under increasing and now sustained mortar and rocket fire this year. Embassy employees are no longer allowed to loiter in the open, nor even venture outside without full vest and helmet. Only six weeks ago, US embassy staff were complaining that there weren't enough mortar-proof rooms for the Americans.

The embassy can no longer keep its guards safely in the long-planned prefabricated trailers. But it doesn't want to admit that the enemy is at the gate. So it pretends the quarters are unliveable, when really they're just cheap and crappy like everything built by US Govt contractors in Iraq. Naturally, they blame a foreign company rather than a good ole boy like KBR.

The whole thing is reported as yet another contractor failure and everybody yawns... when really it's a far more serious military and political failure.

The camp is dangerous alright, but not because the kitchen might catch fire.

They need an excuse to drop their plan to use it. That's why they send their complaints on the open channel deliberately - after all a cover story is useless if it doesn't get out.

Kevrobb wrote on July 6, 2007 12:11 PM:

Everybody is missing the point about this story, which is not at all what it seems on the surface.

This key paragraph from Kessler's story in the Washington Post hints at the real truth:

'The guard base "has been constructed to the approved design specifications," (James) Golden (managing director of the embassy project for the State Dept's Overseas Buildings Operations) wrote, adding that "none of the issues raised in the cable has merit" and that "it appears [the embassy] and KBR simply do not want to operate the camp for other reasons".'

'In a cable dated June 8, he berated personnel in Baghdad for sending their message over an open embassy system, rather than keeping the complaints in-house.'

Another key fact is that these 1200 guards (yes, 1200 guards for one embassy that's already within another defensive ring!) were to live in prefabricated trailers.

Got it yet? Here's the final fact: The Green Zone has come under increasing and now sustained mortar and rocket fire this year. Embassy employees are no longer allowed to loiter in the open, nor even venture outside without full vest and helmet. Only six weeks ago, US embassy staff were complaining that there weren't enough mortar-proof rooms for the Americans.

The embassy can no longer keep its guards safely in the long-planned prefabricated trailers. But it doesn't want to admit that the enemy is at the gate. So it pretends the quarters are unliveable, when really they're just cheap and shoddy like everything built by US Govt contractors in Iraq. Naturally, they blame a foreign company rather than a good ole boy like KBR.

The whole thing is reported as yet another contractor failure and everybody yawns... when really it's a far more serious military and political failure.

The camp is dangerous alright, but not because the kitchen might catch fire.

They need an excuse to drop their plan to use it. That's why they send their complaints on the open channel deliberately - after all a cover story is useless if it doesn't get out.

Kevrobb wrote on July 6, 2007 12:16 PM:

Everyone is missing the point about this story, which is not at all what it seems on the surface.

This key paragraph from Glenn Kessler's story in the Washington Post hints at the real truth:

'The guard base "has been constructed to the approved design specifications," (James) Golden (managing director of the embassy project for the State Dept's Overseas Buildings Operations) wrote, adding that "none of the issues raised in the cable has merit" and that "it appears [the embassy] and KBR simply do not want to operate the camp for other reasons".'

'In a cable dated June 8, he berated personnel in Baghdad for sending their message over an open embassy system, rather than keeping the complaints in-house.'

Kevrobb wrote on July 6, 2007 12:17 PM:

Ooops sorry, didn't know there was a delay. Please delete the duplicates.