by afertig, Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:45:17 AM EDT
We all know the talking points the Bush Administration has put out on Iraq, and we saw how Jon Stewart tried to have an interview in which he deconstructed those tired points in his interview with McCain. See also what he was thinking in that great Bill Moyers interview.
One of the most crucial points, I've always thought, has been the humanitarian efforts by the military. Some of my Republican friends (and yes, I do have a few Republican friends) like to point out that if the United States leaves, the humanitarian efforts will also end. For some time, I've thought that was not a reason to stay -- since we clearly don't make our foreign policy based on humanitarian needs (see: Darfur, Rwanda, and the list tragically goes on.) But I've also thought that it was a valid point: the Iraqi government probably doesn't have enough money or power to completely rebuild its infrastructure.
Now, a New York Times article shows us that the successes we've had in rebuilding Iraq aren't really successes.
In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.Follow me after the jump for a look into this article.