Who is really profiting from the war in Iraq? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Lost Soul · #1 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Quote:

151 Congressmen Profit From War
Wednesday, April 30th, 2008
Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.

According to the latest reports, 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the watchdog group OMBWatch.

Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.) In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to the Republicans’ “only” $577,500. As the war raged on, so did the billions of profits—and personal investments by Congress members in war contractors, which increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006.

Investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts.

War hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.), chairman of the defense-related
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007.

Of the 151 members whose investments are tied to the “defense” (war)
industry, as far as we know, not one of them offered to donate their bloodstained profits to the national treasury to offset the terrible debt they have imposed. Has one of them even offered to donate one cent of their war profits to lessen the debt that increases more than $1 million a minute?

When our boys and girls are wounded the government bills them to return their reenlistment bonus. They have to return any pay they received while they were hospitalized. They have to pay for their helmets and uniforms that are destroyed in the hell of war. But they keep on fighting for these politicians’ right to keep their war profits.

• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000

#

With thanks to ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM - EXPOSING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

151 Congressmen Profit From War

Well if you were to listen to the anti war crowd and liberals it would be Bush, Cheney and only Republicans.

Seems once again the anti war crowd and liberals have been caught lying again.

Oh forgot to add, I even used a far far left source so people like TSG wouldn't run in here whining about bias right wing source.

TSGracchus · #2 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Well, all I can say, beyond the fact that I seem to have become your personal obsession,

is that if the people who, on balance, have more invested in defense industries and therefore stand to profit more from the Iraq war, are also the ones who, on balance, are more likely to oppose it, that means they are more politically virtuous than I ever would have guessed.

Wait -- the Democrats in Congress are politically virtuous?

That makes only a little more sense than to say that about the Republicans.

Are you SURE about these statistics, LS?

noahath · #3 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

LS - Can you please provide a link to the story. The link you provided is to the home page of the news site, from which I can't locate the story you refer to.

Lost Soul · #4 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

LS - Can you please provide a link to the story. The link you provided is to the home page of the news site, from which I can't locate the story you refer to.

151 Congressmen Profit From War

Try this one.

noahath · #5 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Thanks for the new link.

I am concerned though that the Report in question cites 151 members of Congress as having profited from the war, yet it only singles our the Dem politicians.

The report says this in the 4th paragraph:

151 Congressmen Profit From War

Quote:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million.

The list quoted in the OP says that Kerry received a min of $3 million+. In other words, the news story contradicted itself. The politician that the report itself says received the hightest income from the war is actually a Republican, but the fact that it saves its partisan attacks for the Dems says enough.

All in all, a report that ignores the fact that a GOP politician earned more; a report that contradicts itself (by saying Kerry earned one amount, then subsequently listing another amount); and the fact that it states that 151 members of Congress have profited, but chooses to only list 10 Dems,is enough for me to dismiss the report without having any merit. Still, it's "news" stories like this without reliable factual merit that confuses voters on facts and encourages them to vote based on false, or misleading information.

Si modo · #6 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

Thanks for the new link.

I am concerned though that the Report in question cites 151 members of Congress as having profited from the war, yet it only singles our the Dem politicians.

The report says this in the 4th paragraph:

151 Congressmen Profit From War
The list quoted in the OP says that Kerry received a min of $3 million+. In other words, the news story contradicted itself. The politician that the report itself says received the hightest income from the war is actually a Republican, but the fact that it saves its partisan attacks for the Dems says enough.

All in all, a report that ignores the fact that a GOP politician earned more; a report that contradicts itself (by saying Kerry earned one amount, then subsequently listing another amount); and the fact that it states that 151 members of Congress have profited, but chooses to only list 10 Dems,is enough for me to dismiss the report without having any merit. Still, it's "news" stories like this without reliable factual merit that confuses voters on facts and encourages them to vote based on false, or misleading information.

Here, this may explain the perceived contradictions [emphasis mine]:

Quote:

....

Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.)....

In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD....

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million....

• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000

Are there enough "R"s and "Republican" words now? [edit] It's 2008, now. [/edit]

If true, it seems both parties need to shape up in the ethics department.

The Executive Branch employees have very strict ethics which include very strict rules on investments, conflict of interest, and perceived conflict of interest (GWB tightened those ethics rules up considerably, and there has been much house-cleaning because of it.)

The Legislative Branch should do the same and tighten ethics up.

goober · #7 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Who really profits from the war in Iraq?
Someone should point out that the oil companies are making the largest profits of any company ever in the history of the world.

noahath · #8 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Here, this may explain the perceived contradictions [emphasis mine]: Are there enough "R"s and "Republican" words now? [edit] It's 2008, now. [/edit]

My apologies, with all of the "D's" listed I missed the three "R's". Thank you for pointing them out so politely.

I was also responding to the commentary added to the OP in which the poster appeared to ignore the Republican references and focus solely on the "liberal" (which he equates to Democrats) politicians.

Pogo · #9 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Wait -- the Democrats in Congress are politically virtuous?

That makes only a little more sense than to say that about the Republicans.

Are you SURE about these statistics, LS?

Yeah, in our wonderful political system it's the scum that rises to the top, not the cream.

And it seems to me that the Dems are no less scummy than the Repubs, given their wont to posture as being genuinely opposed to the fascist elements in our society.

AkDiesel · #10 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008

Just as I thought, the wrong people and their friends are making the money, just like in Nam..

Lost Soul · #11 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahath

My apologies, with all of the "D's" listed I missed the three "R's". Thank you for pointing them out so politely.

I was also responding to the commentary added to the OP in which the poster appeared to ignore the Republican references and focus solely on the "liberal" (which he equates to Democrats) politicians.

I listed only democrats and liberals because democrats and liberals were the one claiming only republicans were profiting from this war which this article says otherwise.

If you liberals don't want to be singled out, maybe before you start pointing fingers you should look at your own party first who might be doing exactly what your are accusing others of. You think? Maybe it shows mostly democrats because they are the biggest offenders or because they were the ones telling everyone that Bush and Cheney were becoming rich off the war when in fact they were also.

BTW, I guess you didn't take the time to go to the actual site? It is a very anti war and heavy left leaning. Maybe if your sight wasn't so clouded with LS and partisan hate you could see this for yourself.

noahath · #12 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Soul

BTW, I guess you didn't take the time to go to the actual site? It is a very anti war and heavy left leaning. Maybe if your sight wasn't so clouded with LS and partisan hate you could see this for yourself.

You seem to have ignored the fact that I did go to the original link you provided, and couldn't find the article so asked you for another link, which you provided. You seem to have this fixation that I don't like you, and as such choose to ignore the obvious. Still, I can't change that, but it would be nice if you could cease making incorrect assumptions about me.

jviehe · #13 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Well, whats the solution here. Should politcians be forbidden from having any financial conflict of interest?

CorpMediaSux · #14 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

I agree with jviehe, the problem here is not the assholes making money off the war, the problem is the American people's continued complete unwillingness to investigate how their leaders are profiting off of the deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civillians. People are kind of vaguely against the wall, but then they trust the politicians who profit from it to end the war. Ridiculous. If people would quit whining about corrupt politicians and start holding them accountable by not VOTING for their asses. Or if they do, by keeping tabs on them and making sure they're actually carrying out their will we wouldn't be here. But people would much rather the MSM inform them of what congress is doing and villify independent sources like thsi website as "left wing nut jobs." This is what you call journalism, doesn't matter if its pro or anti-one particular party. Americans are to blame for how their politicians act. Period.

Doctor Who · #15 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Who really profits from the war in Iraq?
Someone should point out that the oil companies are making the largest profits of any company ever in the history of the world.

Only if you ingore facts (or are simply unaware of them) and lack a basic understanding of finance and economics. The fact is, the oil companies have been working in and with the Iraqis for free for a very long time. The recent contracts they received from Iraq were, in part, due to their generosity. Were they hoping to get those contracts by playing nice? Of course, but they never had a guarantee and put their investment at risk. And "largest profits ever" is misleading and typical of left-wing ignorance of business. Coca Cola makes more money on gross revenue than Exxon. Let me use your "understanding" this way. GWB got more votes in the 2004 election than any President in history so therefore, in 2004, GWB was the most popular President ever in the history of the world.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode