BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?

Subject: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Wordsmith
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:45 AM

I briefly mentioned this subject in the Poverty thread, but feel it deserves a thread of its own. The title is from an article in the April 22, 2007 "Parade Magazine" and not the NYTimes as I had guessed. Here's the article:

It is rumored to be as large as the Vatican, to cost nearly $1 billion and to feature a high-rise building. It's our new (US) embassy in Baghdad, and the need for such a large compound has drawn the criticism of former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and others. But retired Maj. Gen. Charles E. Williams, who has overseen the State Department's construction of 42 U.S. embassies in the last six years, says those stories are wrong. The final site, he told us in an interview, won't rival the Vatican: It will be 65 acres - not 104, as reported. Interim facilities will be returned to the Iraqi community once the compound is finished. It also "will stay as flat as possible, in keeping with Baghdad's architecture," Williams added. "By contrast, our embassy in Cairo goes very high." As for cost, it will be around $600 million, since Congress appropriated less than the 1.3 billion originally planned. A Senate report says that the embassy campus will included six apartment buildings, two office buildings, residences for the ambassador and his deputy, a gym, pool, club, beauty salon, food court, vehicle-repair center, warehouse and an emergency exit, plus its own power and water.
"When we build an embassy, we want to be part of the host country's fabric," Williams said, noting that our new embassy in Cambodia is being used by the locals as a wedding-photo backdrop. Whether the new Baghdad embassy will ever enjoy that romantic role remains to be seen. It is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, off-limits to most Iraqis. The multiple companies and the construction workers hired for the project - reportedly 900 of them, mostly Asian - are due to finish and go home this summer. Until then, more than 1,000 civilian and military personnel remain housed in our current embassy, one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces.

And we wonder why we're called "Ugly Americans?" Maybe this does belong on the poverty thread? We built 42 new embassies on Bush's watch? What a surprise. Our tax dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:55 AM

If you are the occupying power in a country you have illegally invaded you HAVE to have a big palace to rub in the faces of the masses you are opressing.
It's a fact of running an empire.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Wordsmith
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:55 AM

My sentiments exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:56 AM

And what does the money matter? There's plenty of oil out there to pay for it all.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Wordsmith
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:51 AM

Do they really think this embassy is going to blend?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: skipy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 07:08 AM

blend?
Definition:-
To combine or mix so that the constituent parts are indistinguishable from one another!
Given enough time & enough bombs, it will blend alright!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 07:50 AM

I hope they name this embassy palace/bunker after George W. Bush.

And the outhouse for Tony Blair.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:08 AM

Gauche, very gauche.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:25 AM

"We built 42 new embassies on Bush's watch?" - Wordsmith.

Wordsmith would the rebuilds required to replace those blown-up on Clinton's watch be amongst that number? Would the older embassies that were shown, as a result of risk assessment, to be vulnerable to similar attacks and were therefore relocated and replaced be amongst that number?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Shaneo
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:41 AM

You should see the American embassy in Dublin , [Google it] It's totally out of character with the surrounding Georgian buildings.
A fortress in suburbia.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:54 AM

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 8, 1999

PRESIDENT CLINTON ASKS THE CONGRESS TO ADD FUNDING TO STRENGTHEN
EMBASSY SECURITY AND TO MEET SUPREME COURT REQUIREMENTS FOR 2000
CENSUS

"...This embassy security budget amendment for $864 million is an
additional request above the President's FY 2000 budget.
In the 2000 budget, the embassy security program called for $3.5 billion over five years, and planned for $10.5 billion through 2010 to upgrade security, including funding expanded security personnel and technology, and the construction of new sites. With the additional funds requested in the budget amendment, the Administration's long-term program now involves funding of $11.35 billion through 2010...."

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/06/990608-terror-usia.htm

Bush needs to step up the spending to meet that $11.35 billion spending spree mandated by Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM

Gauche, very gauche.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Wordsmith
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:57 AM

All I can say is $600 million - 64 acres?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Is Our Baghdad Embassy Too Extravagant?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 02:16 AM

What??? The US are building all their embassies at Sandbanks, Poole Dorset??? Ah sorry that was only $600 million for 64 acres, not £600 million.