The US$592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington’s National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls.

And why can't we spend some of that money to clean up places like Walter Reed and provide
decent medical care for vets?

Because THAT would be too expensive!

Why, THAT would be sending the wrong message to our youth!

Yes, it is much better to have spent $592 million of YOUR tax dollars on this embassy in Iraq, than to have spent one red cent to help our own returning war vets wounded in combat in Iraq.

Mr. bush is a true patriot alright; loves his country and the its people as much as kennedy and clinton.

I wonder how much of their own money was spent on this embassy?

Posted by: witness at May 20, 2007 8:13 AM

Oh, for god's sake. Stop this idiotic project now. But of course it won't stop, because to stop it would imply a recognition, as General Sir Michael Rose (google that British "cut-and-runner") and others have noted, a "defeat" for the Bush policy in Iraq.

A monument, that American Embassy, in its grotesque size and swagger and expense, to the statue of the Near Eastern despot Ozymandias, in the eponymous poem by Shelley, once learned by every sixth-grader in america. in that poem every schoolboy learns, Ozymandias. But the Ozymandiases of the age are unlike the original. They are not despots dreaming of their unlimited power, but rather despotic bringers-of-democracy, determined not to learn, not to study, Islam or Iraq, but rather to transform the world, or as much of it as they think they can, so busily, so busybodily, so polypragmonically. And the symbol of that is this Embassy of Erewhon in the Country of Nowhere, its fearful bureacrats supposedly bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq, and then to all the Sunni lands (so delighted to see Baghad in Shi'a control)of the Middle East, and -- why stop there? -- to the whole wide world, where everyone is an "ordinary mom" and an "ordinary dad" and wants exactly the same thing.

Look on this "nearly-completed" $592-billion dollar Embassy placed in an antique and hostile land. Look at it. Yea, look on their Works, ye Mighty -- and, from here on out, try to be not nearly as Dumb as they, the men who planned this monument to their own ignorance and stupidity, turned out to be.

Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2007 8:18 AM

Is there some American success gong on in Iraq of which the public isn't being told?

Posted by: Kepha at May 20, 2007 8:34 AM

This has Bush's signature all over it.

Everything's bigger in Texas...ummm, Baghdad.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 20, 2007 8:34 AM

Guess it's a good place for General Custer's last stand! Imagine diplomats are lining up to go there-yeah right-how many times has Bush visited Iraq? Only $592 million -hell what's that
after wasting BILLIONS on Iraq Disneyland...

Posted by: Morgane at May 20, 2007 8:45 AM

The US gov't should send the Mexican illegals to do the work AMericans wont do in Iraq. if you survive Iraq you are promised the citizenship.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 20, 2007 9:05 AM

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

So take a look at the pictures of the $592 billion dollar white elephant, all 21 buildings of the complex. Look on the works that you paid for, taxpayers, in the country where you have spent or committed, so far, more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has every fought -- and despair!

Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2007 9:49 AM

Well, at least the SUVs are near a secure oil supply.

Might as well get comfortable, cause we're going to be there many years.

Screw the Kaaba. this is the epicentre.

Posted by: dgene at May 20, 2007 10:02 AM

"Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Posted by: Hugh

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 20, 2007 10:11 AM

We Came...

We Saw...

We built a really big embassy...

That will be a legacy of this battle. Sort of like a castle. This just keeps getting more lame by the second.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 20, 2007 10:12 AM

King George's Fort!

I know why they are building it! So when all those poor muslim Iraqis want to come to America they know were to go.

Before we fix the borders, Before we do immigration reform, Before all....we must FIX THE STATE DEPARTMENT!

Nixon once had the bright idea of purging the entire thing. Richard....oh if you only did you would have been one of the greatest presidents ever!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 20, 2007 10:17 AM

As a fitting reward for his vision and committment to Iraq, I hereby nominate George W. Bush for permanent in-country US Ambassador when his Presidency ends. Mr./Mrs. Next President, are you listening? He's your man with a plan. It's not too early to start planning the ticker-tape parade through beautiful downtown Baghdad.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at May 20, 2007 10:18 AM

OBSCENE hubris. A monument to INSANITY. The thicker and more bombproof they make the walls, the more meaningless the very existence of the structure becomes. It has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 20, 2007 10:22 AM

Instead of spending all that money on this monstrosity, why can't we use it for something useful. The way things are going in Baghdad, it will fall like Saigon did. And what use will that embassy be after that. F*** Bush and his Wilsonianism on steroids, as my history professor dubbed the Iraq War. F*** all the defense contractors who think they can make some serious green off this war. How the hell will that help us in the long run? I know the jihadis don't need much of an excuse to go after us, but the Iraq War is crippling us. And to all those who still support Bush, don't be surprised when history judges him harshly.

Posted by: wrathofasma at May 20, 2007 10:31 AM

Hubris is right. Busily remaking the world in their own intended image. Polypragmonic hubris. Never have fools had so much unchecked power in this country. There is a geopolotical crisis. But behind that, there is a constitutional crisis. Congress has the sole power to declare war. Should not Congress then have the sole power, if it believes that circumstances have changed, or assumptions made at the time of the original vote were based on deliberate misinformation supplied by the government, to undeclare war?

Isn't that is what is being attempted -- not to "micromanage" the war (Bush) or to prevent "the generals from doing their job" (Bush again, telling us that "their job" is the "mission" which they, those generals, are not allowed to think about, for if they thought about it too much, thought about the larger war of self-defense against Islam, thought about the possible exploitation of sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq, they would be demanding withdrawal of the troops not today, but yesterday)--but to "undeclare the war"?

There is a Constitutional crisis. Apparently that document is silent on the subject of who gets to end a war, end it by cutting off funds when the man in the engine-car, and his cabal of associates, cannot be stopped, and are running the train at full throttle into a wall, or over a bridge, or just endlessly into the desert somewhere in the western desert of Iraq, from which the expense of getting out will be, metaphorically and literally, gigantic.

Those trying to cut off funding are not harming the troops. They are trying to stop that runaway train.

Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2007 10:32 AM

My goodness Hugh, you're on a roll today with 3 postings out of 15. This one must be getting under your skin, and just one of many things getting under my skin at the moment between the Iraq war and the immigration problem. I'm sure Halliburton indirectly has the contract on this one and we won't pull out until Cheney and his friends have greatly profited from the war. Our Embassy in Baghdad is one of Saddam's palaces. I suppose we spent $592 million upgrading it, making it blast proof and fixing the a/c and plumbing. Witness was right with his post above stating we should have spent that money on Walter Reed. Halliburton has it's fingers in every piece of the pie with many sub companies, that tinkle up and down with each sub company taking a piece and padding the bill. And what's with our UN Ambassador being a Sunni Muslim and boycotting Israel's Jerusalem celebration day?

Posted by: Bonniea at May 20, 2007 10:55 AM

Click on this link to see a photo of the construction site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/from/RSS/

Posted by: Johnathan at May 20, 2007 10:59 AM

$1 billion a year to support 5000 people? That’s $200,000 a head, including all the imported foreign labor. Some people call these things ‘juice’.

A few years back a friend had been involved in a Federal project on a southwestern reservation to build Tribal housing. They built the houses, lots of them. Nothing too fancy but still very nice. The deal for the occupants is that the Tribe owns the houses but the members live in them and pay, I think it was $16 per month.

Those houses were gutted within months. The toilets were sold, the windows were sold, everything was stripped and sold. Probably all that remains these days is the foundations.

I’m glad we spent a billion dollars for a great big shiny embassy in Baghdad. More importantly, I’m glad we made the walls out of hardened concrete. They will be properly decorated by the locals in time and stand as a testament as to the foolish, arrogant, nurturing nature of early 21st Century Western society. Hopefully kids will read about it in history books someday.

Posted by: pez at May 20, 2007 11:37 AM

OT: Decapitated heads found in Iraq river with American features and military backpack nearby scene of abduction last week.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2861/Yousifiya_Residents_Find_Decapitated_Heads

Posted by: Bonniea at May 20, 2007 11:39 AM

Oh baby say it! Go Brother Hugh! Don't stop now, the SPIRIT is upon you this good Sunday. This HalliburCheneyBushopolis in the desert is a symbol of MADNESS and as another poster says, you are on a roll. Why not another hundred million to have Christo wrap the embassy in Hamas-Green cloth as a present to Iran. We've gone this far, why not do it right?

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 20, 2007 11:52 AM

Hugh is right when he states..

"Those trying to cut off funding are not harming the troops. They are trying to stop that runaway train."

Yes it is time to pull the plug for the sake of the republic. Even if it means giving a victory to the liberals. Every American must have a higher duty to the republic not to a party and it is clear the man running this nation is not in his right mind or is holding an office above his ability.

Sometimes a short term defeat in battle saves you from losing the long term war. If we stay we are in real danger of losing more then many realize. Even then leaving Iraq might not be called a defeat but a victory when the civil war gets going.

People keep bringing up Vietnam but lets ask the question if we had stayed in that nation without changing the strategy we were using at the time would that have helped in the greater Cold War.

The answer is no. We won Cold War because we did not stay in places were victory would be cost too mush and would not really change the outcome of the larger conflict. Iraq is no different in this respect. Staying in Iraq will not change or help us win the overall larger conflict with jihad or Islamic aggression.

Your duty is to the republic not a man or party. Those that keep pushing this nonsense of staying need to realize that.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 20, 2007 12:01 PM

The Cold War combined the pressure of military force, the use of which was always implied, and sometimes applied, and propaganda (including subventions to non-Communist parties in Italy and France, support for the Congress for Cultural Freedom, publication at CIA expense of the books of ex-Communists and Russian emigres, broadcasting stations such as Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe that presented information about American society and culture, including the wildly popular programs on jazz hosted by Willis Conover, readings and lectures by Russian emigres from Mikhail Karpovich to Wladimir Weidle, Karpovich to Nikolai Morshen to Georgiy Adamovich and Andrey Sedych and Bishop Ioann (Shahokvskoy) of San Francisco), and economic warfare.

The war in Iraq is run by people apparently heedless of the fantastic economic cost to us -- heedless, that is, of the discussion, by Bin Laden and others, of the need to weaken American by forcing it to fall into the trap of spending money in vain. And that is exactly what has happened in Iraq.

Furthermore, the "winning hearts and minds" business in Iraq limits or inhibits the right use of propaganda, propaganda which must center on immunizing Infidels against the siren-song of Islam, and demonstrating to Muslims that we have a good idea, and can not be fooled, not only about the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam, but about the connection that we can make -- and that, therefore, they will also be forced eventually to make or at least dimly recognize -- between the political, economic, social, intellectual,and moral failures of states and societies suffused with Islam, and Islam itself.

The "war on terrorism" in Iraq, if it does not come promptly to an end, may not only squander further resources, but allow the real appeasers of Islam, assorted brzezinskis and odoms and scowcrofts, to ease themselves back into power, and to renew the mixture as before. And that would be one more unintended consequence of that bundle of unintended consequences that the Stork Brought In, Tar-Baby Iraq.

Posted by: Hugh at May 20, 2007 12:14 PM

From the MSNBC story:

"Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies."

I wonder how much is Feinstein profiting from this little gem.

Posted by: Mr.C at May 20, 2007 12:25 PM

A walled city...hmmm...

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at May 20, 2007 12:41 PM

Stop this madness, vote for Ron Paul, a real change for America!!! The countries need less state and more freedom.

Posted by: Franze at May 20, 2007 1:11 PM

Now even attacking the embassy is considered sport here by people who have never been near a US embassy compoud.

Embassies have changed dramatically the past decade in scope, size, operational security and needs to project a secure United States presence.
For those attacking it, maybe one should consider if it was your job as a US Marine who guards the compound, embassy personel whose job is assigned to be there and intelligence people who are directed to be there to filter intelligence coming in....just how much you would like it if people were saying you should do without security. It is easy to complain hiding behind a keyboard. It is another aspect when your vocation dictates to put one in harms way as the alternative is flipping hamburgers at 7 bucks an hour.

No one seems to understand the any embassy is an operational wing of the United States security which includes that window of hope and light that a said Arab, a Muslim in Moscow or a Pakistani who all love America just decide to wander in some day when the people they know are planning a biological or nuclear attack on the United States.

A billion dollars a year to run or millions to build.....just try equating several TRILLION dollars in replacing New York, a trillion more in caring for radioactive cancer children for the next 50 years and a several trillion more in people in the northeast all flooding into your lovely town driving up prices on housing so you can't afford to live anymore in your secure little hamlet behind computer screens.

An embassy is the first line of offense and defense. Time and again in the Soviet era intel came streaming in and time and again in this proxy Islam era Muslims have shown up at our embassies alerting Americans of attacks.

The Associated Press is communistic in nature and it's bosses want America out of Iraq so another bribe man like Saddam will start pouring oil money into their banks and they want Iraq returned to Putin's Eurasian empire he is building.
You are not getting all the facts from the AP and are not getting them on this site.

Getting out of Iraq will give the US a bunker like in Berlin when the west lost all of East Germany and the Warsaw Pact.......the day will come when people will want Iraq back, but it will be behind a turban wall and then trillions will be spent on not a cold war but ember wars all over the world.

Serve the United States in an embassy for a few years on the front line and then come back and start complaining when it is your kid serving there.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 20, 2007 1:21 PM

The size, strength and cost of that complex tells me that they expect it to be attacked, often and hard...by whom I wonder...

Hugh sez: Those trying to cut off funding are not harming the troops. They are trying to stop that runaway train."

Sorry, I have to dis-agree with the not harming the troops part. It harms the troops in several ways.
One is the act of sending them there in the first place, then refusing to fund them now. Believe it or not, all this non support by certain parts of the gov, and the population, hurts troop morale.
Supporting the troops also means keeping morale up.
If we keep screwing over them, it will be hard to muster ten volunteers. They will have to draft reluctant combatants for the next useless wars.
More importantly, it directly causes an increase in American deaths due to the effect of 'emboldening the enemy'. We all know how an emboldened enemy acts. They want to increase our troops agony of defeat. Thats why I am furious with the loudmouth Hairy Reed and his cronys. How many American deaths are they resposnsible for? I dont know, but I bet it's not zero.
I dont think getting out out Iraq is a bad idea,
but we need to do it with the appearance of not losing anything. And we need to do it without noise from Hairy and his ilk...these things do harm the troops...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 20, 2007 1:23 PM

Lame Cherry, Point taken.....but, if we continue to stay in Iraq spending outrageous sums of money, we will go bankrupt and won't be able to afford anything, and that means not being able to afford to protect our own country here, let alone abroad. This war is killing our very being and hearts of the American people. The only ones making out are American companies like Halliburton, i.e., Dick Cheney and his friends.

Posted by: Bonniea at May 20, 2007 1:41 PM

"U.S. embassy in Iraq to be world's biggest, priciest"

Sounds like one of those famous St. Louis or Chicago public housing projects -- it'll open to a lot of fanfair -- and in a few years, after we've left or been driven out -- it'll be a giant slum.

And if we're really lucky, it might even be another Sadr city.

Posted by: rational at May 20, 2007 2:36 PM

There is another train coming with bombs on it heading for alot of innocent people and when it is done it is heading our way! Do we runn? Not me!

Posted by: MZ at May 20, 2007 2:38 PM

You’ll see the embassy again. It will be used as a gathering place for the persecuted Muslim group of the day. They will pose in front of cameras at the closed doorway, with the American flag flying over the billion-dollar compound, as the persecuting Muslim group of the day does their work in front of the cameras.

The images will be transmitted throughout the world, portraying the cruel, decadent west against the suffering of Iraqi civilians that Bush’s war caused. The images will be used to compel the State Department to let in more refugees.

Just leave now. Keep the airbases.

Posted by: pez at May 20, 2007 2:41 PM

While I cringe at the bill, I don't otherwise think it's a bad idea. Just that when it's complete, send every other State Department employee there. Have them deal with the peace loving Iraqi people, and discover Islam up close. It also keeps them well away from making policy decisions, such as pushing for Kosovo's independence, selling F16s to Pakistan, granting visas to Iranian leaders, manning immigration lines in foreign, particularly Islamic, embassies, et al. That way, once they are exiled, the next president can replace them with employees who actually know about the world outside the US.

Oh, and the above suggestion to make W the ambassador was brilliant. Move him from Crawford to one of Saddam's palaces. First lady Laura can don a jilbab, and Karen Hughes and Condi Rice can join them in that project.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 20, 2007 2:50 PM

Lame Cherry

You are wrong on several points

(1) Iraq does not exist thus a embassy for a fictional state is stupid.

(2) Getting out Iraq is a smart move akin to getting out of Vietnam. Lets remember how we defeated the Soviet Union which was economic pressure (arms race) and we limited the communist advance where we could by arming the locals who wanted to fight againt the communist.

Why not leave Iraq and arm non-muslims all around the world to fight jihad. Then develop our own energy plan that is seperated from the muslim world and then pull our navy back preventing the muslims from shipping oil because the oil lanes will be defenseless. That should choke them economically. Then focus on propaganda efforts on conversion or changing Islam within and kicking out all muslims pushing jihad in west.

You see having the military in Iraq accomplishes none of this.

(3) "Serve the United States in an embassy for a few years on the front line and then come back and start complaining when it is your kid serving there." No need for that because we will be leaving soon with you or without you. :)

(4) "No one seems to understand the any embassy is an operational wing of the United States security which includes that window of hope and light that a said Arab, a Muslim in Moscow or a Pakistani who all love America just decide to wander in some day when the people they know are planning a biological or nuclear attack on the United States."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh they will wonder in all right just not for the reasons you are talking about!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 20, 2007 3:15 PM

How soon before it is looted to a skeleton and becomes the Symbol for the al-Bush Follies?

I'd rather burn the money on the Washington Mall than spend it this way.

At least the ashes might fertilize some of the nearby cherry tress when scattered by the idiot wind.

This "embassy" elephant will only re-supply the jihad (copper wiring and pipes, windows, brick, paint, etc. plundered and sold on the black market to buy IED's, etc.) with fresh funding.

Who's getting rich on my pocket being picked?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2007 3:44 PM

Why are we protecting Iraq when we are being invaded and sold down the river at home?

Why should one more US solider die or be maimed while our Congress opens our borders permanently?

Posted by: treehugger at May 20, 2007 5:01 PM

This symbol of American power could one day end up the same as did the US Embassy in Teheran.

Our troops are all that is between us and the raging masses of Islamics that want to subjugate us.

When some "Lame" person disparages them as would-be hamburger fippers @ 7 bucks/hr, were they not in the military, he does all of us who are protected by our troops as well as these self-same troops a disservice. Perhaps he meant the State department employees who would be flipping burgers were it not for our tax dollars paying them salaries--but I doubt it.

Our military are not uneducated, ignorant underachievers as the "Lame" one (and Kerry) thinks. They know how to use computers and they do come here to this site and read what we say about the war in Iraq and about them.

After talking with members of our military who have been and are going back to Iraq, I find that they are well-informed about the non-support of many of our politicians and populace. They also know what the score is in Iraq--the worth (non-worth) of the "Iraqi Army" and how trustworthy the "Iraqi people" are.

If you want the US to pull the troops out of Iraq, fine and good. I also do not want them killed and maimed there while trying to forge a "democracy" out of what has become a crap heap. These troops, however, are not the ones who defined their mission, and they are our only defense against our enemies (Islamic). They deserve our respect and backing. They have mine.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at May 20, 2007 5:37 PM

Oh, and I forgot, those whom I spoke to of our military--at least the front-line enlisted ones--know about Islam and feel the way we do about it and its adherents. Don't let the pap offered on TV by the generals and the CNN and Fox Geraldo interviews fool you into believing that they have all bought into the Bush-Rice-Cheney-Baker line. They are to be commended to keep their cool having to fight under the ridiculous Rules of Engagement imposed on them.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at May 20, 2007 5:54 PM

Hhm, maybe when the time comes this "thing" can be transformed into a new "Krak des Chevaliers".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak_des_Chevaliers

I would love that.

Posted by: I<3Crusades at May 20, 2007 6:01 PM

This is no surprise to me.

Next the Useless Nations will set up their tower of babel there.

Posted by: The Goobs at May 20, 2007 11:21 PM

Oh, and let's not forget the 7 permanent bases that Ron Paul alluded to during the debate.

Posted by: The Goobs at May 20, 2007 11:23 PM

Why not just use one of Saddam's old palaces?
Why spend good money after bad? Why build such a huge place in the middle of one of the armpits of the Middle East?
Ever read the "Left Behind Series"? Could answer some of it. With a New World Order obviously in full process and the globalists in our own govt and others pushing the agenda, this only makes sense.
New Babylon, right in the middle of Baghdad....
Maybe a name change is in the works for Baghdad.
The headquarters for the Middle East Governor has to be set up, what better place than in New Babylon, set up like a king in his own little kingdom.
The terrorists are just a passing problem. Like fleas on a dog, they bite and they are a nuisance, but.....I think terrorism will be the catalyst for far reaching restrictions to personal freedom and initiation of more intrusive identification methods including "chipping" of humans much like many pets are today. They are now advertising this to help "protect" nursing home patients. Throwing it out there, softly and in the name of security and people begin eating it up. Before they know it, they have one implanted in their right hand or forehead as well.
Saddam had to go, he wouldn't play along with the globalists. Ahmadinejad will not play, neither will Chavez or Kim Jong-il and a few other small nations. They will pay eventually or they will back up like Quaddafi did after realizing the real deal.
Hang on my fellow Americans, keep your heads down and your powder dry, it will definitely be interesting to watch.

Posted by: DavidH at May 21, 2007 1:20 AM

Why not just use one of Saddam's old palaces?

Uh, that's what we're doing. You didn't think this embassy was on the site of the old, pre-1991 U.S. Embassy, did you?

What I don't understand is how title to this real estate passed from the government of Iraq to the U.S. government. Did the Coalition Provisional Authority, exercising its sovereignty over Iraq, transfer the property? (I can't imagine that any government of Iraq, after the transfer of sovereignty in 2004, would have given its approval.)

When we occupied Japan, BTW General MacArthur ruled the country from the old U.S. embassy; he didn't seize the Imperial Palace and turn it into the U.S. embassy. I understand that there is currently a need for greater security for our embassy than there was in Occupied Japan, but that doesn't relieve us of the obligation to obtain property through proper procedures, rather than simply taking it.

Posted by: Seamus at May 21, 2007 3:25 PM

The way things are going in Baghdad, it will fall like Saigon did.

While we're drawing historical analogies with Vietnam, it's worth pointing out that the U.S. embassy in Saigon that we evacuated in 1975 was built, specifically with an eye to security, after the old U.S. embassy was car-bombed in 1964 or 1965.

Posted by: Seamus at May 21, 2007 3:28 PM