| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
DOHA, Qatar - Let's give our own a break here. Operation Iraqi Freedom got off to a great start. Then, instead of applauding the American armed forces for sound planning and courageous efforts, some critics second-guessed them because they believed it was taking too long to secure Baghdad. Never mind that this war had a much tougher objective, more constraints on the military's options and greater international scrutiny than the Gulf War-yet still came to a timely conclusion compared to the 1991 conflict. Now that we've successfully liberated Iraq, some are griping about rebuilding efforts and how American companies that may participate in that process are somehow absolutely the wrong choices for the job. Engineering firms Bechtel Group and Fluor Corporation have both taken some flak, being accused of using political ties to make the short list on bids. But these "ties" are feeble at best, limited to a decade-removed former Secretary of State sitting on the board of Bechtel and a retired former CEO of Fluor being considered as a possible post-war Iraqi energy official. All of which means that of the potential American contractors, energy services company Halliburton was the perfect choice to be condemned. After all, Vice President Dick Cheney worked as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, as conspiracy theorists are quick to point out. They are equally eager to highlight that Halliburton's contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fight Iraqi oil fires is a multi-year deal, awarded with no-bids, and potentially worth $7 billion. What the critics choose to ignore is that the Vice President dumped all of his Halliburton shares prior to taking office, so he's clearly not profiting from Halliburton's contract. Nor do they note Halliburton's stellar qualifications-it's the world's second largest oilfield services company in addition to having built a distinguished history of providing logistical support for the U.S. military. And as much as critics love to throw around the enormous $7 billion number, the Army Corps of Engineers explains that this figure was used as a "worst-case scenario," based on the 750 oil wells that burned during the first Gulf War. Instead of the worst case, however, the U.S. military quickly controlled all of the Iraqi oilfields in this war, and according to the U.S. Central Command, of the nine oil well fires, all except one has now been extinguished. This thanks to the Army and Halliburton's quick reaction (their firefighters were already in place as part of an Army contingency plan dating back to late 2001), which enabled them to put out the fires in less than one month. Public bidding on an emergency situation like this would likely have taken a minimum of 45 days, says the Army Corps of Engineers, and would have led to the fires burning longer and potentially more hazardously. What is the bill so far for this expedient work by Halliburton (subcontracted out to two different firms, I might add)? A mere $50.3 million-a fraction of the $7 billion we keep hearing about. Thanks to the unfounded cries of impropriety over this oil fires contract, however, Halliburton and the Bush administration chose to take the high road, and the company withdrew from the bidding for the much more lucrative U.S. government contract to reconstruct Iraq's infrastructure. Bechtel has just been announced as the winner of this 18 month, $680 million contract - the largest Iraq rebuilding contract thus far - covering work ranging from restoring utilities and sanitation systems to repairing buildings and transportation systems. This contract is viewed as merely the first of many Iraq reconstruction contracts that is ultimately expected to reach billions of dollars over several years. The immediate consequence of the negative press against Halliburton was the elimination of an exceedingly qualified company from the competitive bidding process for this important contract. The ongoing impact could well be the exclusion of Halliburton and other equally proficient firms from bidding on future contracts to rebuild Iraq. And I was under the impression that we Americans always believed that competition was a good thing for economic efficiency. So why don't we just give these American companies a break here. Despite baseless accusations to the contrary, the U.S. government sure didn't give them one. *****Sorabji Disclaimer****** Copy and pasting the above article, written by the provided source, does not mean word for word agreement with the author. It merely denotes a general agreement with the premise of the subject matter. |
I'm aware of the bias of Mother Jones, but it raised a couple points glossed over in the article you posted. http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/17/we_394_02.html |
what was the counterpoint, sem? i missed it. was it that bechtel is a big company? or that they've had some problems with water management? was the point of the article that halliburton would have been a better choice? or a worse choice? did the article suggest any companies that would be a better choice? any company qualified to take these contracts is going to be large. any large company in the US has ties to the government, especially conservative politians. why? because conservatives tend to push rational fiscal policy. why? because the major contributers to conserative election campaigns aren't lawyers and the media establishment. they are big companies who provide jobs, and little people who need jobs. |
awwww yeah now....c'mooooooon guys....where's the love??? this has to be one of the most silly, whiny, factually one-sided pieces of "news" i've read in quite sometime. it sounds like it was written by a little kid. |
as usuall, all you seam to do is call names. |
fine, view point. whatever. Are There Any News? |
|
|
"why? because conservatives tend to push rational fiscal policy. " Wow, that's FUNNY. Not that liberals push rational fiscal policies, but conservatives? Not lately. |
|
Hah! Hah hah! |
|
I have one thing to say: You are willing to destroy companies with millions of employees due to the APPEARANCE of wrong doing, with absolutely NO proof. Should I continue, or do you know where I am going with this? |
|
then there's the guy before her, a whole nother story there. . . hard to respect that except maybe in the way you can respect the guy who wins the hotdog eating contest. |
I will very much side with you Dave regarding the Airlines pulling that bull shit. |
|
|
it's in your past posts about Haliburton. How it should not get contracts and how Cheney is evil. |
Tiggy, b4 that, all I wrote on my own was: "*****Sorabji Disclaimer****** Copy and pasting the above article, written by the provided source, does not mean word for word agreement with the author. It merely denotes a general agreement with the premise of the subject matter." What did I manage to mangle? |
I may have advocated ultra violence to the likes of Kenny 'Boy' Lay but I never advocated destruction son. I don't know who's conversation you were reading but it wasn't Mr. Comprehension. The crux of my argument sir was conflict of interest. you understand that that doesnt mean an actual conflict ala mortal kombat style right. |
We are lucky there were only 9 oil fields on fire. It would have been very wrong to open a bidding process before actuall hostilities broke out. They started it too far in advance as it was, but would you prefer to let the fields burn while we went through a bidding, offer, counter offer, counter-counter offer process? Or move as quickly as possible to get things under control and audit like a motherfucker afterwords? Sorry, but the general attitude i read from you, maybe not voiced in so many words, is that companies can go suck a big teat, the best is not the best choice, but instead go for the small firm that does not know what the fuck it's doing, as long as there was never anyone from the Bush Cheney team ever involved in the firm... In other words, not the best man for the job anymnore, but the most politcally acceptable (NOT PC, necesarilly). And by the way, fuck you all and your comments on my intelligence. It's getting fucking old. |
You want evidence nate, maybe look around you a bit at conservative fiscal policy. Especially at the state level. For example, here in Ohio, conservative fiscal policy was so succesful they are raising our taxes. Or perhpas you meant the policy that so far has turned a surplus into a huge deficit. One that has magically found $80 billion dollars for a war when the Veterans Admin budget has been slashed, and schools are closing. Even a couple of years ago when we had the surplus the government said there wasn't enough money to provide universal health insurance for every American child, provide Head Start with full funds or contribute to stopping child poverty worldwide. well, the conservatives in government are still saying there isn't any money for those things, but somehow there's more than twice the sum to fund that to use for tax cuts for millionaires. So, apparently you think it's more important to give a tax break to the upper class while there are children who can't afford to see a doctor. Of course, perhaps you meant by rational fiscal policy, a policy that only applies to the people up to their elbows in the coffers already. THen that makes sense. |
NO |
"would you prefer to let the fields burn while we went through a bidding, offer, counter offer, counter-counter offer process? Or move as quickly as possible to get things under control and audit like a motherfucker afterwords?" |
Sem, the surplus was always on paper. It was a "projected surplus" at that. I can prove it you if you like, but it will be very long and drawn out. |
I have answered you. We had this conversation before. "We are lucky there were only 9 oil fields on fire." oh give me a break on the altruistic front. God damn, your eating that shit salad with a gold fork. while you and the corps are patting yourselves on the back for limiting the oil fires...remind yourself that we INVADED and OCCUPIED said oil fields. There was a military takeover involved in that equation. This is not an advocation of the scorched earth policy employed in the previous conflict. putting out the fires that our war caused is one thing. rewarding the contract thereafter to rebuild the entire infrastructure in peacetime for years to come is another. so fuckoff with the altruistic front. its hogwash. "Sorry, but the general attitude i read from you, maybe not voiced in so many words, is that companies can go suck a big teat, the best is not the best choice, but instead go for the small firm that does not know what the fuck it's doing, as long as there was never anyone from the Bush Cheney team ever involved in the firm..." I have never said anything to the effect of 'best is not best choice", or " go for small firms who dont know what they are doing". I have never said that any company who donated to the Bush/Cheney ticket should be excluded. You sit and wonder people challenge your intelligence? Its because you continually make lame-brained, inaccurate interpretations of posts. You don't comprehend most people's arguments and manage, at best, to regurgitate the same old conservative mantras. You clearly; "In other words, not the best man for the job anymnore, but the most politcally acceptable (NOT PC, necesarilly)." don't understand the idea of conflict of interest in a modern professional sense. You obviously can only think of things in terms of us vs. them. Repub vs. Dem. Conservative vs. liberal. You can't possibly grasp the idea that maybe someone's ideas of how things should be can't be boxed into one side or the other. I know you like to think of me as one of them pansy liberals, but i let you think that. Its easy for you. Black and white. Good and bad. But im getting tired of having to rererereinterpret my words for you because of your ongoing problem with reading comprehension. Because i dislike Bush, doesnt mean I supported Clinton. Because I was against this war doesnt mean I supported Hussein. Because I question the handing over of oil contracts and construction to Halliburton and Bechtel so easily doesnt mean i automatically support the converse. Do you understand this? |
Spunk, I posted that for entertainment purposes only. Can't you tell the difference? |
|
but you fail to address the rest of my post. I now ask you to justify tax breaks for wealthy people when we supposedly can't fund Head Start. I mean, unless you would rather that CEOs don't get taxed twice on dividends and such in lieu of free health care and better education for your daughters? |
Full employment for children, I say. Let the little tykes pay for their own upbringing. |
|
|
Please provide link for info on Defrauding the Army. This is the first I have heard of it. |
Use your amazing powers of fact finding and find it. |
|
http://www.thehill.com/freed/040903.aspx Ok, they settled out of court for $2 million. And it was their KBT subsidiary. I didn't spend more time looking, but I recall hearing that there is a policy of not awarding more contracts to businesses that defraud the bovt/military - perhaps the settlement was a loophole? BTW, i like the last article, it raises some thoughtful points. |
|
Were they behind the Moon landing too? |
It actually happened at Area 51..... |
|
|
"If David Hudak really did have the missiles and warheads the ATF said he did, then it raises a number of troubling questions for Hudak and law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border. How did Hudak get his hands on this stockpile in the first place? What's more, how, as court documents indicate, was he able to move 2,400 so-called missiles across the U.S. into Canada and back without customs officers ever batting an eye?" source |
Jet Research makes CHARGES. Just like the article says. Hmm Halliburton has Oil Drilling operations, do include deep well drilling, and one of it's subsidiary makes balsting charges! Oh, the scandal!!!! |
|
|
Quoted in toto from the Memory Hole Blog since the WSJ page is screwing with me(Check the part I bracketed near the bottom): "Halliburton Subcontractor Threatens to Withhold Food from Troops In "U.S. General Criticizes Halliburton," the Wall Street Journal reports: 'The top U.S. military officer in Iraq has criticized Halliburton Co. as stumbling in one of its most pressing assignments: the construction of new bases for U.S. troops in Iraq. The critique by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, laid out in a draft letter to senior Army officers, marks the Army's first open criticism of Halliburton's conduct on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait. Until now, the Houston-based contractor has insisted the Army has been satisfied with its performance despite continuing fights with Pentagon auditors over alleged overbillings and shoddy record-keeping. Gen. Sanchez's letter, which made the rounds in Washington last week, addresses efforts by Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary to help the Army consolidate to fewer, but larger, bases around Iraq without interrupting military operations. In Baghdad, Iraq, for example, U.S. troops are moving from 26 bases to as few as six. But in the letter, Gen. Sanchez says KBR hasn't said precisely when it will have these consolidated bases ready for new troops. Army officials say KBR's shortcomings on the base construction have complicated the largest troop rotation since World War II.' As bad as this is, it's not shockingly unexpected. But what should have jaws hitting the floor is this revelation: 'The letter also criticizes KBR for late payments to food subcontractors, said Army officials, who gave details of the letter but declined to provide a copy. {{{{At least one subcontractor has threatened to withhold food service to about 2,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq,}}}} leading the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate KBR food-subcontractor complaints that KBR isn't paying its bills on time.' Withholding food from troops during a war? Sounds like treason to me." |
i dont think anyone would actually go to the extreme of withholding food service to the troops. however, the bullshit surfacing in regards to the medicare bill, thats classic stuff. actors acting as newsmen in psuedo press releases. allegedly threatening to fire health dept officials if the real cost of the program is revealed to law makers prior to the vote, reportedly bribing congressmen. its so fucking republican, so bush, and another 1000lb gorilla on a sinking ship..... oh wait. this just in. #2 al Qaida leader surrounded in Pakistan just as Colin Powell is stepping off the plane there. Holy fucking coinkydinks! |
It's not like they have weapons or anything.... |
from spinsanity.org AP buys Bush spin on Kerry's defense record (3/18) By Brendan Nyhan On Monday, President Bush put up a new ad in West Virginia attacking Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for his voting record on defense issues. Wednesday, Associated Press reporter Mike Glover bought the Bush campaign spin hook, line and sinker. Bush's ad (script, video) suggests that Kerry cast a series of specific votes against body armor for troops and other measures: NARRATOR: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq, he later voted against funding our soldiers. SENATE CLERK: Mr. Kerry: ANNOUNCER: No. NARRATOR: Body armor for troops in combat. SENATE CLERK: Mr. Kerry: ANNOUNCER: No. NARRATOR: Higher combat pay. SENATE CLERK: Mr. Kerry: ANNOUNCER: No. NARRATOR: And, better health care for reservists and their families. SENATE CLERK: Mr. Kerry: ANNOUNCER: No. However, Bush's own list of supporting "Ad Facts" all cite a single vote Kerry cast in October 2003 against the $87 billion appropriations bill to fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While that bill did include the provisions listed above, it also had many others; a vote against the entire package is not equivalent to casting specific votes against all the items in question. In addition, as Kerry's campaign points out in an online response, the senator supported an alternative amendment that would have funded the bill by repealing Bush's tax cuts for higher income Americans, and he has supported other bills that would provide higher combat pay and increased spending for military health care. That brings us to Glover's AP story Wednesday, which included this paragraph: "John Kerry's rhetoric is completely detached from the reality of his voting record," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Citing the Massachusetts senator's votes against pay increases for military personnel, military housing, body armor, armored Humvees and health care benefits for reservists, Schmidt said, "Almost everything he claimed to support in his speech he has voted against when it counted on the Senate floor. Glover's framing almost perfectly reproduces the Bush ad's spin, implying that Kerry cast specific votes against all the items in question though the Bush/Cheney campaign has provided no evidence that this is the case. If the AP is going to reprint campaign attacks, it should at least check out the claims before repeating them as fact. |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040318/ts_nm/court_energy_cheney_dc |
|