August 28, 2003
Blair Says He Would Have Quit if BBC Claims Were True
By WARREN HOGE
LONDON, Aug. 28 ?- Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that he would have had to resign had there been truth to a BBC report that his government had "sexed up" an intelligence dossier on Iraq with dubious information.
Giving evidence to the judicial inquiry into the death of the weapons expert identified as the BBC's source, Mr. Blair said he had viewed the report as "an absolutely fundamental charge" that went beyond the area of permissible dissent to attack his integrity.
"It is one thing to say we disagree with the government, we should not have gone to war; people can have a disagreement about that," Mr. Blair said. "But if the allegation had been true, it would have merited my resignation."
The report said Mr. Blair's aides had inserted into the dossier on Iraqi arms the claim that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes of an order being given. The BBC report further said that the aides knew the claim to be false and forced it into the document over the objections of intelligence chiefs.
The BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, followed up with a column in a Sunday tabloid identifying Mr. Blair's powerful director of communications and security, Alastair Campbell, as the person who had ordered the 45-minute claim into the dossier.
The report, broadcast on May 29, put a sharp focus on a debate already under way in Britain over the failure to find any unconventional weapons in Iraq and the possibility that the government exaggerated the threat of Mr. Hussein's arsenal to justify going to war.
The issue has sent Mr. Blair's popularity plummeting to the lowest points since he came to power six years ago and has produced a sequence of poll results showing that the public no longer trusts him to tell the truth.
The argument came to a dramatic head last month when Dr. David Kelly, a former United Nations weapons inspector and adviser to Britain's Ministry of Defense, was identified as the probable source of the BBC report. Dr. Kelly was found dead on a path near his Oxfordshire home three days after he testified before a parliamentary committee.
Within hours of the July 18 discovery of Dr. Kelly's apparent suicide, Mr. Blair set up an independent inquiry, headed by a senior British judge, Lord Hutton, and said he would appear as a witness if called. Mr. Blair today became the second prime minister in British history to testify at such a hearing.
The hearings, now completing their third week, have ranged beyond the formal question of what role the government played in the circumstances leading to Dr. Kelly's death. They now embrace the entire charged question of whether the government was misleading in its effort to overcome opposition to military action.
Mr. Blair said the government repeatedly sought to obtain a retraction of the story by the BBC but that the broadcaster refused to admit any error. Mr. Campbell himself led a campaign that went beyond the one BBC report to call into question the corporation's overall coverage of the war.
Mr. Blair defended Mr. Campbell's actions, saying that the inclusion of his name meant the story was "no longer a small item." He said, "Ever since then, that's been the issue and here we are three months on and it's still the issue."
On Tuesday, John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee and author of the dossier, said the BBC story was "completely untrue," and the House of Commons foreign affairs committee absolved Mr. Campbell after holding hearings last month.
Other witnesses to the Hutton inquiry have testified to the intense activity at Downing Street in the weeks before the Sept. 24 publication of the dossier. Mr. Blair said today that his government felt it had an obligation to make public as much of its worries over Iraq's weapons as it could.
He said he discussed the matter with President Bush in August, and the two of them decided that action had to be taken. The Bush administration at the time was relying on the British to play a major role in making the argument for a tough approach to Iraq.
Mr. Blair testified today that there was "an enormous clamor" in Britain to know what intelligence the government had. He announced on Sept. 3 that the government would produce a dossier of evidence.
"I recall throughout the August break last year literally every day there were stories appearing saying we were going to invade Iraq, that military action had been decided upon," he told Lord Hutton. "We really had to disclose what we knew," he said. "People were not unnaturally saying 'produce that intelligence, then.' "
Mr. Blair said that his office's involvement in the preparation of the 50-page dossier was only "presentational" and that the contents had all to be based on solid intelligence and approved by Mr. Scarlett.
He said this had been "a perfectly right way" of producing the dossier. "I think we described the intelligence in a way that was perfectly justified," he said.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Haliburton can rebuild Iraq ... why provide the native population with an income, jobs, work ..... was it our fault they couldn't defend their own country?
Hey .... when Bush rapes a country, he rapes it.
And that 30 mil Georgie paid for two scalps, Saddams sons, how much food would that provide for children near starvation? Either Iraqi or american, doesn't matter, a starving kid is a starving kid is a starving kid I always say.
OmiGod, they are just like us ..... I'll be damned
Baghdad Burning
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Thursday, August 28, 2003
The Promise and the Threat
The Myth: Iraqis, prior to occupation, lived in little beige tents set up on the sides of little dirt roads all over Baghdad. The men and boys would ride to school on their camels, donkeys and goats. These schools were larger versions of the home units and for every 100 students, there was one turban-wearing teacher who taught the boys rudimentary math (to count the flock) and reading. Girls and women sat at home, in black burkas, making bread and taking care of 10-12 children.
The Truth: Iraqis lived in houses with running water and electricity. Thousands of them own computers. Millions own VCRs and VCDs. Iraq has sophisticated bridges, recreational centers, clubs, restaurants, shops, universities, schools, etc. Iraqis love fast cars (especially German cars) and the Tigris is full of little motor boats that are used for everything from fishing to water-skiing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people choose to ignore the little prefix ?'re' in the words ?'rebuild' and ?'reconstruct'. For your information, ?'re' is of Latin origin and generally means ?'again' or ?'anew'.
In other words- there was something there in the first place. We have hundreds of bridges. We have one of the most sophisticated network of highways in the region: you can get from Busrah, in the south, to Mosul, in the north, without once having to travel upon those little, dusty, dirt roads they show you on Fox News. We had a communications system so advanced, it took the Coalition of the Willing 3 rounds of bombing, on 3 separate nights, to damage the Ma'moun Communications Tower and silence our telephones.
Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc.
Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we'll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who'll listen.
As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn't too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.
Let's pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let's pretend he hasn't been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let's pretend he didn't work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let's pretend he's wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let's pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let's just use our imagination.
A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!
Something you should know about Iraq: we have over 130,000 engineers. More than half of these engineers are structural engineers and architects. Thousands of them were trained outside of Iraq in Germany, Japan, America, Britain and other countries. Thousands of others worked with some of the foreign companies that built various bridges, buildings and highways in Iraq. The majority of them are more than proficient- some of them are brilliant.
Iraqi engineers had to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991 when the ?'Coalition of the Willing' was composed of over 30 countries actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond recognition. They had to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings that were originally built by foreign companies, they had to get around a lack of raw materials that we used to import from abroad, they had to work around a vicious blockade designed to damage whatever infrastructure was left after the war
they truly had to rebuild Iraq. And everything had to be made sturdy, because, well, we were always under the threat of war.
Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of buildings and factories were replaced, communications towers were rebuilt, new bridges were added, electrical power grids were replaced
things were functioning. Everything wasn't perfect- but we were working on it.
And Iraqis aren't easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an intricately designed dome, something unique
not necessarily classy or subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad- fashionable homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old ?'Baghdadi' buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy little cafes
mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look like glamorous Faberge eggs
all done by Iraqis.
My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu'alaq Bridge over the Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave up on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again, exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise. One of the art schools decided that although it wasn't the most sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered with hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all over the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of the bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it and look down into the Tigris.
So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are going to want billions of dollars, why aren't the Iraqi engineers, electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq
no one is being given a chance.
The reconstruction of Iraq is held above our heads like a promise and a threat. People roll their eyes at reconstruction because they know (Iraqis are wily) that these dubious reconstruction projects are going to plunge the country into a national debt only comparable to that of America. A few already rich contractors are going to get richer, Iraqi workers are going to be given a pittance and the unemployed Iraqi public can stand on the sidelines and look at the glamorous buildings being built by foreign companies.
I always say this war is about oil. It is. But it is also about huge corporations that are going to make billions off of reconstructing what was damaged during this war. Can you say Haliburton? (Which, by the way, got the very first contracts to replace the damaged oil infrastructure and put out ?'oil fires' way back in April).
Well, of course it's going to take uncountable billions to rebuild Iraq, Mr. Bremer, if the contracts are all given to foreign companies! Or perhaps the numbers are this frightening because Ahmad Al-Chalabi is the one doing the books- he *is* the math expert, after all.
- posted by river @ 6:46 PM
Gels, That's not surprising; only the dolts in this country thinks GWBush is doing an excellent job - of robbing Iraq and the American People. Helliburton is given the free reign to earn billions on their no-bid contract to reconstruct Iraq, and that's with their promise to use 80 percent Iraqi labor. c.i.
bit slow here, "eat crow"?
Blair was masterful today. Like him or loath him you ain't seen the last of him.
ps Just back from Norfolk, England. You know near Coltishall, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Bentwaters, Woodbridge and all those other fine USAF bases where the F15s etc were coming in at a regular pace direct (so my father in law said but I didnt believe him) from Iraq.
Hmm. Has everyone seen this news and I've just missed it, or its full import? Halliburton's contract, which includes current work in Iraq, was signed before 9/11, yearly renewable.
Oil in Iraq: Role of Halliburton
Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 28, 2003; 12:00 PM
Halliburton, the energy services company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has received more than a billion dollars in government contracts in Iraq and stands to make hundreds of millions more in a controversial no-bid process. Halliburton has been somewhat of a political lightening rod given its close ties to the Bush administration. An analysis of data and documents by The Washington Post shows the company's Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary stands to make far more off Operations Iraqi Freedom than was previously disclosed.
The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs was online Thursday, August 28, at Noon ET to discuss Halliburton's role in Iraq, how the company won such lucrative projects and the increasing reliance on for-profit civilian contractors in managing the occupation.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Michael Dobbs: Welcome to the on-line chat. I am happy to answer your questions about U.S. defense contractors in Iraq.
Carpinteria, Ca: Mr. Dobbs- Thank you for your excellent report. Several questions: Why has the press basically ignored this story which reeks of conflict of interest? If this had occurred during the Clinton administration, there would be hearings, scandal, etc. Secondly, can you contrast Halliburton/Bush/Iraq with Brown & Root/LBJ/Viet Nam? I understand that the Brown brothers were instrumental in LBJ's early career and later profited enormously from contracts during the Viet Nam war. Thank you
Michael Dobbs: There has been quite a lot of reporting on this subject in the press, although nobody else to my knowledge has added all the figures up together recently. You are right that Brown and Root has a colorful history: before the company was taken over by Halliburton, it funneled money to LBJ, and was a major factor in his early rise to power, as documented by Robert Caro. Like other big defense contractors, Halliburton is a major campaign contributor, mainly to the Republican party.
Arlington, Va.: Regrettably, the Iraqi commitment is and will be expensive.
Troops will remain in this region for years to come with some form of US presence permanently in place. Recently attention has been given to work provided by private contractors and the amount they have been receiving for these services without the scope and seriousness of this work being considered.
Why shouldn?t the best companies and professionals who CAN complete this work effectively be awarded the contracts? And when will the news of dollars spent also carry the success stories and positive work that these SAME COMPANIES complete EVERY DAY under the harshest circumstances.
Thank You.
Michael Dobbs: I agree with you that it would be interesting to look at the work of Brown and Root on the ground in Iraq. That's difficult to do in Washington. Nobody disputes that they are providing a lot of real services to the troops, which the army can no longer provide, because of manpower shortages.
Wash DC: I think the fact that Haliburton is getting all of these contracts in Iraq is just plain unfair. Are the soldiers that are being maimed going to be given any of the money? I think all of the soldiers in Walter Reed Hospital and elsewhere should be given a piece of the pie. In fact, I think the contracts should have been given to some of the Iraqi contractors.
Michael Dobbs: From the army's point of view, it is easier and more efficient to grant a whole series of contracts to one big company rather than bid each piece of work out separately. That was the point of the LOGCAP program that I write about in my article. The drawback to the system is that it is difficult for other companies to break into the business, and the bulk of the work tends to go to a small group of companies experienced in the ways of Washington.
Cleveland, Ohio: Is there another company in the USA who could do the work that Halliburton is slated to carry out? I was under the impression that the oil & infrastructure work that they do is pretty exclusive & that they are the elite.
Michael Dobbs: It is true that there are not many companies with the global reach and expertise of Halliburton and Bechtel. If you are the 500-pound guerrilla in the field, you obviously have a built-in advantage.
New York, N.Y.: Please explain the military procurement process and why these contract were awarded without competitive bidding.
Michael Dobbs: I explain this a bit in my article. To summarize, the Defense Department decided back in 1992 that it did not have the time to bid out every single contract for work arising from operations like Haiti or Bosnia. So it decided to negotiate a super-contract, known as LOGCAP, with a big company that could encompass a whole range of contingency works. In other words, the company agreed to be on call for the army. That system is essentially still in place, and Halliburton is the beneficiary of the super-contract.
Baldwin, N.Y.: Do you think that this huge Halliburton deal in Iraq is just the latest in a string of shady dealings between Republicans and powerful corporations... I'm referring to Shulz on the board of Bechtel and Cheney's secret energy policy meetings.
Michael Dobbs: It is very difficult to prove "shady dealings," as you refer to them. Nevertheless, it is true that virtually all the big contractors have some kind of political connection, or make big campaign contributions.
Torrance, CA: Military families have said that their sons and husbands are lacking adequate supplies, such as water (less than 3 liters a day), they are still eating MRE's, and the medical facilities in Germany for the wounded are very understaffed. How much of this is to Haliburton putting profit before the welfare of our troops.
Michael Dobbs: There have been complaints about the quality of the services provided to the troops. One big problem is that contractors are not bound by military discipline. If a soldier refuses to report for duty in a danger zone, he can be court-martialed. If a contractor backs out, the most that happens is that he doesn't get paid.
Laurel: Does Vice-President Cheney have any ongoing relationship with Halliburton? Does he still own stock or options, or get a pension for life, or anything like that?
Michael Dobbs: I believe that Cheney sold his stock in Halliburton after he resigned from the company in 2000. However, he still receives deferred compensation from the company of around $160,000 as part of his retirement package.
Takoma Park, Md.: I read that Cheney is still receiving money from Halliburton, upwards of $1 Million. Do you know if this is true?
Michael Dobbs: See my last response.
Newark, Delaware: I find it increasingly worrisome how private sector for-profit corporations (PSFPC's) are taking over US military areas of national security infrastructure responsibilities. Iraq is not the 1st time!;
This began some years ago in former Yugoslavia during the Clinton years, especially in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. How much were those contracts and to whom were they issued, the same or similar entities?
Michael Dobbs: The practice of contracting out logistics operations in a major way dates to the end of the Cold War, and the downsizing of themilitary. The Balkans was a huge opportunity for contractors, but it looks as if Iraq will be even bigger.
Washington, D.C.: It seems to me that one of the oddest things about the big post-war cleanup contracts in Iraq is how much focus is put on experience in putting out oil well fires. Both Halliburton and Bechtel have boasted of their expertise/experience in this area, and pointed to it as one of the reasons for sole-sourcing the work. But as I understand it, ALL of this specialized work is actually done by the same few subcontractors (Red Adair, Boots and Coots, Wild Well Control, Safety Boss), regardless of which corporate behemoth is the prime contractor. Am I missing something here?
Michael Dobbs: There are obviously other companies that could have been hired to put out oil well fires. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, Halliburton\Brown and Root got the contract because time was of the essence and they had already been commissioned to draft a plan on how to do the work. The Corps also says that some details of the plan to put out oil fires were originally classified, meaning that it was impossible to share it outside the government. Critics like Henry Waxman (D-CA) say this is all just an excuse to give the work to the Pentagon's favorite contractor.
Cleveland Ohio: Income Taxes--Both Corporation and Individual Taxes. Will Hallibuton/Brown and Root have to pay income tax on profits made in Iraq? Will their personnel working in Iraq have to Pay Federal Income Tax on their earnings. Also, how about payroll taxes? In other words, are they helping to pay for the expense of having our military in Iraq and rebuilding Iraq? They do benefit from the war. Are they helping to pay for it?
Michael Dobbs: I assume that Halliburton shareholders will have to pay taxes on their dividends. Americans working abroad do not pay tax on the first $75,000 or so of their income, so much of their income is tax-free.
Bowie, Md.: When I was studying the possibility of my mom & pop company getting governemnt contracts, one strategy mentioned (though not necessarily recommended) by a "how to get contracts" book was to low-ball a particular function described in the contract but that the contractor might not actually be called to fulfill.
Are there any LOGCAP functions that haven't been ordered, and might any of these not be money-makers for Halliburton?
Michael Dobbs: Low-balling is a fairly comman practice in bidding for contracts. On your second question, LOGCAP is expanding all the time. For example, according to the spreadsheet provided by the army, on August 9, Brown and Root won a work order for $14.9 million for helping to train a new Iraqi army. There is no upper limit to the amounts that can be awarded under LOGCAP.
On the negative side, I have been told by contractors that it often takes a long time to get paid by the Pentagon. In other words, they have to pay their employees\contract personnel from their own pockets, and then get reimbursed.
Gambrills, Md:
"Services performed by Halliburton, through its Brown and Root subsidiary, include building and managing military bases, logistical support for the 1,200 intelligence officers hunting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, delivering mail and producing millions of hot meals."
The issue isn't whether Halliburton can perform these services. The issue is whether it is appropriate or legal to expend federal tax dollars under a no-bid contract.
I find it difficult to believe that there aren't other companies out there that can't deliver the mail and reheat and distribute MRE's. The no-bid aspect of this is what stinks.
Michael Dobbs: The individual work orders, e.g. delivering mail, building an army base, training the IRaqi army, are not bid under LOGCAP. But the LOGCAP program was bid back in 2001: Halliburton was one of three companies that submitted proposals to the Pentagon. At that time, of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services.
San Antonio. Tex.: George Shultz of Bechtel, along with Warren Buffet of Omaha, is now advising Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign in California's recall election. What do you make of that? What does it say about the state of Republican politics? What does it say about business as usual?
Michael Dobbs: Not sure what to make of that. Warren Buffett was also an adviser to the late Kay Graham, and on the board of the Washington Post Co. She played tennis with George Shultz. So what?
Oxford, U.K.: Mr. Dobbs, I'm interested in the nuts-and-bolts of your fascinating article. How did it originate? Did Waxman's office give you a copy of their Brown and Root contract spreadsheet, and then you got the most recent version? Or was this entirely an enterprise project on your part?
Michael Dobbs: I had been interested in the trend toward farming out U.S. Army logistic operations to private contractors. I called Waxman's office, which has been pursuing this story. They gave me some information, and the army gave me some more information.
Washington, DC: Is there evidence that Brown and Root is less qualified than other potential bidders on these contracts, or that because of the lack of accountability they are overcharging for the work they are doing?
Michael Dobbs: The General ACcounting Office made some criticisms of Brown and Root, and the general contracting process, in the Balkans. I don't think there is much evidence that they are "less qualified" than other potential bidders. Indeed, they are probably more qualified in some ways, in the sense that they have a lot of experience in this business.
Swampscott, Mass.: Do you believe anything illegal has taken place here?
Michael Dobbs: There is no evidence of any illegality.
New York, NY: Did Congress approve of LOGCAP and isn't there any Congressional oversight of the program?
Michael Dobbs: I don't think that Congress signed off on individual LOGCAP contracts. They have debated the general issue, and the GAO, Congress's investigative arm, periodically looks into the question of how contracts are being awarded and implemented.
Nairobi, Kenya: Excellent article and graphics package, but let me play the devil's advocate: Why not Brown & Root? How many other companies have the depth of experience and the capacity to do what Brown & Root does? And since the U.S. government bid process makes room for other companies to protest contract awards, have any of them ever protested the Brown & Root awards?
Michael Dobbs: It is true that only a few companies have the ability to mobilize quickly on the scale of a Brown and Root or a Bechtel, and build an army base from scratch in a few weeks. There have been periodic protests about contract awards but, as far as I know, nobody protested the 2001 LOGCAP award to Brown and Root. There has been more criticism of the Army Corps of Engineers award of the oil field rehabilitation contract to Brown and Root.
Washington, DC: Are you aware of anyone who is keeping a running tab on the costs of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq? It seems the costs are pretty much skyrocketing out of control due to the mob rule that set in following the Sept. 11 attacks. But eventually that anger will cool down and people will want to see what all the damage comes to.
Michael Dobbs: Various think tanks are trying to keep tabs on this, but I am not sure there is a comprehensive running tab maintained by anyone.
Portland, OR: You said:
However, he still receives deferred compensation from the company of around $160,000 as part of his retirement package.
Is that per year?
Michael Dobbs: Yes
washingtonpost.com: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Thought (Post, Aug. 28)
Demarest, NJ: Mr. Dobbs:
You said in one of your answers that, when LOGCAP was negotiated, "of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services." But that's not true. Dick Cheney of Haliburton, and various others now in the Bush administration, could not only foresee it but helped bring it about.
Doesn't this no-bid contract idea set up a cycle, a vicious one for democracy, that companies grow rich from huge government contracts; then help finance elections to put their own people in power; who then make sure the companies get the policies (like the Iraq war) that keep them rich? I'm reading Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" which traces this same pattern perniciously through our history.
Michael Dobbs: Well the LOGCAP contract was awarded before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. While Cheney and others may have been in favor of a showdown with IRaq, I doubt very much that we would have gone to war in the absence of a major incident like Sept. 11. 9/11 changed everything.
On your second point, of course there is a revolving door between business and government. That is plain for every0one to see. Eisenhower spoke about the military-industrial complex back in the 50s. The ties between business and government have only grown since then.
Bowie: Is there an analogue to Halliburton's LOGCAP contract in Afghanistan?
Michael Dobbs: As I mentioned in the article, Halliburton is also working in Afghanistan under the same LOGCAP contract. Work orders under Operation Enhduring Freedom so far amount to around $183 million: this is all part of the same super-contract.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that the bad feelings that many feel over the contracts going to Brown and Root are somewhat based on the fact that this company was VP Dick Cheney's baby at one point? I find it curious that when it comes to defense contracts this particular baby gets the all the love.
Michael Dobbs: This is the question at the back of everybody's minds, and one that is really impossible to answer. It's a chicken and egg question. Obviously, Halliburton (and other companies like Bechtel) hires people like Dick Cheney in part because of their government expertise, and connections. But that is the way Washington works.
New York, N.Y.: Has anyone studied the true cost savings or otherwise to the military from these outsourcing contracts? If so, what are the conclusions?
Chee Ooi, New York.
Michael Dobbs: As far as I am aware, there has not been a detailed study of this point. There has been a lot of debate about it. Some argue that outsourcing helps the military focus on its core tasks, and cuts costs. Others maintain that the costs of hiring a contractor are much higher than doing the work yourself. I would be interested to see a serious study on this, but I have not yet seen one.
Michael Dobbs: I have enjoyed answering your questions. We had a good discusson. I can see there is a lot of interest in this topic.
This report -- Dobbs' report in the Washington Post -- pushed Halliburton stock up 4% today.
Here's a link to the report mentioned in the discussion above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56429-2003Aug27.html
Tartar, I heard on the radio today that Halliburton has already made 1.7 billion on reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
It seems that everyone is making money off of Iraq....from the UN to the US, to US headquaters, etc.
So, what do we do now?
sumac wrote:It seems that everyone is making money off of Iraq....from the UN to the US, to US headquaters, etc.
So, what do we do now?
More tax cuts for the extremely wealthy! Remember, when they can keep more of the money that is rightfully theirs, they can increase employment in places where they can build factories and make people work for subsistance wages (Sweatshop Iraq anyone?). Anything else is just unamerican! After all...this country was founded by rich people, and our president knows the historical mandate of his class!
Scary:
Iraqi Fisherman catches Americnas
Iraqi Fisherman Says He Caught Americans
by Niko Price, Associated Press
August 27th, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The fisherman had just decided to take up arms, and he shook with fear as the American convoy approached his hiding place. As he later told it, he fired a rocket-propelled grenade into a Humvee and ran away as fast as he could.
Nobody gave chase, he said, and in the time that has passed since that April attack, his band of seven guerrillas has slipped into an easy rhythm of attacking American convoys every few days.
"I catch fish in the morning and Americans at night," he said. "Catching Americans is easier than catching fish."
He wouldn't give his real name, instead calling himself Salahuddin, the name of the 12th century Muslim liberator known to the West as Saladin. His account, which mixes verifiable facts with extravagant claims, gives a rare insight into the secret world of Iraq's anti-American resistance, which has killed more than 60 U.S. troops since May 1.
He insisted he wasn't motivated by any loyalty to Saddam Hussein or principled Islamic opposition to the U.S. presence. He said he was driven by what he sees as the Americans' heavy-handed treatment of ordinary Iraqis during anti-guerrilla operations.
Now that Uday & Qusay have been eliminated, a lot of the lesser-known
family members are coming to the attention of the authorities.
Among the brothers:
Sooflay ............ the restaurateur
Guday............... the half-Australian brother
Huray............... the sports fanatic
Sashay.............. the gay brother
Kuntay & Kintay..... the twins from the African mother
Sayhay.............. the baseball player
Ojay................ the stalker/murderer
Gulay............... the singer/entertainer
Ebay................ the internet czar
Biliray............. the country music star
Ecksray............. the radiologist
Puray............... the blender factory owner
Regay............... the half-Jamaican brother
Tupay............... the one with bad hair
Among his sisters:
Lattay.............. the coffee shop owner
Bufay............... the 500 pound sister
Dushay.............. the clean sister
Phayray............. the zoo worker in the gorilla house
Sapheway............ the grocery store owner
Ollay............... the half-mexican sister
Gudlay.............. the prostitute
And finally:
There is Oyvay .......... but the family doesn't like to talk about him.
Gels, Loved it! Thanks for the laugh. c.i.
youdon'tsay ..... police interogator
Loved it too, Gel, emailed it to everyone I know!
From
www.usatoday.com, this just in:
U.S. can't sell resolution on Iraq
By Bill Nichols and Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ?- U.S. diplomats said Thursday that they are making little or no progress in their push for a United Nations resolution that would persuade reluctant allies to commit new peacekeeping troops to Iraq.
The diplomats have floated various ideas to jump-start the moribund talks at the United Nations, including the possibility of turning over Iraq peacekeeping duties to a multinational force that would be headed by a U.S. general.
But the countries that can provide the tens of thousands of troops the Bush administration is seeking continue to demand a shift in U.S. policy that would give the United Nations wide authority over political, military and humanitarian issues in Iraq. There is no sign the Bush administration would agree to that, and negotiations appear to be stalemated....
