0
   

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:44 pm
Quote:
Iraq delays hand Cheney firm $1bn

· Key contract decisions postponed again
· Blair drawn into row over lack of 'level playing fields'

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday December 7, 2003
The Observer

Halliburton, the engineering group formerly run by US vice-president Dick Cheney, has been given $1 billion worth of reconstruction work in Iraq by the US government without having to compete for it, thanks to repeated delays in opening up a key contract to competition.
The Houston-based company was controversially awarded a contract to repair Iraq's damaged oil infrastructure without competition in February.

The cost-plus contract means the amount spent by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is running the work, is open-ended, rather than being fixed at the outset, because the scope of the damage was unknown. The USACE described the contract as a 'bridge to competition', but original plans to award the work competitively in August have repeatedly slipped. So far, $1.7bn has been made available to Halliburton for the work.

Figures obtained from the USACE by Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman indicate that on 21 August, around the time the contract should have been opened to competition, the amount made available to KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary involved, was $704m. Since then the total has risen by $1.011bn.

Waxman said: 'Since August, when the follow-on contracts were supposed to be awarded, the administration has obligated more than $1bn to Halliburton under the oil infrastructure contract. These inexplicable delays may be good for Halliburton; they are costing taxpayers a bundle.'

The figures have emerged as the UK Government and contractors reacted with dismay to news this week that competitive tendering had again been pushed back to between 15 December and 17 January. Previously it was delayed to mid-October, late October, then year-end.

One leading UK contractor, which made strong representations in Whitehall this week, said: 'We are very disappointed that it has been put back again,' adding that the longer the delay, the more KBR benefited.

Brian Wilson, the Prime Minister's special representa tive on reconstruction, wrote to Blair in advance of President Bush's recent visit, urging him to press for a level playing field in Iraq.

Wilson said: 'These are very important contracts for the future of the Iraqi oil industry.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1101341,00.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:44 pm
Voice of America just picked it up, running a mention of the Telegraph article as an add-in update to a previously posted Rumsfeldt Visit story.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:51 pm
Forgive me for doubting the veracity of the story. Not because of its source, but because of its timing.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:56 pm
Believe me, hbob, I've become quite accustomed to being sceptical of such stories.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:57 pm
Well, I hope you scepticism extends to both sides of the spectrum.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:06 pm
An Adelaide Sunday Mail Article now provides "Official No Comment"

Quote:
Prime Minister Tony Blair's office declined comment on the newspaper report, which featured in early editions published late Saturday.

"We're not prepared to comment but we urge all those involved to provide the Iraq Survey Group with whatever information they believe they have," a spokeswoman for Mr Blair's office said late Saturday. The ISG is the coalition body searching for Saddam's alleged chemical or biological weapons.

No one was available at the Foreign Office to comment on aspects of the newspaper report regarding the MI6 foreign intelligence agency, which supplied information on Iraqi weapons before the war.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:11 pm
And just so's we all know...

the Telegraph UK is owned by Conrad Black's Hollinger Corp and sitting on the board is one Richard Perle. Just so's we know.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:24 pm
Returning to that thing about Bush visiting funerals or services for American soldiers who died in his war ... and the claim that he has avoided doing so in a way that starkly contrasts with how previous presidents dealt with it ...

Back when we had that debate raging about it on the previous thread, I noted,

nimh wrote:
The only way to validate the assertion that Bush is so uptight about media control that he refuses to personally pay honor to those who died on his orders would be to dig further, see if we can find more recent examples. The only way to validate that this proves something would be then to compare with LBJ's times - did LBJ visit the families of those who fell? Did he enforce a stringent no-photographs-with-coffins policy? I must admit I'm not going to seek all that out ...

Well, Sofia c.s. will be happy to hear that somebody did, and it looks like they were more right than Blatham, Tartarin and I were.

History News Network: Have Presidents in the Past Attended the Funerals of Dead Soldiers?

History News Network wrote:
Recently, President Bush has been criticized for failing to attend the funerals of the soldiers killed in Iraq. Maureen Dowd noted sarcastically in a recent NYT column that the president had not even bothered to attend the funeral of Specialist Darryl Dent, a "21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops," though the service took place at a church just "three miles from the White House."

Have presidents in the past attended the funerals of soldiers who died in combat? Have they taken note of the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The record is mixed, as can be seen below. It would appear that few presidents have ever actually attended military funerals, though many used the bully pulpit to draw attention to lives lost in the service of their country.

The article goes on to report on each past president. For example:

History News Network wrote:
LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. [..]

Richard Nixon does not appear to have attended the funerals of any soldiers killed in Vietnam. He did award posthumous medals of honor to the families of several soldiers [and] on Veterans day in 1971 he visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. [..]

Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980. [..]

Ronald Reagan attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. [..]

President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. [..]
Bill Clinton attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole. After the terrorist bombing the Murrah building in downtown Oklahoma City he publicly grieved with the families of the victims. [..]

In short - as TNR summarises it:

TNR wrote:
They find no evidence that FDR attended military funerals [..] Lyndon Johnson attended two funerals out of tens of thousands under his watch in Vietnam. Richard Nixon attended none. [..] The first president Bush attended no military funerals. Neither did president Clinton.

That's a clear enough context on individual funerals. Now, of course Carter and Reagan and Clinton did attend memorial services to pay respect to those who were killed collectively. But then, so did GWB, as the links Fishin' ("Bush recalled a meeting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, a month ago with relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq") and Sofia ("At a military base hard hit by combat deaths, President Bush shed tears Thursday with relatives of Marines killed in Iraq") provided showed.

Now, after they provided those links I already conceded that "We were wrong on the specifics. Bush does not, apparently, shirk away from facing the relatives of people who [served and sacrificed]", but added that it needn't "undermine [our] whole argument".

After all, I pointed out for example, "the Bush administration did suddenly [..] start to implement a protocol that prescribes that there will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel", and "Bush Jr. is the first to break with this tradition [of "memorable ceremonies" to pay respect for the troops] by implementing a protocol that may have been devised in Clinton's last months but wasn't apparently actually acted on before - and did so out of, it would seem, PR motives".

But first, the History News Network points out that actually, "during the first Iraq war a similar ban was in effect."

And second, a conservative blogger reminds us that, aside from the assumed malevolence of the Bush administration, there was actually a very practical reason why the policy has only been enforced since recently:

Quote:
the original Dover policy actually dates back to 1991. The only thing that's changed is that, a civil suit against the restrictions at Dover having been won by the government, it is now being enforced. It would have been enforced [before], else there's no reason to have instituted the policy at all, but for the suit.

As for that "tradition of memorable ceremonies" that Bush allegedly suspended so brusquely, if I look at that list of the HNN I'm really not so sure anymore about there having been any significant change here at all, really.

Even combined with the evidence of the WaPo article Tartarin originally posted, it doesnt look like LBJ or Clinton spent proportionally more attention to grieving with the families or attending ceremonies. For LBJ, we know of two funerals he went to; for Clinton, we know of four public ceremonies (not funerals). The links Sofia + Fishin' gave put Bush at at least two ceremonies. So ...?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:33 pm
Good of you to flesh out that "Bodyguard Story", ninh. Laughing

blatham, I know who owns The Telegraph ... I also know that Rupert The Fox owns The Adelaide Sunday Mail, which causes me to wonder why the story hasn't been picked up here by FOX NEWS. Like I said, it could be another "Bodyguard Story". I dunno. The timing is a bit suspect, and there have been similar go-nowheres and totally-debunkeds, as both of us well know.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:37 pm
AP's live ticker just crawled this by: Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper reports that an Iraqi officer has identified himself as the source of a claim by the British government that Saddam Hussein could have used weapons of mass destruction in less than 45-minutes from the time such a decision was made.

So far, none of the other services seem to have hit on it, but it may be developing. I still dunno.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:55 pm
Damn! I gotta go play towtruck driver, so whatever develops over the next couple hours or so is gonna develop without me.

BBC has just put a mention of the Telegraph Article up on their website, and NBC just had a "Breaking News" mention of it. Its growing.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:11 pm
Infrablue wrote:
What were the reasons fabricated by bin Laden, Perception?


I admit I had to do a little reseach and I'm not completely satisfied but I want to post what I've got so the trail doesn't evaporate.




The following link contains the text of bin Laden's declaration of war on the US in 1996 from the mountains of Afghanistan. It is a very long and windy diatribe first against the Regime in Saudia Arabia (The House of Saud) and then against the Zionist/ American(crusader) pact which allegedly wants to steal the wealth of the Muslims who inhabit the Arabian penninsula. Last it is an exhortation for the Muslim youth to fight and repel the invaders He uses the promise of martyrdom in paradise in a very persuasive appeal to the young Muslim men to convince them that there is no greater reward than to fight against the crusaders to the last man.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

You will notice the timing of this declarartion------during the middle of the Clinton administration. Bin Laden is emboldened IMO by Clinton's inept handling of Terrorist activities and of our humiliating retreat from Somalia.

Bin Laden starts out with a long winded justification for his forthcoming attack on "The Regime", which is the House of Saud. It seems they are corrupt---imagine that. They have spent billions on military hardware and training but they can't protect the citizens----they must invite the Americans to help protect their asses from Saddam. Seems also that the King promised that the Americans would be gone in a matter of months but now---seven years later-----they are still bespoiling the beautiful landscape.

The first fabrication:
We have just saved them from an invasion by Saddam but because of our duplicity and greed this was an PRE-PLANNED occupation. Saddam has just pulled a surprise attack on Kuwait but this is a preplanned occupation when we must spend billionsof $ moving 500,000 men in to save their stupid asses.

The second fabrication:

The US cut off the water supplies to the Iraqis resulting in the death of 100,000 muslim children. The truth----Saddam drained the marshes in the south of Iraq to punish the Shiites who rose up against him taking away the livelihood of millions of Shiites. Those he couldn't starve to death he shot and buried in mass graves they are still finding.

The third fabrication:

Bin Laden not only wants us out of the land of Mecca but he wants the zionists out of the land of two holy places (Palestine) and he will resort to any sort of lie to justify it;

bin Laden wrote:
My Muslim Brothers (particularly those of the Arab Peninsula): The money you pay to buy American goods will be transformed into bullets and used against our brothers in Palestine and tomorrow (future) against our sons in the land of the two Holy places. By buying these goods we are strengthening their economy while our dispossession and poverty increases.

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:


The biggest fabrication of all -----to Muslim youth:

bin Laden wrote:
He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) also said: "the best of the martyrs are those who do NOT turn their faces away from the battle till they are killed. They are in the high level of Jannah (paradise). Their Lord laughs to them ( in pleasure) and when your Lord laughs to a slave of His, He will not hold him to an account". narrated by Ahmad with correct and trustworthy reference. And : "a martyr will not feel the pain of death except like how you feel when you are pinched". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He also said: "a martyr privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgement, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its' entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted". Narrated by Ahmad and At-Tirmithi (with the correct and trustworthy reference).

Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book.


I'm off to bed
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 11:13 pm
War is good or some.
At U.S. Meeting, Iraq Appears Open for Business
By Michael Janofsky
The New York Times

Thursday 04 December 2003

ARLINGTON, VA - The room had the feel of a souk, a constant buzz, chatter in lots of languages, display tables showing off wares.

In fact, it was a marketplace of sorts, just off the lobby of a Sheraton hotel here, but one with a specific purpose: more than 400 people from 30 countries had gathered Wednesday and Thursday for a conference focusing on how to rebuild Iraq and get a piece of the $18.3 billion Congress has authorized for the effort.

There were bankers, architects, lawyers, engineers, real estate developers, insurance agents, construction specialists, transportation experts, communication company owners, investment counselors and more than 40 Iraqi officials working with the Coalition Provisional Authority, who were eager to meet as many suitors as possible.

If the participants conveyed a common message it was this: despite suicide bombers, snipers and attacks from Saddam Hussein loyalists, Iraq is open for business.

There were sobering reminders of the daily dangers that confront both military personnel and civilians, including one company selling vehicle armor protection and another selling walls so strong that they could withstand .50-caliber bullets. "We're working on one now that will be able to sustain a shoulder-fired rocket attack," said Prentice Perry, vice president of the wall company, Therma Steel. The company motto, he said, is, "We stand behind our walls."

But for the most part, the networking was upbeat, as business and government leaders sought each other out as potential partners in the enormous task of reconstructing the country.

"Our purpose is to help United States companies connect with Middle Eastern countries and with individual Iraqis with lots of emphasis on the alliances already on the ground," said Samir Farajallah, president of New Fields, the United Arab Emirates company that organized this meeting and another one last month. "You hear a lot of negative stories out of Iraq, but the truth of the matter is, there are a lot of very successful stories."

As the ranking Iraqi participating in the conference, Sami al-Maajoun, the minister of labor and social affairs, said he was "very encouraged" by American and British efforts to engage in rebuilding.

So far, the efforts have grown out of an initial round of contracts between the United States and large multinational corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, to take on big-ticket items like safeguarding oil fields, paving roads and rebuilding schools.

In marked contrast to the openness of the meeting this week, those contracts were often awarded without competitive bidding in a process that has been criticized as being inscrutable to outsiders.

Now, Mr. Maajoun said, Iraq is ready for many more partners.

"Iraqis are crying out for employment," he said. "We want to rebuild. Construction means jobs that will bring Iraq back to the situation it should have been in as far as its own wealth is concerned."

The efforts promise to be anything but easy, complicated by developments on the ground and evolving laws arising from an evolving government. While large projects require direct participation and approval by the United States government, smaller ones may not, and the distinctions are not always clear.

"We explain how the processes work — or not work — and give some idea of how they may work in the future," said Bill Espinosa of Pillsbury Winthrop, a law firm represented at the conference that does extensive work in international development. "We've seen a lot of interest in Iraq, but there is also a lot of frustration involved in a significant way."

One source of that frustration, said Sam Kubba, chief executive of the American Iraqi Chamber of Commerce, are the competing views of how Iraq should achieve self-rule. The Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by the provisional authority, agreed in a vote Sunday that full national elections sought by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, would be the best way to choose an interim government. The council established a committee to examine whether it was feasible to organize full elections for June.

Mr. Kubba, whose organization of American Iraqi businessmen was set up this year in Washington, called their differences a potential disincentive to future investment, making them "a very serious conflict that holds serious consequences if not resolved."

Still, the uncertain electoral, financial and military landscape did not seem to discourage dozens of those attending the conference from pursuing their goals.

Nick Katsiotis, vice president of a construction company based in Washington, is bidding on two housing projects of 504 units each, one in Mosul and the other in Kirkuk.

Gordon Bobbitt, marketing manager for Kalmar, a Swedish company, was trying to sell huge all-terrain vehicles that can transport shipping crates anywhere.

Igor Salaru, owner of the Brazilian company Icatel, the world's largest manufacturer of pay phones, was seeking Iraqi connections to develop a new system of public phones.

Then there was Hisham Ashkouri, an Iraqi-born architect now living in Boston, who wore a bright red bow tie and carried a case filled with brochures and CD's that show off his latest design — a soaring 31-story hotel and theater complex called Cinema Sinbad that he wants to build in downtown Baghdad.

He said he was "80 to 90 percent there" with financial backing, government support and a commercial sponsor, the Starwood Hotel and Resorts Company.

"There's always room for problems," he said. "But with my emotional side speaking, if something like this can become a big part of reconstructing Baghdad that can show the local population alternatives to violence and disruption, to me, that's why we're going ahead. That's why I'm working on it."


http://truthout.org/docs_03/120603C.shtml
The Iraq Pie
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:19 am
We brought these bastards freedom now listen to them piss and moan!!


Quote:


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:28 am
Israeli experience.
It sure seems to have worked for the Israelis.

What next a huge fence?

Here's an idea. Ask GW to get in touch with God to get more instructions.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:42 am
Quote:

In bright shiny letters, the ignorant statement of the year.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 01:53 am
Saving face.
The way the Iraqis have been gettin' their face slammed in the dirt it wouldn't surprise me if Capt. Brown gets his blown off, not that I am hoping for that.

The Israelis have kept up thier knack of being hated. They have thousands of years of practice at it.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 02:06 am
Re: Saving face.
pistoff wrote:
The way the Iraqis have been gettin' their face slammed in the dirt it wouldn't surprise me if Capt. Brown gets his blown off, not that I am hoping for that.

The Israelis have kept up thier knack of being hated. They have thousands of years of practice at it.

Thousands? No, but at least 20.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 07:08 am
How are things going in the other war?

Quote:


Sorry I asked ....

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 08:21 am
I can't do a link here because it is password protected, but I will cut and past the whole piece if anyone requests it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 07:50:45