THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Kara - I'm likewise impressed with your thoughtful, reasoned statements. I do wonder whether it is cost effective to train military personnel to do things for which we can hired skilled civilian entities. I would prefer keeping our military focused on it's primary mission--to kill people and break things--so we can be sure they remain competent at that mission. I'd rather bring in others to do the rest. I also see nothing wrong with profit.

But again, yours is not an unreasonable position; it's one I can respect, but with which I disagree.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I would prefer keeping our military focused on it's primary mission--to kill people and break things--

0 Replies

Well, why don't we just go ask Cheney? LOL.

0 Replies

Quote:

to kill people and break things

0 Replies

Historical ????????????????

http://www.abstractdynamics.org/archives/binladendeterminedtostrikei.gif

Looks like A2K will not process .gif's

Go here:

http://abstractdynamics.org/

0 Replies

Quote:

I also see nothing wrong with profit.

There is indeed nothing wrong with profit. It is a great motivator. The problem with profit is that it can become all important rather than just something important. Companies that cooked their numbers and audited fancily did so because they wanted to fool the shareholders into thinking that the company was a good investment. What was lost was the balance.

Same problem, as I see it, with companies that outsource up the kazoo in order to increase the bottom line to make their shareholders happy. A company ought to defend its philosophy to the shareholders instead. Why not admit that profit is very important, but that there are other values of importance as well...pay a living wage to the workers, give them a few more benefits, a bit more health care, safeguard some sort of severance or safety net. We have become cynical investors indeed when the only thing we value is a rapidly rising share price so that we can reap short-term profit. Corporate malfeasance is what we sow from our greed. We investors are not blameless.

Hmmm. Got a little off topic there. Sorry. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Everybody seems to miss the most important point on selecting Halliburton to work on the reconstruction contracts in Iraq. It was not based on bids (as most government contracts should be base); they were picked by this administration by an elected official who once had financial interests in that company - and may still have financial interests.

0 Replies

They were picked by Clinton in 1992. How do you figure that "they were picked by this administration by an elected official who once had financial interests in that company - and may still have financial interests." ?

0 Replies

McGent, The war in Iraq started in March 2003. Clinton's term ended when Bush took over in January 2001.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

They were picked by Clinton in 1992. How do you figure that "they were picked by this administration by an elected official who once had financial interests in that company - and may still have financial interests." ?

?????

0 Replies

McGentrix is making the valid point that Halliburton won LOGCAP contracts long before this administration:

Quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp

0 Replies

Thank you Craven. That's what I meant to say.

0 Replies

McGent, My apologies; I stand corrected. Wasn't aware of the information provided by Craven; just that Cheney had connections to Halliburton, and when reconstruction began in Iraq, no bidding was offered. I understood that to mean "conflict of interest." c.i.

0 Replies

Just because you have a contract for one job, or more than one, doesn't mean that it is good policy to have them do all jobs, without bidding. Or with bidding. It is just asking for trouble.

0 Replies

That's how government works.

0 Replies

Yessirree, it's a mighty fine thing to have a government contract, or be a preferred supplier of services or whatever. I don't think anyone has ever gone out of business under these circumstances. Anyway, presumably all Halliburton's affairs are properly conducted and above board.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McGent, My apologies; I stand corrected. Wasn't aware of the information provided by Craven; just that Cheney had connections to Halliburton, and when reconstruction began in Iraq, no bidding was offered. I understood that to mean "conflict of interest." c.i.

With respect, CI, this was an excellent example of the way I see many people leaping to ill-informed conclusions. They allow themselves to be presented with a partial (and often suspect) set of facts and are then handed an erroneous conclusion, onto which they latch as if what they now hold is a "fact", not because they actually have enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, but because they feel they have enough to justify the conclusion THEY WANT TO DRAW.

FWIW, it's hard to know when you have "enough" information, but it usually does no harm to look a little deeper than what others who think you like tell you is the case. Cool

Regards,
Scrat

0 Replies

Nope, nothing wrong here ...... did somebody cut the cheese???

Quote:

amity
« Anyone Need A Party Dress? | Main | Randy's Idea of Fun »
September 27, 2003
The War Profiteers

Hold your nose; this stuff stinks to high heaven...

According to the company bio, New Bridge Strategies, LLC is:

a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq.

And just who is in charge of this brand, spankin' new outfit that capitalizes on rebuilding Iraq after the Bush Administration destroyed it? Why none other than the President's close friend, political fixer, and former campaign manager:

Mr. Joe M. Allbaugh, Chairman and Director

Joe M. Allbaugh is the CEO of The Allbaugh Company, LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based corporate strategy and counsel firm. A native of Oklahoma, Joe served as the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under President George Bush until March 2003. Prior to moving to Washington, D.C., he was Chief of Staff to then-Governor Bush of Texas and was the National Campaign Manager for the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign.

More about Joe Allbaugh, Bush's long time right-hand man here...

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo has much more on the crooked corporate cronyism cooked up over at the White House. Suffice to say Mr. Allbaugh is by far not the only close Bush friend trying to make a buck off the Iraq tragedy. Brian Whitaker has a story on the nephew of Ahmed Chalabi, and his new Washington based "consulting firm". Of course Chalabi is the Cheney-Rumsfeld backed Washington insider who was instrumental in the rush to attack Iraq, and also happens to be the leader of the US-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), a member of the governing council and current president of Iraq.

It truly boggles the mind.

And what's this about Cheney falsely proclaiming all this time that he has no financial ties to Halliburton whatsoever?

Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14 that he has "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." His assertion came during a discussion of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. Cheney said he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests."

Democrats disputed that because Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.

In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to three charities.

HOWEVER, "a Congressional Research Service report released yesterday concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co." AND "the congressional report said that neither the insurance policy nor the charity designation would change the public official's disclosure obligation." here's the Washington Post story
Posted by amity at September 27, 2003 08:45 AM

LINKS + ARTICLE HERE

0 Replies

McGentrix, I have read a number of times that Halliburton may be the only company in the world that could have done the formidably large job in Iraq. I used to be cynical about the fact that the contract was not bid out but I have softened my view. Also, it could be window dressing, but the administration seems to following up on the rumored overcharging for petrol trucked in from Kuwait, as well as some other complaints about Halliburton.

0 Replies

Complaints after the fact, and because someone blew a whistle?

The Iraqi work was tailor-made for Halliburton. There is no reason why it could not have been split up amongst many contractors, as is usually the case. I am not talking about sub-contracting here, but giving the contract for X to A, giving the contract for Y to B, giving the contract for Z to C.

This is the way that construction contracts work in the real world. Generally, the parties coordinate and speak to one another quite well.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know