Does this smell fishy or what?

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
I don't know, it seems they have a proven track record in International reconstruction projects going back quite a long way, seem most qualified and I doubt the Dems even have ties to any companies really proficient at this type of work. And I think legal action that could end up stalling a reconstruction project in a devastated country like Iraq would definitely be a bad thing for the people of Iraq as well another litigious mess where only the lawyers would make money ( I really, really, despise lawyers so much so I think I'll file a class action lawsuit against their associations stating that they have made the country a "hostile environment" anybody want in?) I don't think that this is such a big deal considering Haliburton is probably still seeking subcontractors (bad economy means jobs is jobs)

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
That's funny, I'm in on the law suit. I still can't find anything really dealing with some oil issues I heard about on the radio late the other night but I will post them if I can find anything.
 

DieselDave

Super Moderator,
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
2,703
Location
FL panhandle
Wylie,
I believe it speaks for the DNC, not itself. If Kellog Brown and Root were not the company most qualified and capable I would see the relevance. The fact Brown and Root is a Subsidiary of Halliburton seems to be the highlight of the story. Saying V.P. Cheney was the former CEO is a "so what" to me. He currently has $0.00 financial interest in the company or it's subsidiary.

If the crisis was lack of liquor don't you think the Kennedy's would be involved?
If it was an import issue don't you think the Teamsters would be involved?
If the government needed a full length motion picture don't you think Hollywood would be involved.

You see the obvious link, all the above are major supporters of the Democratic Party, so what.
You pick the best people to do the job. The job is oil well fires, Kellog Brown and Root are the most qualified.

Kellog Brown and Root and the other companies were chosen for their ability not political affiliation. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. If one of the companies was "Joe Bobs Oil Fire Stoppers" and they were giving all their money to the Republican Party I would be highly suspect but this is not the case. The biggest and best were chosen. The fact they support the Republican Party is no surprise. I imagine most companies in the business of making profit on real goods and services and competing in the marketplace favor Republicans. Remember, Republicans encourage business while Democrats encourage...I will not go there.

I take the article far differently but I could be wrong. If these all knowing reporters could come up with some names of Democrat supporting companies with equal credentials, ability and performance record I might be forced to change my mind. I won't hold my breath, I believe it's an agenda driven article.
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
I think Dave is pretty on the ball there. It's just party rivalry again, Dems diggin' up stuff just to raise a stink. I know that on issues like this (short term nation rebuilding and restructuring) It's been policy to award contracts without bidding out since WWII and this is the same company we used in the first Gulf War in Kuwait, proven, regionally and culturally savvy, and their crews are probably already liased with military security procedures and have veteran members who are used to working in the region. That means quicker action and less cabbage.

Later,
TSG
 

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
[ QUOTE ]
Wylie said:
I didn't get really informed on this issue but I know if the majority of the voters find out about what is going on with Bush, Chaney and this no bid government contract issue they have going, Bush will not have a prayer in hell of ever being reelected. If I can dig up something on this I will edit this post later and maybe start a new thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully, Wylie, you won't mind me quoting from the other thread in which you introduced this one. If I might approach this as an observer rather than taking sides, there are some interesting precedents.

Something noticed during the Reagan years was that scandal and investigations have little bearing on the success of a presidential race. Likely no administration has had the number of investigations, arrests and convictions, yet Reagan remained popular with the voters. The republican party even seemed to take pride in calling him the Teflon® President, since it didn't matter what accusations were thrown, or what crimes those within his administrations were accused, he still maintained his popularity. He was still elected to a second term. He figured out that it's not scandals or lack of, that sway the voters; it's the economy. By asking the voters during his campaign if they were better off than four years previously, he offered reason for keeping him another term.

Clinton too was faced with constant investigation and scandal. Even facing the second term election the investigations were in progress. Surprisingly for some he won re-election easily. I say surprisingly because the most vocal, and the seemingly most news worthy were reminders of the scandals. But, the economy was good, and people voted once again for the stability they felt with the same president.

It's really surprising sometimes the effort and taxpayers money that's put into discrediting the opposing parties through investigations. While the need for investigating may have a small percent of legitimacy, it seems to have a huge percentage of political motivation.

The concerns raised by investigating the awards and contracts for post-war Iraq may or may not result in any conclusive results, but politically it doesn't accomplish all that the politically motivated hopes, for either side.

Between now and the next election the economy will either continue to drag, or it will get better. I think we all hope it will get better, and may very well do so considering the production required to take care of what's needed. No matter what your political orientation we want the economy to improve. For political reasons, those wanting the present president to be elected have both political and personal wishes for improvement. For those not wanting to keep the present president, the wish for a good economy overrides their political concerns.

I've no way of knowing for certain what the economy will be at that time. Still, the economy will still overshadow anything the present administration did or didn't do.

This is interesting:
1) Democrats will vote democrat...unless they can be enticed into voting against their candidate.
2) Republicans will vote republican...unless the can be enticed into voting against their candidate.
3) Independents will vote against the candidate they would least like to win.

The winner wins by receiving the least negative votes, but we're not suppose to look at it that way.
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
Okay fellas,
I just look at a lot of things different then most do and I will state this as simple as I can.
It seems real dirty to me that we are living in a democracy working to set another country up as a democracy and we cannot practice what we preach. These big brother moves and the politics that play along with them just have a stink all their own.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
[ QUOTE ]
Wylie said:
Okay fellas,
I just look at a lot of things different then most do and I will state this as simple as I can.
It seems real dirty to me that we are living in a democracy working to set another country up as a democracy and we cannot practice what we preach. These big brother moves and the politics that play along with them just have a stink all their own.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we live in a republic... but I guess that too is for another thread. And I fail to see how this is "big brother" tactics and how politics is playing into it. Read Dave's post again. He nailed it! You want it simple, there you have it... bring on a company who can do the job better!... Anyone? Anyone?
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
Okay your right about our republic Sasha and my terminology lacks for sure. I just consider the no bid option a big brother move that doesn't allow a few companies (or countries backing us in the war) the opportunity or allow for the best deal to be made. Besides this how do the people of Iraq or us have any idea how much they will benefit from the reconstruction with no bids to access the function ability of the reconstruction.
Some other companies that could very well be suited for the job would be Bechtel, Fluor or Parsons. Any one of these companies can hire Red Adire to put out oil fires and or use the same means he has employed and same subcontracts for other jobs that needed to be done. Sure it is a pressing issue and reconstruction needs to happen fast but this is not what I see to be the best option.
All of these big companies throw some money into the kitty for their preferred politician to run his or her campaign and kickbacks just like this are given through contracts and friend of friend elbow rubbing all the time. I know this no bid contacting is not illegal but I would bet if anyone were able to follow the paper trail back to the elbow rubbing campaign financing companies that have a great deal to do with these politicians wide spread exposure to the public eye there would be illegalities to be found. This is why these types of things smell fishy to me.
 

LED-FX

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
630
Location
Edinburgh UK
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, we live in a republic... but I guess that too is for another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Democratic Republic I believe, this is coming from someone who lives in a Democratic Monarchy. The principle difference , as I understand it, is that a Republic is governed and based on its Constitution and its inhabitants are Citizens. In a Monarchy the Monarch has, supposedly, overall control and the inhabitants are Royal Subjects, there is no such thing as a constitution in the UK. But your right its probably another thread entirely, is there a political scientist in the house....

As to the wobbly awarding of contracts, oil well fire fighting, think the Chinese and Russians did best after last Gulf War with U.S. coming poor third in efficiency.

Brown & Root have plenty of skeletons rattling in their cupboard, especially with handling nuclear installations. Think they have now been thrown out of handling UK`s nuclear deterrent at Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston.

Competent contractors like to think a few UK firms are competent and experienced,as well as other European, Asian, African, Australian etc.,but not many master contracts coming this way by look of things though. Who did Saddam come to when he needed high quality extra big gun barrels?

Its not just a US political problem, the failure to find any smoking gun of WOMD so far and the hand out of contracts to exclusively U.S. contractors looks very bad indeed no matter where you are in the world or what political colour you are.

Adam
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
Correction dude all these companies usually contribute either equally to both parties or to the majority or ruling party to grease the wheels. Most govt. contractors do these things to cover their asses no matter who's in charge. I bet that all contributions are in some part made to both parties in an election year. Most investigations of this type of campaign bribery find that the political party didn't feature as prominently as which had control at the time in the decisions to contribute. What we really need is campaign reforms to moderate chest size and ban certain types of contributions.

I being a contractor note that most of the General Contractors I do business with utilize the same subs over and over because they have good working relationships, set expectations and timely delivery there's no conflict of interest there, and the only thing that seems to bog down a project is when something needs to be bid out, bidding wars lead to actions that can stop a project dead in it's tracks while eating up precious deadline time and since in this instance the deadline can mean life or death to a newly democratic country (these wells are going to be an important source of income to Iraq that will also speed reconstruction as well as lower the cost to U.S. taxpayers) I think I'll opt for tried and true and avoid the burecratic BS and legal battles that would delay this process. What would you do, suggest a friend that you trust and has a proven track record or put it on a table for bidding that could stall or stop action under a tight deadline. Remember that the President is going to be under a close Congressional eye of scrutiny to bring this in on time and on budget! Just food for thought.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
QUOTE: Correction dude all these companies usually contribute either equally to both parties <font color="red">or to the majority or ruling party to grease the wheels.</font>

I would put my money on a winning horse in a race if I could place the bet after the gun had fired too. That horse will pay out most of the time.

I have to agree with Adam, I just don't see how are government can justify such a selfish act and call it a humanitarian effort when there are so many that are really involved.
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
I was just listening to this very issue being discussed on FoxNews... it seems that Halliburton DID win a bid on the gov't contract back in 2001.
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
Some are calling it a no bid contract because it was done very secretively for exactly the same reason I consider it to be unfair and greedy. It was in the news a while back. Kind of funny how Cheney's old buddies got it isn't it. Then you think about it, things just seem really odd when people can bid on rebuilding something that has not even happened yet. Do you smell something yet?
 

BuddTX

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Messages
2,521
Location
Houston, TX
I gotta make this really short but . ..

While I understand the concern over Halliburton being given the work without any bidding process, arent't they considered the best, and doesn't their track record prove that?

When I used to work for the State of Texas, everything went out to bid, but we could also fill out a "sole source justification" form, for when we wanted something specific, and an equivalent product would not do.
 

Wylie

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
997
Location
Shoshone Idaho
I don't honestly think that Halliburton could win a contract through "sole source justification" as Adam stated above they were running a shadey third after the last war.
Any of you remember after and during the last war the other countries were doing better with putting out oil fires then we were?
I didn't like hearing it myself.
 

LED-FX

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
630
Location
Edinburgh UK
You just gotta wonder how others in other parts of the world view contracts going out while weapons inspections are continuing, and then when control is gained these weapons are currently notable by their absence, and then the US is up for taking the whole show on itself......

Its not just oil fires, Halliburton being notably not best for the job, but major civil engineering projects and of course the `installation` of democracy.

As I mentioned Northern Ireland in the Syria thread, its worth remembering that that conflict tied up 15% of the British Armed Forces for 20 years, not fighting any uniformed obvious army, but the terrorists of the republicans and loyalists. Imposing your will is not as simple as having the biggest planes or largest army.

Adam
 

LED-FX

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
630
Location
Edinburgh UK
[ QUOTE ]
Something noticed during the Reagan years was that scandal and investigations have little bearing on the success of a presidential race

[/ QUOTE ]

Its something the politicians have learned to their cost this side of the Atlantic.Age old maxim that you can`t fool all of the people all of the time.

You can for a while but, the previous Conservative (right wing) government got involved too far in what is called sleaze here, ministers awarding contracts to companies with which they were closely involved, getting caught and acting as if nothing had happened.It worked for a while but at the elections in the early nineties the electorates patience snapped, they were thrown out conclusively.Politicians who had huge majorities suddenly needed a new job.

Now of course it has swung the other way and we have Labour(not quite so right wing) in power with such a large, majority it means that there is no effective opposition.Democracy needs an effective opposition to function correctly or it just turns into a form of dictatorship. It just reverses poles every few years.

Adam
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
It's the same over here Adam, except that the left is just as dirty as the right, the right awards contracts to contributors and defense contractors while the supposed left or liberals insist on creating larger bureaucratic govt. and then dole out jobs to friends and family where those enrolled in in their "social programs" are really treated as statistics to keep large amounts of taxpayer money flowing into often redundant and failing public projects, while they continue to employee illegal immigrants at low wages and such at home. I have had friends employed in social work who have again and again testified to the malice of the "liberal" social system as a "numbers racket". They want regulated this and governed that and most Americans despise that also. What people want is a government that is economically small an responsible and socially liberal (you know, stay small and on budget and stay the hell out of our business) and since the major partys are usually one but not the other and the optional partys are usually lunatic fringe types, we have to continue to juggle based on who (empty) promises us what. I myself am fairly moderate (a bad word in our bipartisan lead country). I truly believe that the small minority of men that formed our country were very intelligent and rare and that our contemporary politicians can not even grasp the idealism or moral character of those that formed this democracy it has been so dilluted that I am for throwing out the majority of the ammendments to our constitution and starting back at the beginning. George Washington had the opportunity and support of the Continental Army to become a sole Monarch and instead chose to support the then new idealism of democratic rule (something that bizarrely enough existed on most Pirate ships sailing the seas at the time, who's ships articles were partly plagarized to form our constitution). I think that anyone who thinks that a political party or career politician is on their side is delusional, they all take the same political science courses when getting their degrees and are really on no one's side but their own and their affiliates. The function of most politicians, it seems, is to make themselves wealthy in public office and some don't even get there but keep what's in their campaign chests. I think it's time we put the servant back in "public servant". We are again at the point of "taxation without representation" due to the fact that our politicians do not fairly represent a cross section of our society. Thanks for the rant.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

tsg68

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Breukelen, NY established 1646
The other countries who were running top knotch also do not practice the OSHA and other safety standards and practices as well as carrying the large amounts of liability and health insurance of the workers employed as do Stateside companies and that is why they are cheaper and faster they take bigger risks, with their peoples lives as well as less liability for evironmental concern. Ever really wonder why products are cheaper from those countries? Ever see a plant in China and witnessed the lack of personal protection gear used or basic safety SOP's followed in those plants or hear of the lack of benefits offered or the lack of liability assumed by those companies? And there is no real regulation of that in place.

Adam if war doesn't work and counter-insurgency doesn't work and sanctions don't work, and economic programs don't work, what actually will work against these militant zelots and the nations that support them?

Later,
TSG
 
Top