Suprise Suprise... Bad for Bush, good for Kerry

[rhino 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[flyingferret 0]

With everything at work this week, I really don't have time to follow this. BUT...real quickly:

I fail to see how this is 'bad' for Bush any more then Abu Graib was bad for Rumsfeld. IF it turns out it occured after we were there, certainly the responsibility would be with a field commander?

If a skydiver goes in do you investiage the DZO? or the head of the USPA?

Just my opinion, it seems in our search for scapegoats in modern times, our scope of effective influence has been stretched to a ridiculous extent.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I fail to see how this is 'bad' for Bush

"The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers for fuel in Iraq, and it elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism. "

[flyingferret 0]

Well....I can appreciate that the writer of the article feels that way. I however do not. That whole Halliburton thing was assinine. In the end, Halliburton even said screw this, it is not worth it. Delivering fuel in a combat zone is a bitch. I don't have time to dig up the articles yet again.

Anyway my point was that I fail to see how the explosives reflect Bush. Even if I assume favoritism as you state it, I very seriously doubt that Bush made ay decisions about troop placements and their gaurd over said weapons personally. Don't you think that would be done by military personnel, with little link to Bush or Halliburton?

Ask NacMac, he probably knows it all, he works for them, I bet they have white linen lunches everyday from all the money Cheney gave them.

I already voted anyway...so...

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[airdvr 200]

Another piece of old news conveniently timed to look like new. Clinton gave Haliburton no-bid contracts too because they're the only U.S. company equipped to do these jobs. Would you rather see France doing the work?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[flyingferret 0]

You mean, you mean, some very rich capitalist company in the oil industry has ties to Texas AND the money to do tasks no one else in the country does AND a lot of people know them as that?

No way!
I would call that success.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[wmw999 2,176]

Quote

You mean, you mean, some very rich capitalist company in the oil industry has ties to Texas AND the money to do tasks no one else in the country does AND a lot of people know them as that?

I don't think anyone denies that Halliburton is qualified. Really.

The issue is that with government contracts, you need a really really strong reason to sole-source (i.e. not bid competitively) a contract. The bigger the contract, the better the reason.

As an example, the space shuttle software was developed, and had been supported by, IBM exclusively from 1974 until 1993 or so. There were no other companies with the knowledge to do it (trust me on this -- it's a proprietary language, on a proprietary compiler, on proprietary hardware, all of it space-hardened). I believe it was still bid competitively. Of course, the bid requested someone with 20 years' experience in space shuttle software development, but it was bid out; that was better than the sole-source at the time.

If you always deal with the people whom you already know have the capability, you don't give the folks who have been developing it a chance. That works in business (although you might be robbing yourself of a kickass new supplier). In government, one of the rules is that you evaluate the options, not just the ones you already know about.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[flyingferret 0]

From what I know, which might not be much (and sorry to hijack your thread Rhino, although I did not mention Halliburton first), Halliburton out sourced a huge part of the contract anyway. To my knowledge there was no other company available to manage the entire thing. And by time it was all said and done, no wonder. Halliburton had to ask for a letter from the Army to justify the fuel prices because someone half a world away was playing activity based costing while grunts were waiting on fuel. There is a time to nit pick, there are other times to accept the cost of doing business. I believe this was one of the latter.

Economically, I will agree with you that there is a chicken/egg issue with the progression from success to monopoly and the line is sometimes very hard to define. However, I think when people lives are on the line, trying an unknown to backhaul fuel across the arabian desert might be a bad idea.

Even avoiding that point altogether, even during democrat administrations, Halliburton has been the defacto choice for this. It just so happens, Cheney and Bush used to work in the oil industry. Half the people south of the 40th have. If we ever need a condiment contract, I suspect Kerry may have connections, kind of goes without saying.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Would you rather see France doing the work?

Sure!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 2,476]

>Would you rather see France doing the work?

Why not? If they could do it for a tenth the price, and your taxes dropped as a result - would you volunteer the extra money to go with the more wasteful company?

We live in a global economy. I suspect you fly on french aircraft when you travel. If you scuba dive or skydive, you use equipment first developed by the french. This republican hatred of france is silly; we're connected by far more than a seat at the UN.

[airdvr 200]

<>

The French gov't was already in Saddam's pocket with the Oil for Food debacle. I personally don't hate France, I'm just not going to fall for their BS in this area. This Halliburton thing is just another contrived attempt to discredit W. Old news recycled to look new.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[pccoder 0]

My father works for the US Governemnt; the DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) to be exact. He has worked with this agency for 33 years.

He informs me that your statement about them being the only contractor with the means to do this is inaccurate.

PcCoder.net

[kallend 1,682]

Quote

<>

The French gov't was already in Saddam's pocket with the Oil for Food debacle. I personally don't hate France, I'm just not going to fall for their BS in this area. This Halliburton thing is just another contrived attempt to discredit W. Old news recycled to look new.

Don't be "holier than thou". The US govt. has a long long record of dealing with nasty foreign dictators (including SH in the '80s under Reagan and Bush41). US is just as bad, maybe worse than the French in this regard.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Ask NacMac, he probably knows it all, he works for them, I bet they have white linen lunches everyday from all the money Cheney gave them. "

Hey Malachi, don't do that, you made me snarf my Moet all over the Beluga, man I hate it when that happens.

Seriously, all they tell us is that this entire thing (fuel pricing and other military support type contracts) was above board and clean, unlike a few other embarrassing but unrelated incidents. I now work with KBR (I'm contracting, not staff, same as when I was working with Mustang in Texas), a division of Big Red, most of the stuff I do these days is aimed at UK market, with a little overseas stuff in Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, and Azerbaijan, but its mostly domestic stuff these days.
My division is pretty tight on business conduct, I can't speak for government support divisions.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson