Halliburton accusations false

Let's see.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Bush41. Kellogg, Brown and Root was selected as a military supplier. KBR is a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation.

Cheney leaves office when Bill Clinton is elected. Cheney becomes CEO of Halliburton. In the meantime, the Clinton Administration replaces KBR with another company that gave a lower bid.

Cheney becoems VP. Retires from Halliburton. KBR is brought back on board, replacing their replacement.

Halliburton receives no-bid contract worth billions of dollars.

Wow. Can't see how anyone would see that as cronyism.

And how would a Democrat be privy to the inner workings of Bush's Rovaltm[/font size] Office?

Nice try Doug.

RE: Halliburton accusations

Gee, Halliburton would never buy a newspaper article, would they? Doug must be right on this one.

RE: Halliburton accusations

>Gee, Halliburton would never buy a newspaper article, would

>they? Doug must be right on this one.

It says a lot about the Clinton Administration - and about you - that the minute a former Clinton official publishes an article with a view that you dislike, you assume he must have been bribed in order to say it.

RE: Halliburton accusations

That certainly wasn't my assumption. I assumed that this what this person wrote he truly believed, becasue under the Clinton Administration these things were handled in the proper manner. I don't think he could have imagined the depths of deceit that this Administration is willing to stoop to.

>Wow. Can't see how anyone would see that as cronyism.

Between a Harvard Professor of Public Policy who ran the Government Pocurement Program in the Clinton Administration - and some random faggot on the Internet obssessed with a dried-up, petty thief prostitute from 4 years ago - whose opinion would you trust more when it comes to assessing the process by which the Halliburton contracts were awarded?

>And how would a Democrat be privy to the inner workings of

>Bush's Rovaltm[/font size] Office?

If this Harvard Professor and former Clinton appointee knows nothing about these processes, as you stpuidly claim, then how would YOU anything about them?

The author of this Op-Ed article sets forth detailed rationale, based upon his expert knowledge of these processes, as to why people who talk about "cronyism" with the Halliburton contracts are drooling, uninformed morons. Why would anyone believe you over him?

The fact that you continually stoop to personal insults instead of providing sounds reasoning says more about you than any insults you might make about me. Generally, the madder you get, the more wrong you are.

Cronyism claims over Iraq deals

By Simon English in New York (Filed: 01/11/2003)

The White House was facing allegations of cronyism yesterday after an independent report said the biggest recipients of government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan were companies that funded President Bush's campaign for office.

According to the Centre for Public Integrity, a Washington watchdog, the biggest deals went to businesses with close ties to government officials. Charles Lewis, director of the CPI, said: "There is a stench of political favouritism and cronyism."

Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, has won contracts worth $2.3 billion for work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bechtel is the next-biggest winner with contracts valued at more than $1 billion.

Halliburton is weary of the suggestion it gets favours from the Bush administration, pointing out that it has worked for the US military for more than 50 years.

It says it is the "only company with the right skills and experience to handle such wartime emergencies". Controversy was sparked by the decision to award Halliburton contracts without competing bids.

The CPI says, so far, 70 US companies have been awarded deals worth up to $8 billion for fighting the war on terrorism. Those companies gave $500,000 to help get Mr Bush elected, it says. The White House says administration officials such as Mr Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld have no influence over contracts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/11/01/cniraq01.xml

RE: Halliburton accusations

Scowcroft

Well as long as we are reading....

Try this...http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636/

I'll quote a bit for those who don't want to read the whole thing and follow all the links.

Fables of the Reconstruction

Bush isn't really favoring Halliburton and Bechtel.

By Daniel Drezner

Posted Monday, Nov. 3, 2003, at 12:54 PM PT

A new report by the Center for Public Integrity attempts to prove something that many people simply assume to be true: that the Bush administration has strongly favored cronies and campaign contributors in awarding reconstruction contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan. The CPI devoted six months to research and filed more than 70 Freedom of Information Act requests and appeals to get to the bottom of the story. The conclusion of the report, "Windfalls of War," is that a clear quid pro quo exists between government procurement and campaign

contributions to George W. Bush. Charles Lewis, the group's executive director, released a statement arguing that the report reveals "a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

There's just one problem: The CPI has no evidence to support its allegations.

The basic hypothesis of the report is that campaign contributions must have affected the allocation of reconstruction contracts; Halliburton's and Bechtel's large reconstruction contracts and generous support of politicians hint at such a finding. However, a closer look at the guts of the CPI report—the list of contract winners and the list of campaign contributions—exposes the flimsiness of this charge.

<more>

The CPI report covers 70 firms that have received money for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq from the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Defense. That's a large enough sample to provide an imperfect test of the Center for Public Integrity's underlying argument that contributions lead to contracts. If the corruption argument is true, then the size of campaign contributions should be strongly and positively correlated with the size of government contracts.

Running the numbers, the good news for the Center for Public Integrity is that there is indeed a positive correlation between contributions and contracts. The bad news is, the correlation coefficient turns out to be 0.192 and not statistically significant. To understand how weak those numbers are, go to this Web site and move your cursor to 0.2. An old joke among statistically minded social scientists is that "the world is correlated at 0.3."

A conscious effort to reward Bush cronies with lucrative government contracts would require a lot more coordination than the CPI uncovers.

Jeff

>There's just one problem: The CPI has no evidence to support

>its allegations.

Indeed. But just as was the case with the "Hillary-murdered-Vince-Foster" crowd, this crowd doesn't require any evidence to make all sorts of wild accusations against this Administration.

There is a tiny handful of companies capable of performing this reconstruction work in a place like Iraq. Halliburton and Bechtel have traditionally been used by the U.S. Government for exactly this work. The net profit they receive for it is relatively small and entirely in line with market prices.

None of this matters to them. They hate the Administration and they hate corporations, so they think that any accusation against them is fair game even if there is no evidence for the accusations.

Were there any coporations which contributed to Clinton-Gore which subsequently obtained government contracts?

Of course there were. The company I work for routinely contributes to both parties. The amounts vary and the GOP contributions are larger, but this makes sense considering their general support of big business. I’m sure my company is not the only one that hedges their bets in this manner. They want to ensure that they have access no matter who is in power.

Taking Kelman at face value is so naïve that it must be deliberate.

He is an academic policy wonk who did a stint in civil service. The record of his career documents his deep personal investment in seeing the procurement system as fair, just, and self-correcting. Critics will harp that this is mythologizing about the man, but it is simply reality that this is the way a satisfying career commitment works on people. One believes in what one does.

Outside his own perceptions, thus tainted, his “evidence” are the two (!) civil servants he consulted. Not surprisingly, they share his view.

Anyone who has watched the procurement process knows it is subject to influence far above the levels at which procurement administrators operate. The table can be tilted in how procurement specs are written, what it takes to qualify, how requirements are weighted. All this can go on without anything looking amiss.

I have seen it operate from both sides. In government construction contracts it is not difficult to prepare bids so as to favor a particular bidder. Likewise, in Navy contracts senior admirals have great freedom to insert bid clauses that make it effectively certain who will win the bid. Of course the language qualifies more than one contractor to bid, but it is crafted in such a way that of all those who qualify, the only strong one is the one the admiral wants to win.

D69 et al. will dismiss this as liberal fantasizing. But it’s just the data as I have seen it firsthand, from personal knowledge of government officials, contract winners, and contract losers. The winners fully agree this is how it operates.

Just a comment. Have you seen the contracts Halliburton won? Can you name anyone else who can do the job that Halliburton won the contract for at a lower rate and as well as Halliburton does and in the time frame of when Halliburton will? Can you equate the contracts you are familiar with to the one that Halliburton won? Would that other company be capable of doing the job to fulfill the contract safely and on time and so that it is done properly?

All these comments are based on the amount of the contract that Halliburton won. If no one else can do the job and can do the job as well and as expeditiously, then there should be no problem with Halliburton getting the contract.

Even policy wonks can be right some of the time.

> Can you name anyone else who can do the job that Halliburton

>won the contract for at a lower rate and as well as

>Halliburton does and in the time frame of when Halliburton

>will?

People close to the Halliburton deal believe the work could also have been done by Bechtel, Fluor, Foster-Wheeler, AMEC, the list goes on.

But the management interlocks and "favors owed" are not in place at those firms. And AMEC is not an American firm (UK-based -- so much for gratitude to Tony.)

>Just a comment. Have you seen the contracts Halliburton won?

Nope. Have you?

> Can you name anyone else who can do the job that Halliburton

>won the contract for at a lower rate and as well as

>Halliburton does and in the time frame of when Halliburton

>will?

We'll never know, Dick. And do you know WHY we will never know? We will never know because NO OTHER COMPANY WAS ALLOWED TO BID. Companies like Schlumbarger, which are just as capable when it comes to oil field services as Halliburton, didn't have an opportunity to demonstrate that they could do the job for less money or in less time. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BID. Got it?

>All these comments are based on the amount of the contract

>that Halliburton won. If no one else can do the job and can

>do the job as well and as expeditiously, then there should be

>no problem with Halliburton getting the contract.

Well, there is one problem with Halliburton getting the contract, besides the fact that it did NOT win the contract through competitive bidding as required by CICA. The problem is that Halliburton has in the past been found guilty of defrauding the U.S. government on other contracts. That being the case, if any company was considered for the kind of special treatment that Halliburton received in this instance, it certainly should NOT have been them, should it?

>Even policy wonks can be right some of the time.

Not in this case, however.

I don't believe you have any real interest in this issue. If I am wrong, however, I suggest you go the NY Times website and read Sunday's Op-Ed piece by Lucian Truscott on his recent visit to Iraq. He shares his own observations about the performance of the civilian contractors who have been hired at vast expense to rebuild Iraq. Most enlightening.

>We'll never know, Dick. And do you know WHY we will never

>know? We will never know because NO OTHER COMPANY WAS ALLOWED

>TO BID. Companies like Schlumbarger, which are just as

>capable when it comes to oil field services as Halliburton,

>didn't have an opportunity to demonstrate that they could do

>the job for less money or in less time. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT

>ALLOWED TO BID. Got it?

Why weren't they allowed to bid? Do you think the Government has ever before contracted with companies without a full bidding process due to time constraints, such as, oh, I don't know, say, when we're trying to build a war-torn country and if we sat around waiting for the bearucratic bidding process to be completed, even on an expedited basis, highly valuable time would be lost?

And it isn't just a matter of having the capability to provide oil field services but to do so in a very dangerous country which requires access to highly classified information. The government has traditionally used Halliburton for exactly this type of work - long before Dick Cheney was Vice President and long before insane ideologues like you were rabidly searching for conspiracies foisted upon an unwitting public by the big, bad millitary-industrial complex.

...and where was Dick Cheney working before he became v-p? Why Halliburton, of course.

>>We'll never know, Dick. And do you know WHY we will never

>>know? We will never know because NO OTHER COMPANY WAS

>ALLOWED

>>TO BID. Companies like Schlumbarger, which are just as

>>capable when it comes to oil field services as Halliburton,

>>didn't have an opportunity to demonstrate that they could do

>>the job for less money or in less time. BECAUSE THEY WERE

>NOT

>>ALLOWED TO BID. Got it?

>Why weren't they allowed to bid? Do you think the Government

>has ever before contracted with companies without a full

>bidding process due to time constraints, such as, oh, I don't

>know, say, when we're trying to build a war-torn country and

>if we sat around waiting for the bearucratic bidding process

>to be completed, even on an expedited basis, highly valuable

>time would be lost?

Gee, I don't know, Doug. Do YOU know of any specific examples of the situation you're describing? Or are you just making shit up again?

As Truscott observed during his recent visit to Iraq, if anyone at the Pentagon thinks the reconstruction process needs to be expedited he sure hasn't mentioned it to the contractors. According to Truscott, saying that the civilian contractors are moving at a snail's pace would be an enormous understatement.

>And it isn't just a matter of having the capability to provide

>oil field services but to do so in a very dangerous country

>which requires access to highly classified information.

Yeah? And why don't you tell us of any FACTS you know that suggest other oil field services companies would NOT be able to do that? And if you do NOT know of any such FACTS then what the FUCK are you yapping about? You really need to get it into your pointy little head that you can no longer make up a bunch of shit without anyone calling you on it.

>The

>government has traditionally used Halliburton for exactly this

>type of work - long before Dick Cheney was Vice President and

>long before insane ideologues like you were rabidly searching

>for conspiracies foisted upon an unwitting public by the big,

>bad millitary-industrial complex.

Sorry, Doug, but shit-asses like you who live for no other purpose than to act as shills for a bunch of corrupt gangsters like the Bushes simply cannot cover up the foul smell of what they are doing no matter how much of your own flatulence you spread around trying.

>>>We'll never know, Dick. And do you know WHY we will never

>>>know? We will never know because NO OTHER COMPANY WAS

>>ALLOWED

>>>TO BID. Companies like Schlumbarger, which are just as

>>>capable when it comes to oil field services as Halliburton,

>>Why weren't they allowed to bid? Do you think the

>Government

>>has ever before contracted with companies without a full

>>bidding process due to time constraints, such as, oh, I

>don't

>>know, say, when we're trying to build a war-torn country and

>>if we sat around waiting for the bearucratic bidding process

>>to be completed, even on an expedited basis, highly valuable

>>time would be lost?

>

>Gee, I don't know, Doug. Do YOU know of any specific examples

>of the situation you're describing? Or are you just making

>shit up again?

First of all, YOU are the one making the accusations of wrongdoing - that it was corrupt to award the contracts to Halliburton. As the one tossing around the accusations, it's your burden to present some support for it. Do you have any evidence that Cheney influenced the selection process? Do you have any evidence that the process wasn't exactly how the Clinton Administration Official described it in his NYT Op-Ed piece? Do you have any evidence that this process deviated in any way from the past when emergency work was needed? If not, how can you believe that there was anything corrupt about this process?

Second, the Clinton Administration has previously contracted companies on a no-bid process when time constraints or security concerns required that - including Halliburton. As set forth by Rich Lowrey, Contributing Editor of the National Review (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml):

<<The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.>>

>>And it isn't just a matter of having the capability to

>provide

>>oil field services but to do so in a very dangerous country

>>which requires access to highly classified information.

>

>Yeah? And why don't you tell us of any FACTS you know that

>suggest other oil field services companies would NOT be able

>to do that? And if you do NOT know of any such FACTS then

>what the FUCK are you yapping about? You really need to get

>it into your pointy little head that you can no longer make up

>a bunch of shit without anyone calling you on it.

Again, the Government made clear that it chose Halliburton for the same reasons the Clinton Administraiton did - because it had been previously given security clearance and had outstanding capabilities to do the job quickly - better than any other company. Since you're the one claiming that is false and is a lie, you have the obligation to demonstrate otherwise - so, which company could have done it as quickly with as much security?

>Sorry, Doug, but shit-asses like you who live for no other

>purpose than to act as shills for a bunch of corrupt gangsters

>like the Bushes simply cannot cover up the foul smell of what

>they are doing no matter how much of your own flatulence you

>spread around trying.

Given that liberal screamers like you have been screetching about Halliburton forever, and Bush's approval ratings does nothing but go up as you do it, you may want to re-consider your view of how effective your "advocacy" is.

"Sorry, Doug, but shit-asses like you who live for no other purpose than to act as shills for a bunch of corrupt gangsters like the Bushes simply cannot cover up the foul smell of what they are doing no matter how much of your own flatulence you spread around trying."

And here I thought Doug lived for the attention he got from us! Drat!

>And here I thought Doug lived for the attention he got from

>us! Drat!

It must be so difficult to write almost 3,900 posts when each one of them is filled with such thoughtful, substantive contributions - contributions which, uniformly, do so advance any discussion in which you participate and provide such thought-provoking and insightful ideas -- all while filling your "life" chasing around 19 year-old Asian prostitutes convincing them to give you discounts and trying to get to restaurants early to get the early bird special along with all the other wrinkled jewish grandmothers whom you aspire to be.

LOL!! Thanks, doug. You know I was just checking to make sure that you still read me.

I would post long and detailed replies as you do except that I know what a serious waste of time it is. Doug, this is an escort review website. Nobody really gives a shit about the nuances of opinion that you so religiously detail. Well, woodie does, but then, he is a repressed closet case too.

So, glad that you read what I post. After all, if nobody responded we would have to quit posting, wouldn't we?

>all while filling

>your "life" chasing around 19 year-old Asian prostitutes

>convincing them to give you discounts and trying to get to

>restaurants early to get the early bird special along with all

>the other wrinkled jewish grandmothers whom you aspire to be.

This is supposed to be an insult? :9