« As If She Wanted To Change Her Skin | Main | Bolton Hearing On Now »

May 12, 2005

Comments

The VP and Halliburton's WoT contracts? The slightest coincidence. Halliburton has no competitors in the market.

And if that's not convincing, consider this: Halliburton developed its cozy out-sourcing relationship with the DoD during the Clinton years.

Halliburton has no competitors in the market.

Completely false, particularly w/r/t Iraq construction contracts. Next silly attempt at deflection, please.

And if that's not convincing, consider this: Halliburton developed its cozy out-sourcing relationship with the DoD during the Clinton years.

Complete with Clinton tu quoque fallacy! Textbook. Priceless.

Which market doesn't Halliburton and KBR had competitors for? Why does the government pay private businesses to do work that the DOD was able to do for far less when it handled the work?

And apparently all attempts to reform programs like social security will be cast as attempts to abolish them. I think we had a discussion about manufacturing fear to demonize the other recently that might pertain to your treatment of this issue.

And apparently all attempts to reform programs like social security will be cast as attempts to abolish them.

Particularly when that continues to be the stated goal of many conservative elected officials. Particularly when none of Bush's so-called "plans" do anything other than queue up more debt.

I think we had a discussion about manufacturing fear to demonize the other recently that might pertain to your treatment of this issue.

Pure nonsense of which you should be ashamed, and I think you know it. Demonization requires a level of dishonesty and ad hominem argument which is simply not present here.

I think we had a discussion about manufacturing fear to demonize the other recently that might pertain to your treatment of this issue.

Is that what you really think I'm doing here?

I saw the Ike quote on Mark Kleiman first, I think. Haven't followed the Kos links, but Kleiman had some other good Ike stuff about the Supreme Court. Letters to his brother.

Thinking about Republicans 1940-70. Eisenhower and Nixon were at least moderates on domestic issues, and on foreign policy favored coalitions, negotiations, containment and compromise more than much of their own party. However I think Eisenhower encountered more resistance within the party than Nixon, and by the early 70s we had the Republican Party we see today, the one that focuses more on loyalty to a man than fidelity to principle(even if very wrong principle, i.e. John Birch Society). Probably a degree of desperation rising from long minority status.

I don't get where this notion that KBR didn't bid on anything. The work they're doing now is from what I can see done under a contract vehicle, which they bid on along with some other companies that, needless to say, lost. From what I've heard the only thing remotely controversial is that the DoD didn't put the contract up for recompete when the original scope was spent out.

Slarti, cite?

There's this news today on the Halliburton front:

The U.S. Army said on Tuesday it had awarded $72 million in bonuses to Halliburton Co. for logistics work in Iraq but had not decided whether to give the Texas company bonuses for disputed dining services to troops.

Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, said in a statement it had given Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown & Root ratings from "excellent" to "very good" for six task orders for work supporting U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Army said its Award Fee Board in Iraq had met in March and had agreed to pay KBR bonuses for work it did in support of U.S. forces there.

The Army said in a statement later that while it had given the company an additional $72 million, it had denied KBR $10.1 million in bonuses and not paid the maximum allowed on any of the task orders.

"We have protected the taxpayer FIRST," said the Army in a statement released later, pointing out this paragraph had been "inadvertently left off" the original news release.

Protected the taxpapey first? $72 million in bonuses is protecting us?

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a vocal critic of Halliburton's performance in Iraq, said Halliburton did not deserve a bonus.

"It is outrageous that the Bush Administration would give Halliburton a bonus after we have seen its overcharges, sloppy accounting and kick-back schemes in Iraq," Lautenberg said. "Giving Halliburton a bonus is like giving your worst employee a raise."

KBR's logistics deal with the U.S. military has been in the spotlight from the outset in Iraq, with allegations by auditors that they overcharged for some work, including dining services.


Here, to start. This, on the other hand, is far more detail than anyone sane would want to obtain. Be sure and read all three parts.

Slarti, thanks for the cite of my post about KBR's contract. I think it's murkier than that.

In the early days of the war, it was not only proper to use the most expedient contract vehicle possible to provide logistics support, it was absolutely necessary to save lives by avoiding delays in contracts. At that time the best vehicle available was to issue a delivery order against a competitively awarded contract with KBR.

The reason that I call out the use of a delivery order is that the government always has the possibility of using a different vehicle, since the parent contract doesn't obligate the government to use that contractor in the future. The DO process is a very streamlined process compared to a full competitive rebid; since the arrangement is already in place and the terms and conditions are already set, all the government has to do is to specify how much of a pre-set item (widgets, consulting hours, other services) they want to order and when they want it.

The controversy is that we have been in Iraq for over two years and still using this mechanism, rather than opening up parts of the process to other contractors through a rebid. Plus of course KBR has been accused of using some controversial pricing.

Thanks Tim, but what about the so-called whistle-blower?

The FBI has made a formal request to interview the Army Corps of Engineers chief contracting officer who has alleged her agency unfairly awarded no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars to a Halliburton subsidiary for work in Iraq, law enforcement sources said Thursday.

The FBI interview of Bunnatine Greenhouse, who has made the allegations, has not yet taken place. Law enforcement sources also said several documents have been gathered by the FBI related to the no-bid contracts, but they did not characterize the nature of the documents.

Anyone know what happened in that investigation? Is she now flipping burgers somewhere?

Tim, I think "controversial pricing" in this case means other people cannot compete (at least in the oilfield aspect of the work). You may have had other things in mind when you said that, and I'd be curious to hear what those things are.

I work in Defense, and contract vehicles similar to this one are fairly common, but the exact circumstances aren't. I'm wondering, though, if anyone would have been quite so exercised over any other company having this same arrangement; after all, it's hardly unprecedented, even in other branches of the government.

"Particularly when that continues to be the stated goal of many conservative elected officials."

Many? Are we talking national figures here, because I can't think of very many whose state goal is to abolish Social Security.

I think we had a discussion about manufacturing fear to demonize the other recently that might pertain to your treatment of this issue.

Is that what you really think I'm doing here?


Not just here, but every time the Social Security issue is raised you insist that Republican efforts at reform should be seen as attempt to abolish Social Security. But I could be overreacting, I have been especially testy lately.

Even Halliburtonwatch doesn't have anything new to say about it, Edward.

I don't believe in the sincerity of the Bush administration on Social Security because they have been deceptive and dishonest about so many other things. For example, the "Healthy Forests" act is supposed to be an efffort to reduce fire hazzards and restore forests which have been damaged by decades of mismanagement. The decades of mismangement part is true enough, as is the presence of excessive fire hazard.However, the law istself is not based on legitimate forestry science. It is simply anotherr subsidy for the timber companies. All the efforts of scientists to influence the policy were rejected in favor of pressure from the timber companies. This kind of dishonest staement of inntent or dihonest labeling of policy changes is typical of the Bush administration. i can't prove they want to end Social Security, but there is plenty of proof that they cnnot be taken at their word on important matters. Suspicion is reasonable, based on their record of behavior.
Please excuse thhe typos. The font is so small and gray on this computer that I can barely read it.

I don't believe in the sincerity of the Bush administration on Social Security because they have been deceptive and dishonest about so many other things. For example, the "Healthy Forests" act is supposed to be an efffort to reduce fire hazzards and restore forests which have been damaged by decades of mismanagement. The decades of mismangement part is true enough, as is the presence of excessive fire hazard.However, the law istself is not based on legitimate forestry science. It is simply anotherr subsidy for the timber companies. All the efforts of scientists to influence the policy were rejected in favor of pressure from the timber companies. This kind of dishonest staement of inntent or dihonest labeling of policy changes is typical of the Bush administration. i can't prove they want to end Social Security, but there is plenty of proof that they cnnot be taken at their word on important matters. Suspicion is reasonable, based on their record of behavior.
Please excuse thhe typos. The font is so small and gray on this computer that I can barely read it.

Oops. I didn't mean to post twice.

Oops. I didn't mean to post twice.

"Oops. I didn't mean to post twice.

Posted by: lily | May 12, 2005 01:50 PM

Oops. I didn't mean to post twice.

Posted by: lily | May 12, 2005 01:51 PM"

Was this intentional or unintentional comedy?

OH NO!

we've become an echo chamber

(Mac, that's a freebie)

Oops. I didn't mean to post twice.

I never used to have that problem when I wrote angry letters to the editor, but then again none of those letters ever appeared in the newspaper :)

OH NO! we've become an echo chamber

I suspect Edward_ messed around with the scripting for the POST button just so he could make that joke.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad