quote:The e-mail -- dated March 5, 2003 -- says Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, approved the arrangement to award the contract to the oil-services company, the administration official said.
According to an e-mail excerpt in Time, the contract was:
"contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w[ith] VP's office."
The Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract three days later without seeking other bids, Time reports....
The "coordinated action" referred to, the senior administration official said, was "that of publicly announcing the contract decision that has already been made."
The heads-up would have been given because of Cheney's previous involvement in the company as chief executive officer, and the anticipated controversy over the noncompetitive bid, the official said. CNN & Time
Cheney claims his unexercised stock options in Halliburton and his deferred salary from the energy giant do not constitute ties with his former employer. However:
quote:
Without naming Cheney or Halliburton, the [Congressional Research] service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." CBS News
Is there a reason why the Democrats have not been able to successfully exploit the Halliburton-Cheney link to their political advantage?
Cheney supporters offer three arguments to explain away the Halliburton problem. First, they argue Halliburton is the only company capable of doing the job, so no-bid contracts are no big deal. Second, Halliburton received similar contracts under the Clinton administration. Third, Halliburton's profit margin from its Iraq/Afghanistan contracts have been fairly low.
If you are a Kerry supporter, what is your response to those arguments?
posted
I'm not a Kerry supporter, but I want to play anyway.
First, they argue Halliburton is the only company capable of doing the job, so no-bid contracts are no big deal.
So there should have been no problem putting the jobs up for bid, right? Halliburton would have stood far and away the best choice, and the American people wouldn't have to wonder about the connection. Instead, the no-bid contract is another example of this administration's "We'll do whatever we like and we don't have to tell anybody jack" attitude.
Second, Halliburton received similar contracts under the Clinton administration.
Which ones? How similar? Did they bid?
Third, Halliburton's profit margin from its Iraq/Afghanistan contracts have been fairly low.
Far as I can tell, this is true. An MSNBC article discusses their low profit margin and high level of inefficiency. So as long as they screw up, favoring them is OK? And the profit margin on legitimate expenses isn't the issue, it's the reports of overcharging, bribery, and general incompetence amongst their subsidiaries (notably Kellogg Brown & Root).
[ October 04, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just at the state level, we are required to send out for bids on any contract that exceeds $5000.00.
The whole thing stinks and always has - however, the entire system at that level is rife with this sort of backdoor dealing practice. We call them special interests, lobbyists, etc., and pretty much they set the course anymore.
what are you gonna do?
*shrugs*
So, in answer to your question, Beren, does anyone care? Sure - but the only thing I can see to do about this is to conduct our daily business as honestly, ethically, and fairly as possible. It'll take some gargantuan effort to clean things up at the higher levels of government.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I work for state government, Dag. We have pretty clear cut rules that I personally feel obligated to follow. Does this mean that nepotism and shady dealings don't occur in the state? Not at all. But I don't have to endorse it,nor practice it, nor even wink at it.
*shrugs*
And I also don't see any way of changing it, so the best I can do is keep my own backyard clean.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
These no-bid contracts are well within the bounds of the FAR. Congress has decided to allow no-bid contracts in certain situations. Therefore no-bid contracts are not per se "shady."
If your state has regulations requiring bids for anything over $5,000, then no-bid contracts in excess of that limit in your state would be shady.
posted
I think the Haliburton issue is not a new one. I am willing to bet that EVERY administration has had to "shake the hands" that handed them the checks that got them elected.
I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think the Haliburton issue is some new monster that crept up in this administration...
Maybe someone with more knowledge of "special interest" groups would know more.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: First, they argue Halliburton is the only company capable of doing the job, so no-bid contracts are no big deal.
So there should have been no problem putting the jobs up for bid, right? Halliburton would have stood far and away the best choice, and the American people wouldn't have to wonder about the connection. Instead, the no-bid contract is another example of this administration's "We'll do whatever we like and we don't have to tell anybody jack" attitude.
Since, the bid simply refers to the money Haliburton is willing to accept, it would be wrong to accept bids from companies you will never give the job to because they aren't capable of doing it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we KNOW that Halliburton is the ONLY company capable of doing the job? Surely there ARE other companies that can do the job. Haliburton isn't the ONLY provider of products and services to and for the Oil Industry. Right?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then make the case that another could handle it and that the existence of such a company requires a different contract award process.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't make the slightest bit of difference. Anyone who thought that Cheney wasn't personally profiting from the Iraq war was out of contact with reality anyways.
US Secretary of Defense Cheney hired Kellogg, Brown and Root to audit the military for jobs which could be taken over by civilian contractors. And strangely enough, that civilian contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root found such jobs. Even stranger, Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded 90+% of those suddenly created "civilian contractors can do this" jobs. And strangest of all, when Cheney left his government job, he became head of Haliburton which through an incredible coincidence just happens to own Kellogg, Brown and Root.
posted
I'm surprised a few certain individuals haven't gone on a tirade about how biased and false CBS is.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
