This is an article I posted in another thread but wanted to expand the scope of my comments.

Companies bid on rebuilding Iraq Halliburton, Bechtel benefit from experience and political ties

One of my questions is about (don't laugh) ethics. Will they ever be returning to American government? (and believe me I am not claiming that the Clinton administration made ethical breakthroughs)

Is it ethical to allow companies with direct connections to the Bush administration (i.e Halliburton) to win the contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq?

Also is it the right policy to have these things dominated by US for-profit companies (and in many instances Texas companies). Shouldn't even the rebuilding process become international. Shouldn't this be used as a way to try to rebuild the Iraqi economy by fostering Iraqi businesses that are not merely franchises of American corporations?





These consecutive paragraphs from the article highlight my concerns. Do you share these concerns? Or are these rightfully our spoils of war? Or is this the best way to go about rebuilding Iraq and it only happens to reward allies of the Bush administration?

Is it ethical to EXCLUDE a company simply because it has had ties to present government officials?

Should the Texas Rangers be excluded from the plays-offs while Bush is President?

Of course there are always ethical questions, but every big company has its fingers in the pie. Don't think that other companies will be dismissed out of hand because they were never employers of Bush or Cheney (or whoever else).

Every company should have a fair shake at bidding, and that includes Halliburton.



Would you have the process drag on for 6 months so that everyone has a fair shake?

What is your proposal for an equitable solution?

And where is the reference for "profiteering"? "Spoils of War" is some journalists sensationalistic term.

I thought the whole problem with Cheney's VP nomination was that he had all that Halliburton stock. Dems said "Sell that stock!" So he did. Then they said, "Cheney made a bunch of money off Halliburton stock before the stock market tanked!" As thought they had nothing to do with it. Now Eeyore is speculating about the President's motives based on his vice-president's relation to a company in which he has no stock. This is what is so galling about the left--it's not as though you even require proof. Motive is enough. And if it turns out that Bush entirely writes off the oil, that America sees no benefit from the liberation of Iraq where oil is concerned, you'll say, "Bush screwed up, and that's why gas prices are so high." So it's win-win for you--either way, you'll have some way to hang him, and truth be damned. Excellent democratic strategy.

Right. We should pay for the costs of waging the war, and then we should pay non-US companies oodles of money to do the reconstruction.

That's called having your cake (refusing to participate in the war) and eating it too (lining up for juicy reconstruction contracts). The Europeans made their bed, they can sleep in it. I hope they get a backache.

Hey the family members of employees of radio stations and thier parent companies are ineligible for prizes in most of their contests, I was just wondering who else thought some type of thoughtfulness that did not involve rewarding one's friends should work.

Cyclone if you are going to get all high and mighty about proof, how about proving that at the behest of democrats (and not rules in place that regulate our government officials) Cheney sold his stock. Why would Democrats have anything to do with the nomination of a vice-presidential candidate?

The article demonstrates a pretty clear relationship between the present Bush administration and Halliburton. I do require proof to believe things. I find it galling that I provide the proof and that you accuse me of making baseless accusations.

AMlord

Yes, I think it might be good policy to exlude a corporation because of its close ties to the administration. Let's not be shocked when Halliburton wins a lion's share of these contracts.

Gandolph

I don't know what bed you think the European's made but if you want to be hailed as a liberator with no base intentions, it is best not to reward yourself for waging the war.

No, but I don't think it's too much to ask that companies be expected to compete for those contracts, and that doesn't seem to be happening. For example, Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) seems to have been awarded no-bid contracts worth nearly a billion dollars for firefighting and general logistical support (source). The whole bidding process is supposedly designed to make sure contracts are awarded fairly, on the basis of competitiveness rather than nepotism, and it's being bypassed. How is that ethical?