This thread will be used to debate impropriety in the awarding of contracts to rebuild
Iraq. As well as whether profit from rebuilding was the motivating factor for the war.

Did Halliburton get a sweet-heart deal due to Dick Cheney?

What about the other contracts?

I can't say for sure that there was any impropriety involved, but anytime you have no-bid contracts, it sure as heck looks suspicious.

With Halliburton, I'm less inclined to believe it really had anything directly to do with Cheney. Halliburton and it's subsidiaries really are about the biggest and best of it's kind when it comes to the kind of work on the oil wells that needs to be done. Not to say that being friendly to the administration was a hinderance.

Worldcom is another matter altogether, though. There are definately other communications companies out there that rival MCI in size, technology and experience. AT&T, SBC, Verizon, and Sprint come immediately to mind. There are surely others as well.

Add that to the fact that Bernie Ebers, Scott Sullivan and Worldcom as a whole were big contributors to the Republican party and you really have to wonder why this contract was awarded to a company that defrauded hundreds of thousands of people, and is under criminal investigation. Especially since this was a no-bid contract as well.

Yes, but then again there are legitimate reasons to have no-bid contracts. It helps the government to resist the urge to sacrifice quality of work for price for one...

Nation building isn't something to do on the cheap...

Here is an article of a Haliburton top dog defending their contract.

I saw Dick Cheney on Tim Russert this weekend and he was very credible in his comments. He has no financial ties to Haliburton and was not involved in the issuance of the contracts. He said it was the Army Corps of Engineers who makes the decisions in these matters.

Cheney is well informed and very good in his delivery. That guy should be President some day...

You're saying that we shouldn't let Iraq be rebuilt by the lowest bidder, but it's okay to do it with just about everything done here in the states?
Huh?

Nah, I'm not saying it's okay to do it here (annoys the heck out of me actually, I shouldn't have my head bounced against the ceiling of the car on a paved road ). Just that it's even worse to do it to the far worse off Iraqis.

I think the MCI contract is easy to explain--they're the ones who are bankrupt. This creates the driving force behind the need to get the business, but also removes many of the normal costs of doing business and eliminates the need to actually make a profit from it. This is the case in any industry--it is very difficult for 'legitimate' firms to compete against bankrupt ones--the playing field just isn't level.

They weren't just bankrupt they were corrupt! They weren't the most qualified or the most trustworthy so they didn't deserve to have the job. The fact that they won on a no bid contract is ridiculous.

As Ted Rall asked:

link

and how about Lucent?

link



Here is a whole slew of stories from Bechtel to Halliburton and beyond that you can try to dispute one by one if you want to try.

When it's bankrupting your country, it is.

There are plenty of people who bash Halliburton and the contract they received to work in Iraq, I have yet to see anyone cite another company that was as good as Halliburton in the fields of infrastructure rebuilding and oil.
Are there any? If not, then why not Halliburton?

I'm no business expert, but I know one thing: if you're choosing someone to perform an service for you, you don't just choose the company that's best in it's field with little or no competative bidding. That's just moronic if you want to save money. If you want to reward a company that's paying you $1,000,000 a year in pension money, however ...

If they're that good, they have nothing to fear from competitive bidding. That's how a free market works; there's no compelling argument, not even national security, that justifies creation of a command economy for oil and defense contractors.

That's the conventional wisdom on bids, but it simply does not work that way in real life. Take my roadwork example I mentioned above. I would bet that the road I'm referring to (the one that would take me to my grandmother's house) was paved on a low-bid contract, I'll give you one guess why I think that

All thing perfect, those in charge would have chosen the correct balance of quality and thrift. That road was the wrong mix.

So, one has to (as always) consider costs versus benefits, I personally think the benefits of a stable, prosperous Iraq (and if we play it right, a grateful one) are worth the costs.

Remember, the primary goal here is not to do this as cheaply as possible...

Frankly, much of this controversy over contracts is built purely on unsubstantiated allegations (note the Lucent story...) which is why I thought this topic needed it's own thread.



certainly isn't exactly a viable argument...

No, I don't want to try, because there isn't any point. Amazing, with all your rants, I have yet to see an alternative proposed. Come up with one, then we'll have something to discuss. Keep in mind that, by your own standards, these must be companies with an absolutely impeccable track record. Of course, even were you to come up with such a list (which is unlikely), it's likely to be considerably more expensive. Given your other posts on that topic, I'll leave that logical dilemma for you to solve on your own.

Actually my alternative has always been to set up a society where the Iraqi's do the work and get the pay without so much of our intrusion. It's not as if they don't know how...they are educated and they have been at it for thousands of years.

Not a bad alternative, if it could be pulled off politically. I think the danger would be the claim that we destroyed their country and left them to fix it. Rebuild the structures that were taken out in the war, and leave the rest to the Iraqi's? I wouldn't really have a problem with that, and it would have the added benefit of involving the Iraqi's in the solution, thereby getting their buy-in.

Although I would love to join this discussion, I greatly appreciate it if it were taken in the appropriate thread...

That is not to say we wouldn't have our responsibilities...we would still have to make sure they had the supplies and money where necessary, or at least the credit to get it themselves. It would do wonders for their current 60% unemployment rate and maybe they wouldn't have to speak English just to get a job in their own country.

TOPIC REMINDER:

QUOTE

This thread will be used to debate impropriety in the awarding of contracts to rebuild
Iraq. As well as whether profit from rebuilding was the motivating factor for the war.

Did Halliburton get a sweet-heart deal due to Dick Cheney?

What about the other contracts?

Some of what is being debated here may be better suited in this thread: The Occupation of Iraq: support or pull out?

Did anybody hear that Cheney is still getting deferred payments from Haliburton? Does that stink to high heaven? He claims there is no link and he's only getting paid what they owe him.

Now I'm hearing Haliburton went $200 million dollars over budget to restore the Iraq oilfields and they have to IMPORT $6 million dollars worth of oil a day. To top it off, we won't get oil money because of all things, Iraq doesn't have the oil Bush thought he did. Gee...go figger...

You've heard an awful lot, DR. Do you have any articles or links to support them? I personally haven't heard either of those claims (well, outside of here, of course )

Yes, he is getting paid what he is owed. The financial condition of Haliburton, assuming there is no bankruptcy, does not effect Cheney's payments. I don't smell anything here.

I found an excellent article on the use of PMC's, specifically Halliburton and it's subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root.
Link
IMO, it clearly spells out in a non-partisan way how, concerning Iraq, we are using the resources best suited for the job. The same resources that have been assisting the DOD since WWII.

I can see how, on the surface, for those who really want to believe it's true, that this could just be some grand scheme to reward Cheney's former company. But I just don't see the facts as supporting this theory.
Clearly Halliburton is among, if not the best in it's field. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a compelling argument on why we should have made contracts open to foreign companies.

It seems to me that such a move could have only PR benefits. I would say the administration gambled correctly that this would be wasted effort in much of the world. The only thing that will change the perception of imminent failure is ultimate success.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a compelling argument that these frequent statements that Halliburton is being improperly given tax-payer money because of Cheney's "connections" is anything more than unsubstantiated innuendo, that falls flat on it's face in light of facts...