Peter_Puget Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 ..don't let facts get in the way of your theories... Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr666 Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 There's just one problem: The CPI has no evidence to support its allegations. I love when people do this. It is like writing a thesis that little green men live 5 miles underground, and will eventually rule the world. Do you think all the Democrats would believe this!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 All the report says is that you cannot link campaign contributions to contracts. What it doesn't talk about is conflict of interest- how members of the Administration benefit from appreciation of the stock they hold in these companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Pine Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Bechtel and Halliburton have given millions in political contributions, but the top 10 lists don't support the notion that those campaign contributions were responsible for their winning bids. This quote from the article implies that Haliburton had to do competitive bidding to get the job. I was under the impression that their contracts were awarded without bids. But maybe that's because I am just a robot. Does anybody have any substantiation either way about whether there were any sorts of competitive bidding procedures for the reconstruction work in Iraq? If so, were foreign companies allowed to bid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Peter, maybe you should see Glassgowkiss for some massage therapy, your knee seems to be jerking again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, which in 1992 authored a study that concluded it would be good to privatize billions of dollars worth of military work. Of course they said it was a terrific idea. So they helped design the architecture for privatizing a lot of what happens today in the Pentagon when we have military engagements. In 1992, the Department of Defense, under then Secretary of Defense Cheney, commissioned the Halliburton subsidiary to do the study. In 1995, Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton. So why would a defense secretary, former chief of staff to a president and former member of Congress with no business experience become the CEO of a multibillion-dollar oil services company. He was brought in to raise their government contract profile and he did. It's more of the revolving door to privatize government operations and reward political connections. It's not a Rep vs Dem thing, the Reps just are better at it. Halliburton nearly doubled the value of federal contracts it received – from $1.2 to $2.3 billion – during the five years Cheney was its CEO. And yes they got a huge "no bid" contract regarding services for the current Iraq conflict. The current contract is worth $948 million, but it is open ended and the full contract amount is likely to reach $7 billion. A no other US companies got a chance to bid, never mind foreign companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Off_White said: Peter, maybe you should see Glassgowkiss for some massage therapy, your knee seems to be jerking again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.