PDA

View Full Version : Honest Transparent Government Update



fes_fsa
27th January 10, 09:58 AM
this month, the Bush Obama Administration awarded a $25 million federal contract to Haliburton a company owned by a Democrat campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, FOXNews has learned (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/).

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs183.snc3/19063_101832213182385_100000668192832_58115_446730 4_n.jpg

weren't leftists mad about this sort of thing?

57ltcAudSzc

it was bad enough when Bush did it. but when someone campaigns against this... it makes the hypocrisy seem so much worse than it may be. sure, Haliburton made sense--we're invading oil territory, let's hire some oil guys and make some money in the process. but c'mon.... lawyers? this whole thing is hilarious.

Phrost
27th January 10, 10:03 AM
Apologists incoming!

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 10:28 AM
i have no idea how they're gonna try to spin it.

foxnews made the report on Monday and i've been searching since then to find a different source on this.

so far... no takers. people are gonna ignore it. kind of like they ignored the fact that he got the Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything.

i don't expect to get many posts in this thread either.

WarPhalange
27th January 10, 10:44 AM
Obama makes baby Jesus cry. He's fallen so short of what he could have been. It's hard to tell if he just fed us lies like everyone else or if he has fallen from grace due to being on top and wanting to stay there.


so far... no takers. people are gonna ignore it. kind of like they ignored the fact that he got the Nobel Peace Prize for not doing anything.


Err... no, it wasn't ignored, it's just that the common consensus was "WTF?" including Obama himself saying that.

EvilSteve
27th January 10, 11:20 AM
Apologists incoming!

I'm done making apologies for this guy. If I wanted a republican in democrat's clothing I would have voted for Hillary. She probably would have done a better job of it anyway.

I'm with Poops on this one. He has fallen so far short of the mark it's pathetic. And I remember, two summers ago, having a discussion with some friends who were rabid Obama supporters and saying "Don't you worry that this guy is just going to be a liberal George W Bush?"

Boy was I wrong- he isn't liberal at all!

Madgrenade
27th January 10, 11:35 AM
They're all a bunch of scam scamming scammers. Scameeeeeeeescamscam. Wheres the story? "Obama's a full o' shit scammer." O rly? Hands up who's surprised. Surely not being a scammer would cause a national outcry! scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamsc amscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam

EvilSteve
27th January 10, 11:51 AM
That post is one letter off from being a Monty Python sketch.

Madgrenade
27th January 10, 11:53 AM
Its o.k. Just so long as no one fulfils the prophecy.

Phrost
27th January 10, 11:55 AM
Yay.

Madgrenade
27th January 10, 12:05 PM
Look at how many guests are on this thread as well. Its Obamas internet popularity monitors having a collective diahorrea attack.

Obama Flunky: Oh my Gaaaaad, people are starting to hate Obama as bad as they hated Bush! What!? That's racist! How do we make people love him again?

Voice at Back: You could try, y' know, doin' what you said you'd do before the election.

All Present: BWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHhahhahahahhHhah ahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahha hahah.............hhhhuuuugnnnnnnhh......aaaaahhhh hahahhahhahahhhahahahahahhahahahahhahahhaahhahaha!

Obama Flunky: You just don't understand politics, young man. Go and make me some more cwoofee while I come up with some REAL answers.

HappyOldGuy
27th January 10, 12:15 PM
This is worth investigating, but before Fes dies of panty bunching, lets remember that those Haliburton contracts were for 21 billion, with a B.

EvilSteve
27th January 10, 12:24 PM
Honestly I think Obama's biggest failure is not having the cojones to bust some heads to get stuff done. Seriously, he let a couple of Senate hold-outs stymie his healthcare plan and turn it from something that could have worked into something that will likely fuck over the very people it was supposed to help.

Bush & Co were assholes, but they got shit done. Shit being the operative word, but they got it done.

Democrats have never been as good at marching in lock step.

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 12:26 PM
i'm not defending Bush's no-bid contracts with Haliburton (who had been hired under no-bid contracts even during Clinton's term). business is business, as far as i'm concerned. and as far as i know, they were the only guys around with the capability and resources to pull off the jobs we needed them to do.

at least Bush didn't run a campaign saying, and i quote (loosely), "i'm putting an end to non emergency no-bid contracts above $25000."

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 12:34 PM
I'm done making apologies for this guy. If I wanted a republican in democrat's clothing I would have voted for Hillary. She probably would have done a better job of it anyway.

I'm with Poops on this one. He has fallen so far short of the mark it's pathetic. And I remember, two summers ago, having a discussion with some friends who were rabid Obama supporters and saying "Don't you worry that this guy is just going to be a liberal George W Bush?"

Boy was I wrong- he isn't liberal at all!

i had and still have SOME hope for Obama. he's currently talking about a spending freeze. (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/26/tepid-reception-for-obama-spending-freeze/)

there are also those Wall Street taxes/clawbacks that the GOP has been bleating about.

he needs to tie those two principles together in a deficit fighting effort and insist that you can't have one without the other.

if he'd pitch it, he'd win. any Republican that would dare oppose those measures will go down in certain defeat come November.

Ajamil
27th January 10, 01:07 PM
For my vote, he seriously better pick it up in the coming years. On this case specifically I'm still waiting to hear the other side's spin before I decide. Still, Obama's not even choosing things I can easily rationalize as necessary. Why specifically point out Bush's no-bid contracts, and lack of transparency if all you're going to do is same old same old? Granted there's several orders of magnitude compared to this bid and Bush's, but if the common buzz is true he's done much worse at being transparent.

HappyOldGuy
27th January 10, 02:27 PM
No bid contracts are necessary under certain circumstances. The bid process itself is expensive and time consuming for both the agency and the bidding organizations, so many contracts are too small to justify putting them out to bid.

At 25 million, that's not going to be the issue here.

The other common example I'm familiar with is renewing existing contracts. As long as the existing structure is still workable and the customer is satisfied with the service, it's fairly common for support contracts not to get put back up for competitive bids. Besides having a workable arrangement, there is often also an additional expense and hassle switching to a new vendor.

This is what is being claimed in the Afghanistan bid. It may very well be true. It may also be bullshit. I have no idea, and FOX didn't do the research to prove it one way or another. You would need to look at the guidelines for the bidding process and see whether they were followed, and also see if there had been changes made to those guidelines and if so why. (that's where you would find a smoking gun if you were going to find one). So it's worth investigating, but right now, that's all.

Phrost
27th January 10, 02:36 PM
I just want to know how committed to an agenda you can be if you've got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and still don't manage to get anything done.

Hell, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats didn't ram through every possible initiative they could think of; from gay marriage to a free chicken in every pot.

tom.f
27th January 10, 02:43 PM
Based on everything you can find out on FOX, Obama is not only, not doing anything but flip flopping, he is also destroying the government, ruining the Constitution, Destroying the Economy, and he is a racist apologist, Japanese Bowing, Saudi kissing, do nothing wrong do'er. (I forgot about him being a secret Muslim and foriegner) I still like him though.

Phrost
27th January 10, 02:48 PM
Uhh, why would you watch Fox News except for entertainment or Shep Smith?

Obama's presidency is limp. He had the country's prom dress off, panties around her ankles, and just couldn't bring himself to getting the job done.

Now she's starting to hang around the football team to find a more virile suitor.

tom.f
27th January 10, 02:51 PM
I just want to know how committed to an agenda you can be if you've got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and still don't manage to get anything done.

Hell, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats didn't ram through every possible initiative they could think of; from gay marriage to a free chicken in every pot.

Now there are 59 different ways the Dems can all disagree. The Republicans (all 41) agree that nothing at all must be done. I think this is why they have always been able to get nothing done. The only thing that they all agree on is that it's fun to sit on commitees and ask stupid questions that have no point, and it's also time for another raise. It would be a pleasure to be able to vote that they all need to return their wages for failing to do their job.

WarPhalange
27th January 10, 03:08 PM
I just want to know how committed to an agenda you can be if you've got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and still don't manage to get anything done.

It is my understanding that a system for government-run health care isn't something you just crank out in a day.

HappyOldGuy
27th January 10, 03:24 PM
I just want to know how committed to an agenda you can be if you've got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and still don't manage to get anything done.

Hell, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats didn't ram through every possible initiative they could think of; from gay marriage to a free chicken in every pot.

I think part of it was Obama not getting the old quip, "the other party is not the enemy, they are the opposition. The other branches are the enemy." He was way too deferential with the congress from the get go. Especially on healthcare.

Although part of it also is that even though the democrats had the majority, that doesn't mean that they had majority positions for all of the things you think of as democratic positions. Many of them are only slightly majority positions even within the party.

Feryk
27th January 10, 03:33 PM
Hell, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats didn't ram through every possible initiative they could think of; from gay marriage to a free chicken in every pot.

You make it sound like they are done. They are just getting started.

Feryk
27th January 10, 03:35 PM
I would put a lot of Obama's political ineffectualness down to being a political n00b. He truly believes he can build the necessary consensus to make real bipartisan changes.

Eventually, he'll realize that the only way to get shit done is to force it on people. That's when the left will finally be happy.

cyrijl
27th January 10, 03:40 PM
Now there are 59 different ways the Dems can all disagree. The Republicans (all 41) agree that nothing at all must be done. I think this is why they have always been able to get nothing done. The only thing that they all agree on is that it's fun to sit on commitees and ask stupid questions that have no point, and it's also time for another raise. It would be a pleasure to be able to vote that they all need to return their wages for failing to do their job.

Passing more shit law is not exactly what I want congress to be doing. It may be odd to think, but perhaps we don't need more new laws. If they are 'doing nothing', maybe it is because they think the gov't does enough already.

cyrijl
27th January 10, 03:41 PM
I would put a lot of Obama's political ineffectualness down to being a political n00b. He truly believes he can build the necessary consensus to make real bipartisan changes.

Eventually, he'll realize that the only way to get shit done is to force it on people. That's when the left will finally be happy.


Yes, and that is what is scary.

Cullion
27th January 10, 04:12 PM
Obama is America's Blair.

Don't you worry about whether or not he's politically effective. When a few banks need hundreds of billions of dollars, he's there like superman.

He's doing exactly what his handlers want him to do, very effectively.

tom.f
27th January 10, 04:28 PM
Obama is America's Blair.

Don't you worry about whether or not he's politically effective. When a few banks need hundreds of billions of dollars, he's there like superman.

He's doing exactly what his handlers want him to do, very effectively.

This is sad but I'm beginning to think it's true.

HappyOldGuy
27th January 10, 04:33 PM
Obama is America's Blair.

Don't you worry about whether or not he's politically effective. When a few banks need hundreds of billions of dollars, he's there like superman.

He's doing exactly what his handlers want him to do, very effectively.
Well Blair was the UK's Clinton, and Obama is another DLC product, but really I don't think the parallels are that strong.

Except for the part about being pawn to the investment banks, but of course that is everybody.

Commodore Pipes
27th January 10, 05:55 PM
weren't reasonable citizens and leftists mad about this sort of thing?




Fixed for accuracy.

Sun Wukong
27th January 10, 06:39 PM
Wow, a contract was awarded to a democrat? amazing. truly.

Sun Wukong
27th January 10, 06:44 PM
You people don't see the difference between awarding a no-bid contract to a democrat and awarding a no bid contract to the company your VP used to be CEO of?

The difference between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats eat their own as a rule.

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 08:44 PM
No bid contracts are necessary under certain circumstances.
like Haliburton. i'm being serious here.


The bid process itself is expensive and time consuming for both the agency and the bidding organizations, so many contracts are too small to justify putting them out to bid.
it doesn't matter how small the contract is. unless there is only one company that can do the job, it goes out to bid.


The other common example I'm familiar with is renewing existing contracts. As long as the existing structure is still workable and the customer is satisfied with the service, it's fairly common for support contracts not to get put back up for competitive bids. Besides having a workable arrangement, there is often also an additional expense and hassle switching to a new vendor.
but this isn't a case of pre-existing contracts. Checchni is one of MANY humanitarian foreign assistance companies operating worldwide.


This is what is being claimed in the Afghanistan bid. It may very well be true. It may also be bullshit. I have no idea, and FOX didn't do the research to prove it one way or another. You would need to look at the guidelines for the bidding process and see whether they were followed, and also see if there had been changes made to those guidelines and if so why. (that's where you would find a smoking gun if you were going to find one). So it's worth investigating, but right now, that's all.
here you go. (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/05-11/html/Subpart%206_3.html)

my brain is rattling in my head trying to pick that apart. i'll have to sleep and get back to it when i'm not all wired.

but some talking points...

Haliburton is the only company in the Middle East who can do what they do. they're an indefinite quantities contract, or IQC--they provide their services on demand during a stated period. Bush renewed their contract BECAUSE they are who they are.

Checchi is one of MANY consulting companies that provide humanitarian aid and relief to countries in crisis as well as helping to establish democracy and uphold human rights. i find it very shady that they are not a sole source for this type of service... and yet they were also designated an IQC.

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 08:50 PM
Wow, a contract was awarded to a democrat? amazing. truly.

i'm not knocking that the contract was awarded. business is just that: business.

it's the hypocrisy that i'm pointing out. you don't get to scream about "sweetheart deals" and then one year later make one of your own.

no sir. not on my watch.


You people don't see the difference between awarding a no-bid contract to a democrat and awarding a no bid contract to the company your VP used to be CEO of?

The difference between Republicans and Democrats: Democrats eat their own as a rule.

awarding?

they simply RENEWED a contract with Halliburton. nevermind that it was Clinton, a Democrat, who hired Halliburton originally to provide services in Bosnia for our troops.

jkdbuck76
27th January 10, 09:28 PM
fes,

you gotta' understand that politicians are so crooked that when they die, they can't be buried; they have to be screwed into the ground.

fes_fsa
27th January 10, 10:54 PM
oh, i don't doubt that there's nothing but crooks on Capitol Hill.

i just like pointing out their hypocrisy. i did it when Clinton was in Office, i did it when Bush took over, and i'm doing it now.

this doesn't mean i'm anti-Obama. i didn't vote for him, but he is still MY President.

HappyOldGuy
28th January 10, 12:08 AM
Fes, I think you missed the detail that they already had that exact contract. From the Bush administration. This was a renewal.


Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "As the incumbent," Fredericks wrote in an e-mail Monday, "Checchi was rewarded a renewed contract to allow for work on the ground to continue."


Any multi million dollar no bid contract needs to be scrutinized. But we aren't anywhere near finger pointing country yet.

Ajamil
28th January 10, 12:27 AM
Thx for the link - those guidelines seem to have so many loopholes just about anything could become no-bid if written up nicely. Exempt from bidding simply by a statute?

Zendetta
28th January 10, 12:40 AM
You may (or may not) be onto something calling shenanigans on the Obama-ites, but...


like Haliburton. i'm being serious here....

Haliburton is the only company in the Middle East who can do what they do. they're an indefinite quantities contract, or IQC--they provide their services on demand during a stated period. Bush renewed their contract BECAUSE they are who they are.

... your view on Halliburton is whack.

True, they are the best folks to nation-build a Brave New MacWorld. But its not quite like "events happened, Halliburton was there for the people of Iraq".

The reality is that the Vice President, former Halliburton CEO, drove American Foreign Policy straight into the maw of Halliburton's (and others) business plan.

There's the staggering dollar amount, plus the fraud, plus the thousands dead and maimed.

That's soul-rotting corruption on a truly massive scale.

Hedley LaMarr
28th January 10, 12:55 AM
This is like how I said I was never ever going to drink, but then I went to college. It's still hypocritical, but I can deal with it.

Sun Wukong
28th January 10, 02:53 AM
This is a no bid contract for 24 Mil dollars. Do you even know what it's for? That article doesn't state what is being paid for.

Not to mention that Halliburton's no bid military contracts exceeded 20 BILLION dollars.

Do you know the difference between a MILLION and a BILLION? It's only a factor of a fucking THOUSAND. That's not even 1% of what halliburton was given.

I suppose scope is irrelevant right? OH but Obama's profiteering with his 24 million dollar contract that he's probably never even seen because it's so fucking small.

You know what our national defense budget is? yeah, that amount is in NO way significant.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 02:57 AM
Fes, I think you missed the detail that they already had that exact contract. From the Bush administration. This was a renewal.

Any multi million dollar no bid contract needs to be scrutinized. But we aren't anywhere near finger pointing country yet.

yeah. i kind of expected them to spin the renewal angle.

Haliburton was renewed because they could be there IMMEDIATELY to start rebuilding a war torn country, AS WELL AS provide water, energy, put out oil fires, etc.,

another company may have had the resources to do what Haliburton does, BUT, and this is a big BUT, would they have been able to get there in the time we needed them? how long would our soldiers and those Middle Eastern civilians have to wait to get supplies? how long would the people have to live in hovels with no power or water?

it was an emergency, so Haliburton was designated IQC.

you cannot say the same about Checchi. it was not an emergency. Afghanistan's justice system isn't so fucked up you need $25 million crack team of lawyers teaching them American policies that their people might not adopt or even accept. but they were designated IQC to speed up the no-bid process.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 03:07 AM
You may (or may not) be onto something calling shenanigans on the Obama-ites, but...



... your view on Halliburton is whack.

True, they are the best folks to nation-build a Brave New MacWorld. But its not quite like "events happened, Halliburton was there for the people of Iraq".

The reality is that the Vice President, former Halliburton CEO, drove American Foreign Policy straight into the maw of Halliburton's (and others) business plan.

There's the staggering dollar amount, plus the fraud, plus the thousands dead and maimed.

That's soul-rotting corruption on a truly massive scale.

i've been there/done that re: Haliburton during Bush's administration.

you won't see me denying that they're a pretty shady group. and it would be down right NAIVE to say they did it for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

i accept all of this.

now... can ANY OF YOU name another company NOT owned by Haliburton that is capable of doing EVERYTHING they do, with the resources to do it on a global scale?

Sun Wukong
28th January 10, 03:10 AM
now... can ANY OF YOU name another company NOT owned by Haliburton that is capable of doing EVERYTHING they do, with the resources to do it on a global scale?


with or without unlimited financing from the pentagon?

I'm betting Donald Trump would be game.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 03:15 AM
This is a no bid contract for 24 Mil dollars. Do you even know what it's for? That article doesn't state what is being paid for.

Not to mention that Halliburton's no bid military contracts exceeded 20 BILLION dollars.

Do you know the difference between a MILLION and a BILLION? It's only a factor of a fucking THOUSAND. That's not even 1% of what halliburton was given.

I suppose scope is irrelevant right? OH but Obama's profiteering with his 24 million dollar contract that he's probably never even seen the contract for because it's so fucking small.

You know what our national defense budget is? yeah, that amount is in NO way significant.
yeah. let's spin it by saying it wasn't that much. a promise is a promise dude.



Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal con-
tracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.
from page 3 in Obama's Fiscal Plan. (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:pr5tmL49F9AJ:www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf+obama+policy+fiscal&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 03:37 AM
with or without unlimited financing from the pentagon?

I'm betting Donald Trump would be game.

oh fuck yeah.

Donald Trump definitely has the money to do that. but does he have the know how? no.

but does he even need the know how? fuck no.

he's a VERY smart guy. he'd get somebody else to do it. guess who'd most likely get the contract.

that's right. Haliburton.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 03:55 AM
Thx for the link - those guidelines seem to have so many loopholes just about anything could become no-bid if written up nicely. Exempt from bidding simply by a statute?

i think that basically if you had a contract to do work, you do it until the contract is up. if you're the only company that can provide certain services they put you in the catergory of "sole source" and file you away for a rainy day, so that if and when the day comes that they actually NEED you, they can just give one big job to your company... instead of going to a bunch of little companies can make up what your company can do.

i would actually PREFER to use the smaller companies, because i just think it's important to help smaller businesses.

but my personal preferences aside, you can make HUGE mistakes when bidding on a contract. like bidding EVERYTHING to do a big job and then sending the majority of your guys to the site, but then you don't have the capital to bid on other jobs so that the other people in your company can keep working.

or you can bid on a contract and win... and then you don't have enough resources to finish the job. this results in no resources.... and no money, since you only get paid when the job is done.

Commodore Pipes
28th January 10, 11:22 AM
i've been there/done that re: Haliburton during Bush's administration.

you won't see me denying that they're a pretty shady group. and it would be down right NAIVE to say they did it for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

i accept all of this.

now... can ANY OF YOU name another company NOT owned by Haliburton that is capable of doing EVERYTHING they do, with the resources to do it on a global scale?

Way to ignore that invading Iraq was completely unnecessary. Also, I don't think Haliburton itself had the contracts - I think KBR, which is owned by Haliburton, got the contracts. Incidentally, Brown & Root, the 'B' and 'R' of KBR, had contracts to build military airfields in Vietnam during the 60;s and 70's. They were lambasted as war profiteers by a brave young congressmen from Illinois unafraid to make a stand against corruption - a young man named Donald Rumsfeld.

So, basically, this probably all stems back to the systemic corruption of Illinois politics. And if you think it's just Chicago, you don't know Illinois very well.

Hedley LaMarr
28th January 10, 12:15 PM
Way to ignore that invading Iraq was completely unnecessary. Also, I don't think Haliburton itself had the contracts - I think KBR, which is owned by Haliburton, got the contracts. Incidentally, Brown & Root, the 'B' and 'R' of KBR, had contracts to build military airfields in Vietnam during the 60;s and 70's. They were lambasted as war profiteers by a brave young congressmen from Illinois unafraid to make a stand against corruption - a young man named Donald Rumsfeld.

So, basically, this probably all stems back to the systemic corruption of Illinois politics. And if you think it's just Chicago, you don't know Illinois very well.
I think only Wisconsinites such as ourselves can truly understand the depths of depravity of Illinois.

Commodore Pipes
28th January 10, 12:21 PM
Well, the Illin's understand, too. My family is from there, and I was born there, just south of the border, and lived there until I was 15. And all my friends and relatives who still live there don't have a problem with what they call 'functional corruption' - that is, a little bit of graft, a little bit of favoritism helps the wheels turn.

I think Wisconsin has looked so good politically for the last 30 years or so simply because we aren't Illinois.

Feryk
28th January 10, 12:34 PM
another company may have had the resources to do what Haliburton does, BUT, and this is a big BUT, would they have been able to get there in the time we needed them? how long would our soldiers and those Middle Eastern civilians have to wait to get supplies? how long would the people have to live in hovels with no power or water?

it was an emergency, so Haliburton was designated IQC.

I beg to differ. The 'Emergency' was months in the making, the logistics alone took 12 weeks. There had been premeditation on the part of the US to go to war, and there was plenty of time to consider what would have to happen in the aftermath, and what would be required.

Halliburton could handle their role, yes. Because they helped to define what it would be. It is no small coincidence that ONE contract was put together instead of a series of smaller ones.

And even IF there is a justification for having ONE vendor for a multitude of separate services, that could have been competitively bid by a consortium of vendors working together. They never got the chance.

Feryk
28th January 10, 12:36 PM
oh fuck yeah.

Donald Trump definitely has the money to do that. but does he have the know how? no.

but does he even need the know how? fuck no.

he's a VERY smart guy. he'd get somebody else to do it. guess who'd most likely get the contract.

that's right. Haliburton.

Donald Trump doesn't have that much money. Granted, he's siphoned billions out of DJT (screwing shareholders, btw), but most of his cash is tied up in real estate which isn't exactly healthy or liquid right now. He does 'The Apprentice' because he needs the cash.

You are right about him subbing out the contract to Halliburton, though. Like he'd have any choice.

Feryk
28th January 10, 12:38 PM
So, basically, this probably all stems back to the systemic corruption of Illinois politics. And if you think it's just Chicago, you don't know Illinois very well.

If you think it's just Illinois, you don't know America very well. Or Canada. Or everywhere.

Ajamil
28th January 10, 12:59 PM
Way to ignore that invading Iraq was completely unnecessary. Not the topic on hand. What we need is where in writing did the bill cite the no-bid qualification? Was it purely the renewal spin?

Ajamil
28th January 10, 01:10 PM
Each justification shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited. As a minimum, each justification shall include the following information: (1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition.”
(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.
(3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated value).
(4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.
(5) A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited.
(6) A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies.
(7) A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.
(8) A description of the market research conducted (see Part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.
(9) Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, such as:
(i) Explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed or are not available.
(ii) When 6.302-1 is cited for follow-on acquisitions as described in 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), an estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and how the estimate was derived.
(iii) When 6.302-2 is cited, data, estimated cost, or other rationale as to the extent and nature of the harm to the Government.
(10) A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.
(11) A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required.
(12) Contracting officer certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.
(b) Each justification shall include evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying the Government’s minimum needs or schedule requirements or other rationale for other than full and open competition) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.
They wrote it down somewhere. Line up the justifications and contrast/compare. Also find the person who is responsible for authorizing the justification:

Except for paragraph (b) of this section, the justification for other than full and open competition shall be approved in writing—

For a proposed contract over $10,000,000, but not exceeding $50,000,000, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, not exceeding $75,000,000, by the head of the procuring activity, or a designee who—
(i) If a member of the armed forces, is a general or flag officer; or
(ii) If a civilian, is serving in a position in a grade above GS-15 under the General Schedule (or in a comparable or higher position under another schedule).




As for Obama - he made a stupid promise and now that he's actually in office he sees it's not as simple as nobid=bad, bid=good. Now that he sees there's reasons for it at times, and especially now that he sees he can help his own friends and speed up his agenda by awarding them, I bet he thought it would go under the radar. It didn't, and he's got egg on his face, but I doubt he'll ever respond to this specific item. It would open him up to have to explain every minutiae through his four years, and simply responding I bet would lower the populaces instinctual image of him.

elipson
28th January 10, 01:24 PM
Wait, how can we say there were no alternatives to Halliburton when they didn't actually have a bidding competition to see if there were alternatives??

There may have been a thousand companies, all over the world, ready to do many of the services halliburton handled but we'll never hear of them because they were never given the chance to bid on those contracts. And this is besides the point that reconstruction should have been handled by the local populace as a way to help the economy which had just suffered from a war.

Halliburton also way over priced their no bid contracts and then sub-contracted the work out to lesser companies. With a bidding process the smaller companies would have undercut Halliburton, still made a profit, and gotten the job done for less cost to the US tax payer.

Zendetta
28th January 10, 01:53 PM
This "Only Halliburton Can Save Us!!" stuff is plain crazy.

Consider this: My Company is the only one with the skills, equipment, and know-how to adequately Clean Up Dogshit.

Awesome! Gimme a no bid contract for a Godzillion Dollars!!!!

Oh yeah, one other thing: my company's lobbyists just convinced and incentivized the government to buy several billion Very Large Dogs.

And our former Chairman is head of the Federal Dogshit Council.

Commodore Pipes
28th January 10, 02:00 PM
Not the topic on hand. What we need is where in writing did the bill cite the no-bid qualification? Was it purely the renewal spin?

Don't make me defend Obama's no-bid by pointing out how it differs from selling an unnecessary war to the American people so the company you used to be CEO of can get an awesome contract.

EDIT: That's not fair, that's not what you are doing. Okay, let's stop talking about Bush and Cheney. Obama is responsible for his own decisions.

Zendetta
28th January 10, 02:44 PM
Obama is responsible for his own decisions.

He is doing for Wall Street and the Insurance Industry what BushCo did for the defense and nation-building industry.

Kein Haar
28th January 10, 02:52 PM
Will you Wisconsinites shut your pie-holes already?

Your property taxes are ridiculous, and your out-of-state deer permits are too.

Commodore Pipes
28th January 10, 03:01 PM
Will you Wisconsinites shut your pie-holes already?

Your property taxes are ridiculous, and your out-of-state deer permits are too.

Pshaw. I never said we were good, just that we looked good next to our southern neighbors. Scott McCallum blew our tobacco dettlement money to settle the budget deficiet. Our state senate has gone on record as saying that reporters in the state capitol building is not a necessary aspect of a democracy. They're all sort of loons.

Except it's my understanding that Fiengold votes against pay raises for senators, so that's cool.

Feryk
28th January 10, 03:21 PM
He is doing for Wall Street and the Insurance Industry what BushCo did for the defense and nation-building industry.

He seems to be in the middle of taking a hell of a run at those two industries. Have you not been listening?

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 03:40 PM
Way to ignore that invading Iraq was completely unnecessary. Also, I don't think Haliburton itself had the contracts - I think KBR, which is owned by Haliburton, got the contracts. Incidentally, Brown & Root, the 'B' and 'R' of KBR, had contracts to build military airfields in Vietnam during the 60;s and 70's. They were lambasted as war profiteers by a brave young congressmen from Illinois unafraid to make a stand against corruption - a young man named Donald Rumsfeld.

So, basically, this probably all stems back to the systemic corruption of Illinois politics. And if you think it's just Chicago, you don't know Illinois very well.

don't try to make this about Iraq. or the corruption of the States, or the corruption of only one state.

a country is only as corrupt as its LEADERS.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 05:10 PM
I beg to differ. The 'Emergency' was months in the making, the logistics alone took 12 weeks. There had been premeditation on the part of the US to go to war, and there was plenty of time to consider what would have to happen in the aftermath, and what would be required.

Halliburton could handle their role, yes. Because they helped to define what it would be. It is no small coincidence that ONE contract was put together instead of a series of smaller ones.

And even IF there is a justification for having ONE vendor for a multitude of separate services, that could have been competitively bid by a consortium of vendors working together. They never got the chance.

wait.... profiteers and the government go hand in hand and start wars together?

GET OUTTA TOWN.

there have been conspiracy theories that our government has been helping profiteers with wars since FDR. maybe even as early as the Civil War.

i'm not going to defend Haliburton, although i truly DO believe that they are the only company capable of doing what they do. if i did that, i'd have to defend Bechtel, Aegis, and a bunch of other dirty companies that profiteer in the war with the help of our government through renewed contracts.

this isn't the point. the point is the current administration admonished the previous administration harshly and even ran their campaign on the platform of competitive bidding.

Sun Wukong
28th January 10, 05:14 PM
oh fuck yeah.

Donald Trump definitely has the money to do that. but does he have the know how? no.

but does he even need the know how? fuck no.

he's a VERY smart guy. he'd get somebody else to do it. guess who'd most likely get the contract.

that's right. Haliburton.

If you replace Trump with Dick Cheney in that post, it's still true.

Cullion
28th January 10, 05:31 PM
My thoroughly crooked blue sock puppets aren't as corrupt as your thoroughly crooked red sock puppets.

That's what this debate amounts to.

bob
28th January 10, 05:34 PM
There is nothing insurmountable about corruption provided they get the job done that they were hired to do. When corruption itself becomes the main game, that's a different story.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 06:17 PM
Wait, how can we say there were no alternatives to Halliburton when they didn't actually have a bidding competition to see if there were alternatives??

There may have been a thousand companies, all over the world, ready to do many of the services halliburton handled but we'll never hear of them because they were never given the chance to bid on those contracts. And this is besides the point that reconstruction should have been handled by the local populace as a way to help the economy which had just suffered from a war.

the Department of Defense has always favored no bid over competitive bidding. this isn't anything new.

it definitely wasn't in the thousands. off the top of my head, i could probably name two that could potentially do what they do (but most likely not): technip and schlumberger (i think both are French companies). maybe siemens from the EU. i think our DOD prefers American businesses over foreign businesses. so we had Bechtel (probably the largest engineering company in the US).... but they backed out of it after some of their employees died in Iraq.

WHO ELSE WERE WE GONNA HIRE? WHO ELSE has the money, resources, can amass such a large workforce, and can credibly back their shit up?


Halliburton also way over priced their no bid contracts and then sub-contracted the work out to lesser companies. With a bidding process the smaller companies would have undercut Halliburton, still made a profit, and gotten the job done for less cost to the US tax payer.

i don't think there was even a cap on how much tax money they could spend.

i could be COMPLETELY WRONG on this. but i'm too lazy to check.

fes_fsa
28th January 10, 06:28 PM
If you replace Trump with Dick Cheney in that post, it's still true.

what was the point of this comment?

i mean really. it doesn't change the fact that Haliburton would be hired no matter WHO put their money on the table to hire contractors to fix a war-torn Middle East.

billy sol hurok
28th January 10, 06:30 PM
There is nothing insurmountable about corruption provided they get the job done that they were hired to do. When corruption itself becomes the main game, that's a different story.
See that road? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1493489/Why-has-South-Korea-overtaken-Kenya-Because-its-rulers-can-limit-their-greed.html)

bob
29th January 10, 05:42 AM
Thanks billy, good article.

There's corruption and there's corruption. And there's even a reasonable argument that a little corruption can be a good thing in that it can shortcut clunky bureaucracy.

Phrost
29th January 10, 09:20 AM
I'd prefer to see the GAO significantly more empowered.