Originally posted by crockett
I guess that's why IAP was given the contract to manage part of the Walter Reed veterans hospital even after in 2004 the Army determined that federal employees could operate the facilities more efficiently.
The contract was still given to IAP whom happens to have "the right" connections in the white house. I.E. CEO's were former KBR executives aka subsidiary of Halliburton. One of the Chairmen for IAP just happens to be John W. Snow the Bush admin former Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course that's all just coincidence and I must be a Liberal just wanting to bash the Bush admin. I mean after all the whole scandle about our troops getting sub par treatment was just the liberal media trying to bash the bush again.
1)So we have army telling us they can do a better job cheaper and serve our soldier's beter.
+
2)IAP has links to Bush and co white house and is given contract in which they fumble things up big time.
=
3)Liberal media just bashing Bush again.. no evidence of any wrong doing here tune into more FOX news so you can decide.
That's just one example.. do you need more?
Of course, Crocket proves my point yet again.
First, you can stop crediting me with things I didn't say.
Second, all you're doing is the same thing some conservatives did when they tried to tie Clinton to various murders. This is like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon stuff, you can tie anyone to anyone else if you go deep enough yet do you have any proof? No, you don't.
Third, the VP has absolutely nothing at all to do with letting government contracts with the Pentagon. As a matter of fact, as the purse string holders Congress has much more to do with contracts than the Executive branch.
Fourth, efficiency doesn't have much to do with contracts, cost does. "Efficiency" is a relative term. Some think its more "efficient" to use Military personnel because they're already being paid so why not? Seems cheaper, right? Sure, up until the light comes on and you realize they still have to get paid and, unlike contractors the taxpayer is paying for the military lifetime retirement and medical care. Government contractors are regularly hired in place of Military personnel for many reasons one simple one of which is to free up the military personnel we have so they can go fight a war. Go to just about any military base and you'll probably see that most of the security forces are contractors. I went to the MacDill AFB clinic yesterday to see a doc...guess what? Yes, he was a contractor. Can contractors be nefarious and bribe or otherwise influence government people to gain contracts? Sure they can, just ask Randy Cunningham...last I checked though Cunningham was in Congress, not the White House. Every contractor related scandal I can recall (except the White House Travel Office) was related to either civilians in the Pentagon or Congress. The only influence over the award of contracts that I recall haveing involved the White House was at the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. Although everyone screams about Halliburton, after having dealt with them myself I'd say they were the only ones not only capable of providing the required support but were also in place since they had numerous existing contracts and personnel in the Gulf. BTW, the existing contracts were all let under the Clinton administration. Also, tell me this; if your house were being robbed would you want your city to spend six months renegotiating the Police force's contract or do you want them to use the one they already have?
Bottom line here Crockett is that just about anything can be "spun" to appear nefarious and underhanded, especially when the "accuser" has a motive to do it. A missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane; the towers were wired for demolition; the US Navy shot down an airliner departing New York; Clinton killed x number of people; Bush "knew", etc., etc., etc. These are all sad lies and distortions for a public that seems all to willing to swallow this junk. In the end, you have to realize that just because you disagree with a policy or decision doesn't mean the guy's a criminal. Sometimes, good decisions are made, sometimes bad ones are, but a mistake, error in judgement, or just a decision made you don't agree with doesn't mean someone is guilty of crime or corruption.
