Author Topic: Bigger Surprise...Haliburton DOES NOTget contract (Read 548 times)

Toad · « **on:** March 28, 2003, 10:41:59 PM »

Quote

TIMOTHY BEANS, THE chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, said in an interview that Halliburton is not one of the two finalists to be prime contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq, though the Houston-based firm could take part as a subcontractor. The contract is to be awarded next week.

funkedup · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2003, 11:11:45 PM »

I'm sure the conspiracy lovers will find some way to link the other companies to somebody in office.
Dubya should have been smart and done what Clinton did, only appoint officials who never worked a real job in their life and therefore have no ties to any industry or any other activity of value.

Nash · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2003, 11:42:41 PM »

No kidding! Linking Haliburton to someone in office (... the Veep) was a real stretch that taxed the imaginations of even the most ardent conspiracists! Bunch 'o coockoos.

Haliburton is no longer on the list because they withdrew. They withdrew because of the appearance of impropriety. Yet it's suprising to you that it apeared to be improper to other people besides them? Ohkkay...

Toad · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2003, 11:49:07 PM »

I think the point is they didn't get the contract.

Maybe we don't need to dodge the black helos while wearing our foil hats to escape from Ashcroft just yet.

Nash · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2003, 12:17:40 AM »

Actually... I think the point is that the these tinfoil-helmet-wearin'-black-helo-dodging-conspiracy-theorists... had a point.

The Bush Administration, the US Army and even Halliburton themselves recognized it. Why can't you?

Toad · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2003, 12:24:47 AM »

Because there's no point? I mean no useful point?

Let's see... friends of the administration get favoritism in contract competitions.

Now, you tell me which US administration in the last ~220 years would that statement NOT apply to?

That's why I didn't even bother to post in the other thread. I mean, did you really think the Bush Administration was going to give it to the Barbra Striesand Well Fire Company?

In fact, if ya want to spin it.. it's exactly what I put in the title of this thread. It's a much BIGGER suprise that Halliburton DID NOT get it.

C'mon. Even Canadian politics has to work something like this. Why do you think big companies (like the one I work for) continually contribute to BOTH parties?

So they too can be "friends of the administration". No matter who wins.

Don't ya ever get tired of the "sky is falling alerts" when it's simply "politics as usual"?

Nash · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2003, 01:28:44 AM »

Toad... My reply was to funked who was waving his finger at the "conspiracy-lovers" ... as if it was silly to recognize a conflict of interest that even the participants themselves recognized as a conflict of interest.

Your last explanation (in the thread title, that the surprise here is that they *didn't* wind up with the contract) emphasises that. So I guess we're in agreement. I'm not sure what ya meant by the Ashcroft line.... but oh well.

Where you miss the mark though is in assuming that I was talking about the connection between business and the government as if that relationship itself is somehow inherently sinister. Of course it isn't... and uh.... yes... it even exists in Canadian politics. Governments buy things from the private sector.

........

Uhm.... here's a topical example:

A couple of days ago Darrel Issa, a congressman from Southern California, sent a letter to Rumsfeld asking him to make sure that the U.S. builds a CDMA cellphone system in Iraq. That system is developed by Qualcomm, which is one of Issa's most generous donors.

The Defense Department had been thinking of setting up a GSM system but Issa warned Rumsfeld that such a system, which is the standard in Europe and the Mideast, would benefit the French and the Europeans and not the U.S. patent holders. On Thursday, Issa introduced a bill that would make his policy recommendations law.

Is that wrong? Like you, I think it's just a political reality. It should also be said that 3.5 billion of the 75 billion the US is spending on the war is set aside for projects just like this. Why shouldn't that money go to US companies?

The Halliburton deal struck many as a unique case, however. Whereas Qualcomm would simply be benefactors of an unrelated policy, it could be viewed that the relationship between Halliburton (with its particular expertise and with the people involved) and the government was such that the folks at the wheel could conceivably have *driven* this policy. And others like it.

At least that's how I see the conflict.

"Don't ya ever get tired of the "sky is falling alerts" when it's simply "politics as usual"?

I think you're attributing that to me in error... Like I said earlier I don't consider the business between the private and public sector to be a sky is falling scenario. In the case of Halliburton it was "politics as un-usual". Far too Kissengeresque for my taste at least.

crowMAW · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2003, 01:58:57 AM »

You do realize that the oil-well fire contract and the Iraq reconstruction contract are two different contracts?

One "involves the reconstruction of Iraq’s critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war." The other is to extigush the oil well fires.

It is good that they pulled out of the reconstruction contract simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety. My hat's off to them for very ethical decision.

Now, they should do the same for the oil-well fire contract.

funkedup · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2003, 08:30:30 AM »

I didn't realize they withdrew. rutabagas!

john9001 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2003, 10:10:48 AM »

i think what nash is trying to say is it's a conspiracy if Haliburton gets the contract and it's a conspiracy if Haliburton dosn't get the contract.
see, it's vewy vewy simple , it's a conspiracy of the wast wight wing type......... the waskely wabbits.

Krotki · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2003, 02:17:00 PM »

Was Haliburton expected to get it ?

Nash · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2003, 06:02:50 PM »

i think what nash is trying to say is it's a conspiracy if Haliburton gets the contract and it's a conspiracy if Haliburton dosn't get the contract.

Actually john... It's the complete opposite in both clases. There's no conspiracy to be found anywhere. It's kind of funny that the people who want to come out and mock the conspiracy angle are the only ones who are seeing a conspriracy angle.

At least that's how it looks to me.

Yeah Krotki, they were widely expected to get the contract. I wouldn't doubt it if they still do through some subsidiary of some subsidiary; and finally through the ACME Rebuid Co. There's the extent of my conspiracy theory.

... more likely it's just "politics as usual". In the meantime Halliburton is gonna have to squeak by with their massive Iraq oil fire contract and building 6' x 8' cells in Guantanamo for 50 grand a pop (a contract that could reach 300 million).