...to howl about Obama being in the pocket of Halliburton and under the spell of Darth Cheney!
KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks
Should either be an interesting thread or a silent one.
Printable View
...to howl about Obama being in the pocket of Halliburton and under the spell of Darth Cheney!
KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks
Should either be an interesting thread or a silent one.
Yoni, I read the article and this is what struck me:
1. Irritation at yet another no-bid contract being let.
2. Wonder at how it was happening after the democratic congress in 2008 (also in the article) directed that it wasn't going to happen anymore.
3. Understanding that the company in question (is KBR the same as Halliburton?) received a bid contract a few years ago that included some options (is this what is happening now, one of those options?), and that the military on the ground in Iraq asked that KBR be allowed to finish the job they are doing now rather than disrupt the process of leaving Iraq by transitioning to a new company while the military is in the process of trying to leae Iraq on a short time-table.
What I conclude from all of the above is that the politics of pragmatism is being engaged in by the military in order to try to accomplish their 'mission' of getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible. I assume (perhaps incorrectly, maybe they are all on the take) that the military heads figure their performance reviews are based on how well and how efficiently they progress with the 'get-out-of-dodge' plan, and that their bosses would not respond well if they said "Well, we could have gotten out sooner but we had a change of vendor and the new guys didn't know what we needed....honest, it's not our fault".
I honestly don't know how you or anyone would conclude, based on the article, that this instance is comparable to Cheney's company (the one that he was on the board of before he was Vice President, and in whom he still held stock while said company was being given one after another no bid contracts in Iraq over a period of 8 years). Did Obama ever work for this company? Was he ever a member of their Board of Directors? Does he own stock in them now?
Of course, your defense of President Obama could just have easily been applied to President Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Pragmatism...difficult transition...yadda, yadda, yadda.
It's the same company as it was during the 8 years of President Bush.
Yoni doesn't understand who awards contracts and who does things about wrongdoing in awarding those contracts.
I agree that it could be said about Bush...but not necessarily Cheney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
This is really an honest question...I don't know the answer...is KBR ( or whatever the initials are) the same company as Halliburton?
Anyay, I think McCaskill is right.
One is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
And, why not Cheney?
As I remember it, KBR and Halliburton were the only game in town for what was needed back when they first received the contracts -- under the Clinton administration.
The Facts on Halliburton
On a related topic, I was wondering if someone was going to post a reference to Secretary gates calling for a huge cut in the budget for the Department of Defense.
What do you think is gonna happen about that? I can't see either party embracing cuts in Defense prior to the elections because whoever does is gonna be called a commie-pinko-bedwetter.
But if the Defense Secretary is saying that we are spending too much, couldn't we get some bi-partisan agreement to cut some?
Remember when the 'Peace Dividend' after the end of the Cold War was gonna allow us to reduce spending (and we did), and then 9-11 happened and everybody said "we hould never have cut defense spending...we left ourselves vulnerable...those lilly-livered unAmerican jerks?"
It will be difficult for Republicans to attack Gates on this point. Besides, if the war budgets are still treated separately there probably won't be as big a cut as folks might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Thanks for clarification. I really didn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Regarding why not Cheney? Well, whatever contracts were let under Clinton were not for the Iraq War, where so much of the corruption is alleged to have occured.
On the other hand, I think I already indicated why folks consider Cheney to be in a different situation than either Bush or Obama, inasmuch as he was/is so closely tied to the company that made SOOOO much money in a war that he was so instrumental in pushing and supporting, and from which, given his company ties, he was personally bound to be enriched.
As the article says, the "no-bid" Halliburton contracts under Bush were, as you suggested about them under Obama, merely legitimate extensions to the original Clinton-era contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
That doesn't make him corrupt unless you are able to tie him to the original letting of the contract in 1998, under Bill Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
One President knew Iraq war was inevitable (see cheney) one did not (see clinton). Seems to me we had a conflict of interest but who am I cheney is a saint..Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I'm sorry but I don't honestly believe that your last observation is logical. With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether it is an extension or not, if you are profiting from it financially, and if the extension is for a company with withich you have financial ties, that is TOTALLY different from what is happening now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Your accusation goes back to the John Kerry campaign...Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Quote:
Originally Posted by FactCheck Summary
The MIC, military/corps/capitalists, runs the country, decides which wars to wage and to extend for its own self-enrichment. The only difference between the Repugs and Dems is that the Repugs are a more blatant, more willing accomplice with MIC.
==========
REPORTER: You didn't include Obama in your list of liar presidents. I'm wondering if you would include him also?
HERSH: To use a basketball or a football analogy, American football, fourth quarter – he may have a game plan. At this point he's in real trouble. Because the military are dominating him on the important issues of the world: Iraq, Iran, Afghan and Pakistan. And he's following the policies of Bush and Cheney almost to a fare-thee-well. He talks differently. And he's much brighter, he's much more of the world. So one only hopes he has a game plan that will include doing something, but he's in real trouble, in terms of – he's in real trouble.
In Iraq I don't have to tell anybody the prospects – in the American press they never mention Moqtada Sadr, but look out. He's going to be the kingmaker of that country. He's now studying in Iran. And he's going to be the next ayatollah-to-be. I don't know how he'll work it out with Sistani. But he's going to be the force, the Shia. And so this is going to be very complicated for us because the two men we talk about, Allawi and Maliki, have about as much to do with the average Iraqi – they're both ex-pats. Allawi, let's see, he was certainly an American agent and a British agent, the MI-6, the CIA, the Jordanians ran him probably for Mossad. I'm not telling you anything that is not a fact. So who knows?
So Iraq is very problematical. There's going to be much more violence. Whether it's civil war or not it's going to be much more violence.
He's never going to win, whatever that means, in Afghanistan. The only solution in Afghanistan is a settlement with the Taliban. And the only person to settle with is Mullah Omar, and he's become another Hitler to the American public. So how we're going to do that and survive politically?
And the same in Pakistan. He's got the wrong policy there. So it is – and again for Obama, Iran's not resolved, in terms of, the Iranians have come out of this crisis stronger than ever. We don't want to believe that.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mu...ed-us-military
I didn't vote for Kerry or believe most of what he said. However, the notion that a guy who has made over a million dollars from a company that he still owns stock in even after he left the company and became VP has no interest in how well that company does stretches credulity to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The fact check piece clarifies (appropriately) that Cheney doesn't (didn't) benefit from the contracts, in that he was not getting a kickback (which some had alleged). That is to me, quite a different thing than a general level of financial interest by being a stock holder in a company that is making money hand-over-fist in a war that was pushed by Cheney, sold by Cheney, and expanded by Cheney. Moreover, the Halliburton contracts during the war were expanded to include the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructures.
Cheney often said that he didn't care what people thought of his stock ownership in Halliburton., I believe him. I think he doesn't care. That doesn't make his continued endorsements of Halliburton for doing more and more work in Iraq any more palatable, though, to me. It also doesn't compare at all to the extension of a contract by people who do NOT have the same financial interest in Halliburton that Cheney did while he was in office.
Let's not confuse an accusation about kickbacks (appropriately refuted) with an accusation of inappropriate endorsement of a company to do work in a war you started, and then expanded the role of that company while the war was underway.
Factcheck never said that Cheney did not have a financial interest in Halliburton. He himself said that he did. Factcheck's work was in reference to kickback allegations.
NONE of the above accusations have any relevance to Obama, who does not now, nor ever has had, a financial interest in Halliburton of any sort.
Care to provide proof of these endorsements?Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
From FactCheck.orgQuote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Dude, he contractually assigned all his stock appreciation to charity.Quote:
Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.
The fact is, Cheney scrupulously separated himself from decisions involving Halliburton and, further, went way beyond what he was legally required to do by giving his Halliburton profits to charity.
A bit more detail from the FactCheck.org article...
I think that's 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by FactCheck.org
Quote:
Originally Posted by FactCheck.org
another chumpdumper slapping, on the daily yalls.
Halliburton is doing a job too difficult for our current depleted armed forces to do...rebuild the country. Give them whatever they want, we can't expect to pay some new people to do a job when they don't know what's it's been like over there for the last few years - right?
In other words, we're more or less obliged to keep letting em fuck us.
Learning curve might be too steep for a newcomer.
I'm continuity with Bush guy, so this surprises me little. What GWB pioneered as executive brazenness, has become merely customary under Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The same shady government contractors before Jan 2009, remain government contractors. Big whup, Yoni.
Does it grieve you that devotees of Obama have so far failed to register their approval or disapproval of Obama continuing to do business with shady war profiteers?
You seem to think their silence in this thread would only prove their hypocrisy, but it proves something else too: your apparent butthurtness over the posters you taunted in the OP.
Are you still sore about the media horsewhipping of Bush?
Quote:
You seem to be an enthusiast of the current one.
Here's what Yoni doesn't get:
Anyone who cares about potential executive abuses of power already knows where Obama stands on this issue, which is right where GWB stood.
So, unless it's some brand-new information, most Obama supporters who thought he might actually, ya know, stand up to the idea of the "Unitary Executive" (and his words before his election stated that he would), have now realized he's done a 180, and aren't going to be duly impressed by news articles stating that Obama is continuing some horrible practice Bush engaged in.
It all depends on who the puke funnel is aimed at. When it was aimed at Bush, Yoni was outraged (probably still is.) Now, he's a master blaster. The more things change...
Yoni, I thank you for the references and I appreciate the information. I was, in fact, unaware of the trust agreement, and I stand corrected with respect to the options that Cheney obtained from his time on the Board of Directors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I freely admit that my opposition to the war in Iraq and my distaste for Cheney allowed me to accept information as fact that was not. Even though I voted for W., I never liked Cheney ( I had met him in Washington years ago), and, I must admit, I still don't. But my dislike of him does not mean that he didn't put his Halliburton options in a blind trust. I did not vote in the second election involving Bush and Cheney because I couldn't bring myself to vote for them again (after the Iraq war fiasco) but I also couldn't vote for Kerry.
Now, having said all that, I remain opposed to the decisions that Cheney urged on Bush, and I remain opposed to Halliburton getting so rich off the war.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
I'm actually okay with the contract; it apparently means KBR is uniquely qualified for the work. Otherwise they wouldn't have survived party changes in both the Congress and White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR