Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
But if you see that point, why not apply the same logic to all other costs of doing business in a war zone?
|
It's a matter of scale. $45 coke is only, what, five times the price you'd see in Ohio? That actually seems pretty cheap to me, considering some contractor put his life at risk to make sure that fizzy sugar water got to our boys in uniform. Whereas the stories I've heard of rampant waste, high-priced incompetence, and vast overcharging--just read some of the posts in this thread!--aren't anything LIKE that. Completely different behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Haliburton was willing and able, and I am sure they negotiated in good faith.
|
You're sure? What makes you so sure? I'm not at all sure of that, and your evidence-free certainty doesn't sway me. According to the polls I've seen, most Americans are distinctly
unsure of that.
It's called a "No-Bid" contract. There's no bidding, and there's no negotiation, good faith or otherwise. The contractor names a price, and the government buys.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
On the other hand a cost plus contract with no oversite??? Then one of the people responsible for oversite says profiteering is a problem. The congressman who made the statement in the OP in my mind is saying, I wasn't doing my job yesterday, but I am going to do my job tomorrow. i don't buy that kind of B.S.
|
You might go back and actually READ the OP. Senator Leahy has been trying to pass this sort of legislation for years, and it keeps getting shot down by the White House and the Republican majority (many of them major Haliburton payees, I might note). You're blaming the wrong folks here. When it comes to war profiteering controls, Leahy is one of the good guys. You might ask exactly why Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership would want to squash an anti-profiteering provision. Doesn't it seem like a patently obvious thing to make a law about? What would possess them to kill it? Hm! Think about that!
Actually, as I type that, I wonder if that's true in the world-as-you-see-it. Do you think that the behavior we think of as 'war profiteering' is just fair game in a tough business? The invisible hand at its most stark, perhaps? Is this just Capitalism in its ultimate expression?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If I misread what you wrote, I apologize. It seemed like you stated that Haliburton was controlling the Bush administration and congress.
|
I'm highly suspicious that they have an inappropriate level of input into
at least contractor selection, if not also into policy decisions. It's not a stretch to imagine Cheney, in his prominent role planning and organizing the war, setting up his former company to thrive. It's what any good CEO would do, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Comfort level. In high pressure situations, I go with what I know works. Pressure situations are not the time to experiment. I beleive that played a role in Haliburton getting the contracts.
|
Uh hunh. As big a role as the hundreds of millions Haliburton spent on lobbying in the last five years? I'm sorry, but that's just naive.
(Oh, by the way, I laughed
hard at your suggestion that "pressure situations are not the time to experiment". The whole damn
war was an experiment. Don't try and tell me that somebody said, "You know, just in case we're NOT greeted as liberators.... Just in case this thing DOES go more than six months... Just in case the mission ISN'T accomplished, and these AREN'T the last throes of the insurgency... We'd better have a darned reliable logistics company in there to make sure things go well."
)