So Tired of the "It's Both Parties" Denial/Dismissal - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 08:13 AM

Will, are you kidding?

I'd sign it if I were Bush. The damage is done and it's unlikely his administration could pull this off again without serious outcry. Signing that bill would restrict the next president more than him - and guess which party that might hurt...

Willravel · 05-03-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Will, are you kidding?

I'd sign it if I were Bush. The damage is done and it's unlikely his administration could pull this off again without serious outcry. Signing that bill would restrict the next president more than him - and guess which party that might hurt...

You're talking about the same president that came out AFTER Gonzales' horrible testimony and expressed confidence in the testimony and stood by him! He's an idiot. I think of all the things we know about Bush, the most glaring would be the fact that he doesn't know when to pull his support for a mistake. He very well could veto this.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 08:20 AM

"Due to controversial provisions, this bill is expected to be vetoed by President George W. Bush" (link)

ubertuber · 05-03-2007, 08:37 AM

Will, I stand corrected!

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 08:41 AM

I'll put on my Bush hat

and try to find those "controversial" provisions when I have time.

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I'll put on my Bush hat

and try to find those "controversial" provisions when I have time.

How does this law do anything that can not already be controlled and or required by Congress? Is the law really needed?

Willravel · 05-03-2007, 09:17 AM

Obviously something is needed.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

How does this law do anything that can not already be controlled and or required by Congress? Is the law really needed?

Not having read the details of the bill, I suspect the intent is, in part, to more tightly regulate occurences like this:

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/in...=rssnyt&emc=rs

host · 05-03-2007, 09:59 AM

The allegedly "liberal media", has not bothered to provide "in depth" coverage for this yet....even though it is my opinion that it will send many government officials into prison, or at least into retirement. The trouble is....can the compromised DOJ even do a fair and ethical job of investigating it?

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2721717.shtml
WASHINGTON, April 24, 2007

Abramoff Scandal Figure To Plead Guilty
Investigations Into Lobbying Scandal Are Gaining More Momentum

(CBS) By CBS News Justice Department producer Stephanie Lambidakis
Mark Zachares, one of the more minor figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, has agreed to plead guilty to a conspiracy charge at a plea hearing Tuesday.

According to one source, the investigations have been picking up speed because Abramoff, who is in jail, has been "spilling his guts" in continued debriefings with federal prosecutors. The source noted wryly that while the Justice Department was once dubious of Abramoff's credibility, prosecutors are embracing much of what he's telling them.

Tuesday's plea indicates that the investigations have new momentum and are likely to lead to additional charges.

The criminal information cites Zachares' "extensive contact" with Abramoff going back to the mid-1990s. Zachares worked for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then took key staff positions on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee while Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was the chairman. Abramoff tried and failed to get Zachares a job with the Office of Insular Affairs at the Interior Department.

The headline in the plea is the cryptic reference to "Representative #3." We're told this is a member of Congress who has not been publicly named before in the Abramoff investigation.

Zachares went on the $160,000 golf trip in August of 2003 with Abramoff and six others, including a member of the House identified as "Representative #3. That lawmaker is not identified, but Rep. Tom Feeney acknowledged the golf trip on his financial disclosure forms but claimed it was paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research, not Jack Abramoff.

Earlier this year, the House Ethics Committee ordered Feeney to repay $5,643 and Feeney did so. With their reference to "representative #3," prosecutors are signalling that Rep. Feeney could be their next target.

Zachares got more than $30,000 in sports tickets from Abramoff. <h3>There are a few interesting details: Zachares tried to get a non-public Department of Justice Threat Assessment Report about Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for Abramoff. He also tried to procure reorganization plans for the Department of Homeland Security.</h3>

Abramoff had told Zachares that his activities on the Hill would serve as "credits" that would translate into dollars when and if Zachares went to work for Abramoff.

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/berman

..........The apparent purging of Black at Abramoff's behest demonstrates the clout the lobbyist wielded at both the DOJ and the White House. Then-White House political director <b>Ken Mehlman, the recent chairman of the Republican National Committee, told White House official Leonard Rodriguez, a protégé of Karl Rove, to "reach out to make Jack aware" of all Guam-related information, including candidates for US Attorney, according to the IG report.</b>

In May 2002 Abramoff used his influence to kill a risk-assessment report of Guam and the neighboring Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), requested by Black, that called for federalizing immigration laws on the islands, a move that might have jeopardized the influx of cheap labor to CNMI and Abramoff's $1.6 million lobbying contract with its local government. <b>Abramoff learned of the report from John Ashcroft's then-chief of staff, David Ayres, whom he hosted at a Washington Redskins game. "We'll hope that higher ups will take some time to squash this," Abramoff wrote. Sure enough, the report never came out, and the DOJ demoted its author, regional security specialist............</b>

Quote:

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/sto...-8739449c.html
Young aide's link to Abramoff sheds new light on Marianas bill

By RICHARD MAUER
Anchorage Daily News

Published: April 29, 2007
Last Modified: April 30, 2007 at 05:45 PM

The guilty plea last week by a former senior committee aide to Rep. Don Young sheds new light on the circumstances surrounding Young’s success seven years ago in blocking reforms of the sweatshop industry on the Mariana Islands.

But the plea also raises new questions about why Young, R-Alaska, took the actions he did.......

I've provided much more documentation....and commentary on this latest, republican corruption "time bomb", on the "Another Bush Crony" thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96966&page=4

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 10:05 AM

I read the bill and did not see what the bill does that Congress can't already do.

I would like Congress to investigate the Haliburton situation, they either need to act on wrongs or let the company clear its name. Why did the army approve the items in dispute, was it because of pressure from Chaney? If I were in Congress this seems to be an issue the could be bigger than some of the things they have been recently investigating.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

I read the bill and did not see what the bill does that Congress can't already do.

ace....,if you think the bill is unnecessary, under what current federal contracting/procurement law:

are Exec Department agencies required to develop and implement plans to minimize the use of: (1) noncompetitive contracts; and (2) cost-reimbursement type contracts.

Or required to make justification and approval documents for noncompetitive contracts, including defense agency contracts, publicly available.

Or required to submit quarterly reports on unjustified contractor costs and audits identifying deficiencies in contractor performance.

I dont know the answer, but if no such requirements exist under current law, Congress cant enforce these or similar regulatory controls.

Quote:

I would like Congress to investigate the Haliburton situation, they either need to act on wrongs or let the company clear its name. Why did the army approve the items in dispute, was it because of pressure from Chaney? If I were in Congress this seems to be an issue the could be bigger than some of the things they have been recently investigating.

The House Dems requested oversight hearings from 2003-2006 and the Repub majority refused, including a request to subpoena the DoD and Halliburton on the payment of the $250+ million in cost reimbursements to Halliburton that was questioned by the DCAA (link)

..so the Dems, under Waxman, held "informal" hearings, with no subpoena power.

Some of the findings are here:
http://oversight.house.gov/search/re...earch22=Search

One of the results was this bill, introduced by Waxman within days after the Dems became the majority.

aceventura3 · 05-03-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....,if you think the bill is unnecessary, under what current federal contracting/procurement law:

are Exec Department agencies required to develop and implement plans to minimize the use of: (1) noncompetitive contracts; and (2) cost-reimbursement type contracts.

Or required to make justification and approval documents for noncompetitive contracts, including defense agency contracts, publicly available.

Or required to submit quarterly reports on unjustified contractor costs and audits identifying deficiencies in contractor performance.

I dont know the answer, but if no such requirements exist under current law, Congress cant enforce these regulatory controls.

The House Dems requested oversight hearings from 2004-2006 and the Repub majority refused....so the Dems, under Waxman, held "informal" hearings.

Much of the findings are here:
http://oversight.house.gov/search/re...earch22=Search

One of the results was this bill, introduced by Waxman within days after the Dems became the majority.

I would still like to see a formal investigation, with people under oath. If Haliburton defrauded us, I would like them to pay a price for it. If they are clean, let the record reflect that. I don't side with Republicans not wanting this issue to be cleared up, one way or the other.

In every spending bill Congress can include financial controls. Specific controls to fit the spending in question. Congress at any point can excercise their right to Congressional review of budgetary expenditures. That is what I mean when I say the bill seems unnecessary.

dc_dux · 05-03-2007, 01:18 PM

From "Crooks and Liars" (admittedly not my favorite source for unbiased news , but there is a video):

Quote:

The Democrats promised to conduct oversight when they took control of Congress and boy, are they delivering. On Monday, the Senate Oversight Committee held a hearing dealing with Halliburton and their exploitation of a loophole in U.S. law that allowed the company to use foreign subsidiaries in order to do business with terrorist states - namely, Iran. This clip shows Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) grilling Sherry Williams, V.P. and Corporate Secretary for Halliburton about the company's deplorable ethics and questionable practices.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/halliburton/

I assume there will be more hearings to come specifically on the other Halliburton contracting issues with other Halliburton execs under oath.

05-03-2007, 08:13 AM	#41 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Will, are you kidding? I'd sign it if I were Bush. The damage is done and it's unlikely his administration could pull this off again without serious outcry. Signing that bill would restrict the next president more than him - and guess which party that might hurt... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-03-2007, 08:20 AM	#43 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	"Due to controversial provisions, this bill is expected to be vetoed by President George W. Bush" (link) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-03-2007, 08:37 AM	#44 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Will, I stand corrected! __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-03-2007, 08:41 AM	#45 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I'll put on my Bush hat and try to find those "controversial" provisions when I have time. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-03-2007 at 08:43 AM..

05-03-2007, 10:05 AM	#50 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I read the bill and did not see what the bill does that Congress can't already do. I would like Congress to investigate the Haliburton situation, they either need to act on wrongs or let the company clear its name. Why did the army approve the items in dispute, was it because of pressure from Chaney? If I were in Congress this seems to be an issue the could be bigger than some of the things they have been recently investigating. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-03-2007, 09:17 AM	#47 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Obviously something is needed.