New Center for Public Integrity Study: Bush donors rake in contracts ...

[DealMonkey]

Is this even news anymore?

USAToday.com: Study: Bush donors rake in contracts

WASHINGTON ? Big givers to President Bush and companies with political and military connections are getting most of the reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan, a watchdog group said Thursday.
The Center for Public Integrity has done the first detailed analysis of $8 billion in contracts awarded to 71 U.S. companies by the Pentagon, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

"There is a stench of political favoritism and cronyism," says Charles Lewis, executive director of the center, a non-partisan group based in Washington.

Winning contractors have given $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since 1990. Two-thirds of the money given to campaign committees went to the GOP, the center says. Bush got $500,000 ? more than any other candidate.

Halliburton, an oil services and logistics company once headed by Vice President Cheney, was the top recipient of reconstruction contracts, pulling in $2.3 billion. Most of it came when the Pentagon secretly awarded Halliburton's KBR unit a $1.6 billion contract last year, without bids, to repair Iraqi oil infrastructure. Halliburton said Thursday it was "selected on merit" and was "the only company with the right skills and experience to handle such wartime emergencies."

Engineering giant Bechtel, close to several Republican administrations, was No. 2, with contracts worth $1.3 billion. Thursday, Bechtel said it was picked by USAID because it offered "the highest technical competence at one of the lowest costs."

The center singled out SAIC, a technology and services company that works closely with the Pentagon. It says SAIC's contract to train Iraqi journalists shows that well-connected companies had won jobs in areas where they have little experience. SAIC declined comment.

Most of the 10 biggest contracts went to companies employing former top government officials or executives closely tied to members of Congress or contracting agencies.

The Bush administration is relying heavily on private-sector companies to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, shattered during U.S. military actions there. Contractors are fixing roads, airports, power systems, oil infrastructure, schools and government buildings. They also are training police and armies, designing school curricula, advising farmers and planning economic reforms.

The watchdog group based its report on 73 Freedom of Information Act requests. Lewis says many details remain hidden by government "secrecy and obfuscation."

The center sued the State Department and the U.S. Army in a federal district court Wednesday, claiming they failed to provide information that should be public by law. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said administration officials who came from the private sector "have no influence" over contracts. "Competitive procedure is very, very important to us."

 

[gistech1978]

why am i not suprised the usa today is attacking our beloved president.
i get my news from various different sources and i dont need some "commie-nazi" usatoday telling me that our president and his admin are crooks, i can make up my own mind.
they are all above the board, honest, god fearing, good wholesome men and women.
its all revisionist history anyways, those companies never dontated any money to his campaign.

 

[Witling]

The post deserves a boost and a discussion. As to gistech, today is Friday. On Friday you take the blue pill, not two of the pink pills. The two pink pills when you should have taken the blue pill make you write in such a way as to not be clear (to me, anyway) on whether you're serious or ironic. Take some rest, a little warm milk, and write again.

 

[rjain]

Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

 

[burnedout]

The center singled out SAIC, a technology and services company that works closely with the Pentagon. It says SAIC's contract to train Iraqi journalists shows that well-connected companies had won jobs in areas where they have little experience. SAIC declined comment.

My employer bidded against SAIC for a federal contract and lost. We felt more qualified but also concluded that we obviously didn't contribute to someone's PAC either.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: burnedout

The center singled out SAIC, a technology and services company that works closely with the Pentagon. It says SAIC's contract to train Iraqi journalists shows that well-connected companies had won jobs in areas where they have little experience. SAIC declined comment.

My employer bidded against SAIC for a federal contract and lost. We felt more qualified but also concluded that we obviously didn't contribute to someone's PAC either.

Winning a nice contract these days relies primarily on whether your CEO has been assigned a nickname by Dubya or not. If your CEO has a picture of the president on the wall of his office and its made out "Thanks for the contribution, crazy legs. - GW" -- you've got it made. 🙂

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: burnedout

The center singled out SAIC, a technology and services company that works closely with the Pentagon. It says SAIC's contract to train Iraqi journalists shows that well-connected companies had won jobs in areas where they have little experience. SAIC declined comment.

My employer bidded against SAIC for a federal contract and lost. We felt more qualified but also concluded that we obviously didn't contribute to someone's PAC either.

now you know that couldnt be the case, burnedout.
your company was obviously not qualified to do the work.

this admin would never stoop to cronyism, nepotism or favoritism in handing out contracts. how dare you make such an assumption?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: burnedout

The center singled out SAIC, a technology and services company that works closely with the Pentagon. It says SAIC's contract to train Iraqi journalists shows that well-connected companies had won jobs in areas where they have little experience. SAIC declined comment.

My employer bidded against SAIC for a federal contract and lost. We felt more qualified but also concluded that we obviously didn't contribute to someone's PAC either.

now you know that couldnt be the case, burnedout.
your company was obviously not qualified to do the work.

this admin would never stoop to cronyism, nepotism or favoritism in handing out contracts. how dare you make such an assumption?

Of course. No administration 'ever' stoops to cronyism, etc. 😉

 

[roboninja]

Originally posted by: rjain
Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

Just because it was common practice under Clinton does not make it right. It just seems like it is much more brash and blatant under Bush; plus the fact that he seems to start wars just so his buddies can make money cleaning up after.

 

[SuperTool]

In other news, water is wet. I think anyone with intelligence beyond that of a soft taco understands that this is one of the most crony and corrupt administrations in history. Although GOP apologists are still in denial or ignore that entirely, as long as they are getting their tax cuts.
A fish rots from the head.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
In other news, water is wet. I think anyone with intelligence beyond that of a soft taco understands that this is one of the most crony and corrupt administrations in history. Although GOP apologists are still in denial or ignore that entirely, as long as they are getting their tax cuts.
A fish rots from the head.

I think anyone with intelligence beyond that of a soft taco understands you would say that since your agenda is to get GWB out of office, not to provide an objective opinion.

Bush could take a sh*t and you guys would somehow claim its illegal or immoral.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: roboninja

Originally posted by: rjain
Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

Just because it was common practice under Clinton does not make it right. It just seems like it is much more brash and blatant under Bush; plus the fact that he seems to start wars just so his buddies can make money cleaning up after.

Right.. Clinton did it, its OK, because he's a dem.. Bush does it, he's corrupt.. because he's not a dem.. I understand how you guys work.

 

[DealMonkey]

I think we can all concede that Clinton did it too. That said, I know you want to talk about Bush since his record is the topic, right?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: SuperTool
In other news, water is wet. I think anyone with intelligence beyond that of a soft taco understands that this is one of the most crony and corrupt administrations in history. Although GOP apologists are still in denial or ignore that entirely, as long as they are getting their tax cuts.
A fish rots from the head.

I think anyone with intelligence beyond that of a soft taco understands you would say that since your agenda is to get GWB out of office, not to provide an objective opinion.
Bush could take a sh*t and you guys would somehow claim its illegal or immoral.

We get it Crimson, you love Bush. You don't care about the facts. In your mind, it's all a big coincidence. Halliburton gives Bush a lot of money, and in unrelated news, Halliburton gets contracts from Bush . Bletchel gives Bush a lot of money, and in unrelated news, Bletchel gets contracts from Bush . Worldcom gives Bush a lot of money, and in unrelated news, Worldcom gets contracts from Bush . Enron gives Bush a lot of money, and in unrelated news, Enron's energy market manipulation is ignored by FERC appointed by Bush.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: roboninja

Originally posted by: rjain
Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

Just because it was common practice under Clinton does not make it right. It just seems like it is much more brash and blatant under Bush; plus the fact that he seems to start wars just so his buddies can make money cleaning up after.

Right.. Clinton did it, its OK, because he's a dem.. Bush does it, he's corrupt.. because he's not a dem.. I understand how you guys work.

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" is so hard for you to understand?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: roboninja

Originally posted by: rjain
Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

Just because it was common practice under Clinton does not make it right. It just seems like it is much more brash and blatant under Bush; plus the fact that he seems to start wars just so his buddies can make money cleaning up after.

Right.. Clinton did it, its OK, because he's a dem.. Bush does it, he's corrupt.. because he's not a dem.. I understand how you guys work.

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" is so hard for you to understand?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: roboninja

Originally posted by: rjain
Whitling: nice. 😀

The Haliburton thing is old news and was common practice under Clinton, too.

Just because it was common practice under Clinton does not make it right. It just seems like it is much more brash and blatant under Bush; plus the fact that he seems to start wars just so his buddies can make money cleaning up after.

Right.. Clinton did it, its OK, because he's a dem.. Bush does it, he's corrupt.. because he's not a dem.. I understand how you guys work.

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" is so hard for you to understand?

Ah, but what of the Two Posts? 😉

Way back when, after WW2, Truman(IIRC, Pres at the time) went out of his way to make sure that the reconstructions of Germany/Japan were completely above board. To do this, he contracted local workers/businesses as much as possible. This kind of Reconstruction effort has many advantages: Cheaper, employs locals, stimulates the economy of the place being rebuilt, gives locals something to look forward to, and gives locals a sense of normal life.

 

[ElFenix]

i bet 100% of those who have won gov't contracts also gave heavily to gore

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i bet 100% of those who have won gov't contracts also gave heavily to gore

STOP IT! STOP MAKING SENSE!!!! Stop pointing out things that don't show Bush and Cheney are criminals! 🙂

 

[osage]

it's an all to common occurrence under both Dem and Rep. administrations.......

it does seem to me to be more brazen under this current administration.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i bet 100% of those who have won gov't contracts also gave heavily to gore

STOP IT! STOP MAKING SENSE!!!! Stop pointing out things that don't show Bush and Cheney are criminals! 🙂

Not as heavily as Bush. Also we will never know if Gore donations would have resulted in huge contracts, but we sure know that Bush donations paid off. Of course you rightwingers would rather explore hypotheticals about Democrats than see corruption in your own party.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: osage
it's an all to common occurrence under both Dem and Rep. administrations.......

it does seem to me to be more brazen under this current administration.

Right.. they all do it, but, THIS time its REALLY bad. Perhaps because Bush is Republican? No.. couldn't be.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: osage
it's an all to common occurrence under both Dem and Rep. administrations.......

it does seem to me to be more brazen under this current administration.

Right.. they all do it, but, THIS time its REALLY bad. Perhaps because Bush is Republican? No.. couldn't be.

Man you make the Republicans out to be bigger Martyrs than Christ

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: osage
it's an all to common occurrence under both Dem and Rep. administrations.......

it does seem to me to be more brazen under this current administration.

Right.. they all do it, but, THIS time its REALLY bad. Perhaps because Bush is Republican? No.. couldn't be.

No, because they are profiteering on a war where US troops are dying daily.

 

[USCdad]

Halliburton and Bechtel are about the only contractors capable of doing the work.
If you don't like conservatives, Republicans or President Bush, you just won't see it.
Do us all a favor and just post an "I Hate Bush" thread.
No, wait, that's what this is!
DOH!