While perhaps donating money by companies to certain political parties is not illegal I would think (don’t know the laws in the US so please correct me if I am wrong) that “rewarding” them with a contract in return is. Which would qualify as corruption.
So far for the theory. Tigerman, can you please post some link re the bidding process? Couldn’t find anything yet.
While perhaps donating money by companies to certain political parties is not illegal I would think (don’t know the laws in the US so please correct me if I am wrong) that “rewarding” them with a contract in return is. Which would qualify as corruption.[/quote]
I agree that if the contracts were awarded as a reward for political contribution, then the same would be an example of a corrupt act.
However, as I have pointed out, Bechtel is apparently head and shoulders above other potential candidates in terms of experience in the works and experience in the region and Bechtel already has 1000 people stationed in the region and Bechtel has already done work in Iraq. It seems obvious to me that in light of the requirements for expeditious movement, Bechtel was awarded the contract because it is best able and best prepared to begin work immediately. That is precisely what is needed.
If, however, Bechtel was not emminently qualified per the job requirements, yet received the contract simply as a reward for political contributions, that would, IMO, be corrupt.
Tigerman ,
you are forever defending the republican establishment that seeks to make rich men ever richer. Do you not see something strange in a restricted list of only 6 bidders for tender… Do you not think they would have had 6 months to a year to ready these tenders? That all the companies make large contributions to the republicans?
This sort of carry on would send people to jail in many countries after investigation of political patronage? Are you happy being screwed by cohorts of rich individuals and connected people? I dont know what you do but I guess you are not a chief executive of one of these corporations.
I mean you seem to be adept at arguing the benefits of the war for the US per se but it’s not so clear to me what the benefits are for the man on the street in the US.
I mean it’s the man on the street who is getting his ass shot at or risks getting drafted in this or a future conflict. It’s also the man on the street whose getting his tax dollars thrown down a gigantic sinkhole and put into trillion dollar debts. Rich people don’t need medicare but the man on the street sure does.
Sure you might have cheaper oil in the US for more SUVs but you might also have a new ice age or rising sea level to go with it.
Making the world safer has also yet to be seen.
Okami: No country is an island and while the US can currently stomp around the world at will it cannot do so forever. This isolationism and fear on the part of americans is strange to the rest of the world in general. This strangeness to us may soon result in a fear and then a hate. I can already see this hate in some of my usually easy going and well educated friends, who don’t come from countries such as England, France or Russia. They come from small countries dotted around the globe. This is surely not the right direction to go in.
I would still disagree that choosing Bechtel without any fair bidding was correct, no matter how competent they are.
It does not exclude the possibility that there are other competent competitors and if those are willing to pay the expenses for sending their staff to there it’s their call. I believe there is more to it than the 2 reasons stated (experience and people in place).
To choose one only and then give some reasons still doesn’t make the whole process right - especially not if this is a government contract. A private instituation can perhaps pick a subcontractor or supplier without any tender, but not the government spending tax payers money.
Thus I have tendency to suspect favourism and corruption and stand corrected until it has been proven that there was a fair bidding process and that Bechtel indeed was the best in fulfilling all the requirements.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Tigerman ,
you are forever defending the republican establishment that seeks to make rich men ever richer. Do you not see something strange in a restricted list of only 6 bidders for tender…[/quote]
Not under the relevant circumstances.
Nearly all large and many small companies make political contributions. Together, the six companies invited to bid on the contract that bechtel won contributed lots to both republicans and democrats, and I think I read that 59% went to republicans… that means that 41% went to democrats. I don’t see a big problem with this (OK, I wish there was no need for political contributions) as it isn’t as though these companies gave ONLY to republicans.
Was Bechtel the most qualified to do the job per the job’s special requirements or not, despite political contributions that it has made? If the job was awarded based on Bechtel’s competence and ability, then I have no problem with the process. If it were to be found that Bechtel received the contract as a reward for political contributions only and that Bechtel is not best qualified to do the job, then, yes, I’d be angry.
How am I being screwed? I haven’t the capability to do the work.
If the war on terrorism succeeds and the middle east is transformed, there will be plenty of benefits for everyone.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]I mean it’s the man on the street who is getting his ass shot at or risks getting drafted in this or a future conflict. It’s also the man on the street whose getting his tax dollars thrown down a gigantic sinkhole and put into trillion dollar debts. Rich people don’t need medicare but the man on the street sure does.
Sure you might have cheaper oil in the US for more SUVs but you might also have a new ice age or rising sea level to go with it.
Making the world safer has also yet to be seen.[/quote]
I don’t share your pessimism.
I agree, those friends and those countries should re-think there stance 
… Seriously, because other people are angry at us does not necessarily mean that we are wrong.
Odd. Your “well educated friends” are uncomfortable with the US but this is ok, right?
time.com/time/europe/magazin … 52,00.html
[color=red]
Uday’s Maiden?
[/color]
A chilling memento of Saddam’s son
BY APARISIM GHOSH/BAGHDAD
Saddam Hussein’s psychotic firstborn, Uday, enjoyed a long, sadistic reign as Iraq’s sports czar. As chief of Iraq’s National Olympic Committee and its soccer organization, he ordered the torture of athletes who performed below expectations. The national soccer team came in for particularly savage treatment: players had their feet scalded and toenails ripped off for failing to win matches. But on visits to Iraq, investigators from international sporting bodies, notably soccer’s FIFA, never found people to testify to such charges
Why would I ever think this is ok?
Like I’ve said, I think the bidding was fair, in the circumstances.
First, time is of the essence and Bechtel already has people on the ground in the region. That, IMO, was a huge consideration favoring Bechtel.
Secondly, unless I am mistaken, the initial contract is to be paid for by US tax-payers’ money rather than by Iraqi oil. As such, although the winner is permitted to subcontract work to foreign companies, the USAID (the agency that conducted the bidding process) was required to limit the invitation to US companies.
Again, given the time constraints and certain military concerns, and the particular job requirements, there are not very many companies qualified to perform the work.
Obviously they were very clever. Doesn’t matter who will win - Bechtel would also be “a favorite”.
I wasn’t saying they have to hire a foreign company but rather there might be somthing fishy in choosing this particular US company over other US companies.
If Bechtel’s bid was higher than those of comparable (qualified) competitors than the US taxpayer, including you, is going to pay for that difference.
“No llores por mi Argentina” 
Now this is delightful! 
(For those of you who don’t know much about US politics, Senator Dianne Fienstein, Dem-California is famous for her anti-war, anti-gun and other liberal stances.)
[color=red]Army contract for Feinstein’s husband [/color]
URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.
The award to help with troop mobilization, weapons systems training and anti-terrorism efforts is the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years.
Government contracting has come under increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizen groups, with critics decrying the political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum, Feinstein’s husband, serves on the company’s board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm’s stock, according to Hoover’s Inc. research firm.
A Feinstein spokesman Monday declined to comment on the contract.
Blum and several URS representatives could not be reached for comment. A Pentagon spokesman said he was unfamiliar with the contract.
Announced in a company press release Monday, the contract calls for URS Corp.'s EG&G division and partner International Consultants Inc. to help with operations planning, troop mobilization, weapons system training and anti- terrorism assessment. The contract runs for five years.
“We are very pleased with this important win, which further expands our strong relationship with the Army and demonstrates our ability to provide a full spectrum of support services to ensure that our troops remain combat ready and capable of quickly mobilizing to address threats around the world,” said George R. Melton, president of the EG&G division, in a press release.
URS boasts some 25,000 employees working in more than 20 countries. Although the firm has a long history of government work, it has focused more on those activities since acquiring EG&G from the Carlyle Group investment firm last year for about $500 million.
EG&G works with the military, NASA, and several federal departments, according to Hoover’s. The company’s areas of expertise range from designing transportation infrastructure to training people to dismantle weapons of mass destruction.
URS brought in more than $2.4 billion in revenue during 2002.
Me no speak foreign.
Where love falls …
[quote=“blueface666”]Now this is delightful!
(For those of you who don’t know much about US politics, Senator Dianne Fienstein, Dem-California is famous for her anti-war, anti-gun and other liberal stances.)
[color=red]Army contract for Feinstein’s husband [/color]
URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.
The award to help with troop mobilization, weapons systems training and anti-terrorism efforts is the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years.
Government contracting has come under increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizen groups, with critics decrying the political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum, Feinstein’s husband, serves on the company’s board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm’s stock, according to Hoover’s Inc. research firm.
A Feinstein spokesman Monday declined to comment on the contract.
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 310531.DTL[/quote]
Political patronage (of any persuasion) swings contracts…why is that delightful for you? You are the one getting ripped off by lobbyists and big business.
I do find it strange that her husband is the head of a company heavily involved with the military if she is so anti-war. Still a marriage can hold people of different opinions.
I read these same comments battling back and forth over who is worse than who. While Bechtel won this contract, (and many would view this with a degree of skepticism), France, Russia and Germany have had dirty ties with Iraq for decades. If you want to criticize one, then criticize both sides and be objective about it. More important, what’s the point and what can be done about it?
Also, some of the moral relativism is a bit hard to swallow. Disagree with Bush for ignoring the UN or for bombing Iraq, but comparing him with Hitler or saying that Iraq under Saddam is somehow the moral equilavent of the United States under Bush is just plain stupid.
I think the debate itself is healthy. Does the UN really deserve to be involved. How about some intelligent debate on this pro and con. I have read some scathing articles lately about the inefficiency and cronyism of the UN. Anyone want to answer those charges? Also from the other side, what can be done about reforming the UN if you are so dissatisfied with it now that will make it a useful organization for promoting international peace, stability and rule of law?
You could do a lot worse than checking out Tigerman’s posts on the subject. I used to want to throttle the bugger when this whole debate began, but after reading the back-and-forth between him, Rascal, Gavin, et al, his arguments have won me over completely. Seems simply that no-one has any convincing arguments to counter him with, though god knows they keep trying.
Its very entertaining and I’ve learned a great deal. Thanks to all involved.
fred, may I suggest you post this in the “American foreign policy is the answer to everything” thread?
I started this topic purely based on the concern of corruption in awarding a contract within the US, not to start (yet) another debate on the Iraqi war or the UN.
While you comments re Russia, Germany and France are legitimate they still do not make a good argument for supporting the US position on things, at least not if the US is the one claiming to do everything for the best of US and preaches high moral standards but fails to live up to those.
But again I would suggest to open another, seperate thread about it.
Blame it on my puckish sense of irony.
Price is not the only consideration in awarding the contract. In this case, the expertise re the works as well, particularly, as the comparative ability to get started quickly, were very important considerations.
If the prices bid were all fairly competitive, and even if some were less expensive than Bechtel, then the ability of Bechtel to get going much more quickly than the other companies would be significant, IMO.
The cost to US taxpayers in the long-run, should the reconstruction be botched, would likely far exceed any difference in the extra $$$ that Bechtel might receive due to a higher bid, if indeed its bid was higher.
Perhaps this is the wrong forum, but it seems the most directly related. Today the BBC produced a rather scathing review of the misinformation put out by the British & US intelligence agencies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2971907.stm
[quote]Not only have no mass weapons systems been found (one has to add a “yet” here), but there were major flaws in the documents which will put in doubt any assessment of programmes elsewhere - in North Korea, Iran and Syria, for example.
Dr Blix mentioned technical flaws in the dossiers, especially a failure (in this case it was a failure by the British) to realise that documents alleging an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger were forgeries.
And perhaps more fundamentally there are allegations that the impetus for publishing the dossiers and interpreting the evidence in the most prejudicial way possible was not intelligence-led but political.
The problem for the US and British services now is one of credibility.
Even if weapons systems are found in the extensive searches now going on, the weaknesses already revealed will reflect badly on the next assessments.
[/quote]
Is there no law that could put an end to this absurd practice?