SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Techplayer who wrote (6268)4/1/2003 7:10:12 PM
From: Techplayer  Respond to of 21614
 
Halliburton Opts Not to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's former company has decided not to enter a controversial bidding process open only to a few experienced and well-connected firms for major Iraq reconstruction projects. Instead, Halliburton Co. will focus on becoming a secondary contractor.

Halliburton, where Cheney was chief executive officer from 1995-2000, said this week its KBR subsidiary "remains a potential subcontractor for this important work."

Officials of the Houston-based company would not say whether the decision was related to questions of favoritism and cronyism concerning the firm.

Meanwhile, the head of the State Department's Agency for International Development has defended the expedited procedure that invited only a small group of well-experienced -- and politically active -- companies to apply for prime reconstruction contracts.

Whether or not Halliburton receives work as a subcontractor, the KBR subsidiary (Kellogg, Brown & Root) already has business in Iraq under a previous Defense Department contract to extinguish oil well fires. The firm hired subcontractors Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. and Wild Well Control Inc., both also from Houston, to handle the firefighting work.

Contract controversy began before the fighting in Iraq started, when USAID sent a detailed "request for proposals" to a handful of companies for construction work that that could total up to $600 million over 21 months. The construction contract is one of eight solicitations for work in postwar Iraq.

Agency officials said they were prohibited by law from identifying the invited firms, but The Wall Street Journal said they included KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary; Bechtel Group Inc.; Parsons Corp.; Louis Berger Group and Fluor Corp., two companies that have joined together for this effort, and Washington Group International.

The Center for Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks political donations, said the companies and individuals associated with them have made $3.5 million in contributions from 1999 to 2000, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to explain the selection of KBR for the oil fires contract.

"The only rationale offered ... is that the contract work involves the implementation of a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires," Waxman wrote the Corps. "It is not clear, however, whether any other companies were asked to submit similar plans."

Bathsheba Crocker, who works on Iraq reconstruction at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "If you separate out the Cheney issue, it makes a lot of sense" to choose a firm with postwar reconstruction experience. "But at the same time, you can't separate out the Cheney issue as a political matter," she said. "It's obviously why they're in political hot water."

Andrew Natsios, the USAID administrator, has defended the fast-track contracting system that is designed to circumvent a normal bidding process that takes six months. He said speed was essential to rebuild deteriorated schools, water systems, hospitals and other buildings, and the invited bidders already possessed the necessary security clearances.

In a column Monday in USA Today, Natsios denied any cronyism or favoritism.

"If you need a surgeon, a lawn service, a real estate agent or a college, you seek out the names with the reputation for quality and the ability to get the job done," he wrote.

The multinational firms have handled reconstruction projects after conflicts in Bosnia and Haiti, Natsios said, contending the expedited system not only was legal but showed common sense for the United States' image abroad.

"We want to quickly show the world, especially Muslim countries, that we care about the Iraqi people and are ready to use our tax dollars to improve their lives," Natsios said.

He also addressed a budding controversy over whether the United States would hog the reconstruction work.

"Up to 50 percent of the work may be subcontracted to U.S. and foreign firms," he said. USAID signs primary contractors, who in turn choose the subcontractors.

The role of non-U.S. firms in rebuilding Iraq has generated its own controversy.

President Bush and others in his administration believe there should be a U.S.-run military and administrative transition toward democracy.

France and Russia are championing a U.N. role, and the French -- worried they could be shut out of postwar business deals -- are drawing up plans to win their firms some of the reconstruction business.



To: Techplayer who wrote (6268)4/1/2003 7:27:20 PM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21614
 
Serious consequences could mean lots of things. There is no definition anywhere on earth, to which I'm aware, that serious consequences means fullscale death and destruction, where innocents get killed, from war.

Serious consequences could mean bringing Saddam before an international court--which probably should have been done before any war move.

Serious consequences a change, a stiffening of the UN sanctions.

Serious consequences could mean the expulsion of Iraq form the UN.

Serious consequences could mean freezing Iraqi assets in foreign banks.

Serious consequences could mean could mean a land and sea blockade.

Serious consequences could mean Iraqi diplomatic personnel expelled from the countries of UN member nations.

Serious consequences could mean recognition the Kurdish territory or an independent Iraqi entity in exileas the government of Iraq.

Serious consequences could involve pressure brought to bear by Iraq's Arab neighbors.

Serious consequences could mean anything. Syria, as virtually all nations except Yemen, supported driving by means of force Iraq from Kuwait. Under no conditions would Syria have voted for war by its support of Resolution 1441.

Fundamentally, it's not the role of the United States to interpret to its own advantage only international law as outlined under the auspices of the United Nations. To do this is a flawed and wrongful policy.