Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (19370)	12/10/2003 11:39:28 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793551

Steve Denbeste The AP reports reactions to the American policy excluding corporations from some nations from the bidding process for reconstruction projects in Iraq: Iraq Bids Ban Fuels U.S.-Europe Rift U.S. Ban on Firms in Nations Against Iraq War From Reconstruction Bids Fuels Diplomatic Rift Across Europe, response was swift and angry Wednesday to the U.S. order barring firms based in important allied countries opponents of the Iraq war from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction projects. The article then summarizes reaction from the French, the Germans and the Russians, along with a sprinkling of comments from the EU. (And, oddly, also includes negative reactions from Canada, which wasn't in Europe last time I consulted a map.) [Of course, given plate tectonics, it might have changed.] There are a number of interesting buried assumptions in this. First is that Europe speaks with a single voice, and that any trans-Atlantic rift which might be developing is between the US and a monolithic entity known as "Europe". Second is that "Europe" is synonymous with the "Axis of Weasels". It doesn't seem to acknowledge that the majority of members of the EU are helping the US in Iraq and presumably would not be on this blacklist. And it very definitely doesn't acknowledge that the real rift is inside Europe itself. There's no rift between the US and UK, or between the US and Poland, or between the US and Spain; there's only a rift between the US and the Weasels. And why do I get the impression that the reporter, or his editors, thinks that the rift is our fault, and that it is incumbent on us to eliminate the rift by moving towards the Weasels, instead of them moving towards us? I find the term "important allied countries" interesting. France and Germany are countries, alright, so at least it's not totally wrong. But are they "important"? And more to the point, are they really "allies"? I don't think they're as important as they wish they were. (In fact I'm damned well sure that France isn't as important as the French think it should be.) And it is my opinion that they ceased being allies more than a year ago, for any meaningful value of "ally". Meanwhile, here at home the Democrats continue their pattern of substituting reflex gainsaying of everything that the Bush Administration does for anything that looks like a consistent and reasoned foreign policy. The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, called the new policy a "totally gratuitous slap" that "does nothing to protect our security interests and everything to alienate countries we need with us in Iraq." Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean cited the policy as an example of the Bush administration's "confrontation" approach "all over the world." Why, exactly, do we need France in Iraq? Biden isn't thinking this through in terms of foreign policy. What if we let all companies from all nations bid equally; would that not have been an equally gratuitous slap in the faces of the countries which actually did help us? And with respect to our security interests, doesn't this policy seem as if it would encourage other nations to be more forthcoming and cooperative in future? If you don't disproportionately reward those who helped you, would you not expect fewer to help you in future? ...Ah, but there's help and then there's help, and there's another hidden assumption here... Neither of them are thinking it through in terms of domestic politics, either, or at least not thinking it through very far. Do they really think that the majority of Americans will be scandalized that we're being so unfair to the French, after the way they behaved last winter? There are some who will be; there are some who think we need the French and Germans. But that same "some" are the ones who opposed the war and think that the French and Germans were right all along. And the reason why those "some" will object to this policy is that they think that the French and Germans were actually offering more valuable help than such sycophantic suckups as the UK, Australia and Poland. The real problem was that Bush was too stupid and intransigent to listen to our real friends, Chirac and Schröder. But opinion polls have consistently shown that they're a distinct minority among the voting population and are not, shall we say, held in high regard by the majority. And again, Biden et al are not thinking through the implications of the alternative. Most of that $18 billion came from US taxpayers. If the bidding process was wide open, and if a lot of those contracts ended up going to companies in Weasel-occupied Europe, how would they explain to Americans why so much of our money is going to reward nations which did their damndest to screw us royal a year ago? If someone tries to walk over you, you can either meekly accept that your lot in life is "doormat", or you can confront them about it. I'll go with confrontation every time. I am no doormat. denbeste.nu

To: MSI who wrote (19370)	12/11/2003 8:08:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793551

Here ya go, MSI. "Cheney/Halliburton!" The media and the Democratic candidates will be all over this. December 11, 2003 Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged on Iraq Contracts By DOUGLAS JEHL New York Times WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for Iraq that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military officials said today. The violations by a Halliburton Company subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, could involve "potentially tens of millions of dollars" in overcharging for fuel that the company is trucking into Iraq under one of two contracts, said Michael Thibault, deputy director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. In a draft report, Mr. Thibault said, the agency has recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers seek reimbursement from the company. A second set of violations, in a second contract with the Army, involve unacceptable delays by the Halliburton subsidiary in providing cost estimates to the government for dozens of separate projects already under way in Iraq, Mr. Thibault said. These violations, for work that includes the construction of food, housing and other facilities for the military, could involve overcharging as well, Mr. Thibault said. A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, said in an e-mail message that "it is not the fact that K.B.R. has overcharged." Ms. Hall said she was confident that responses being prepared by the company would satisfy the audit agency. Mr. Thibault said in a telephone interview that a final audit report would be completed later this month, and that the Halliburton subsidiary "deserves a chance to respond to our findings." But Mr. Thibault said the preliminary findings by auditors involved overcharging that was "potentially very substantial." The two Halliburton contracts are by far the largest awarded by the Pentagon for work by private companies in Iraq. Some Democrats have criticized the awarding of Iraq reconstruction contracts to the Halliburton subsidiary, saying the awards might appear to be a political payoff to a firm well connected with Republicans. But Bush administration and Halliburton officials have denied that politics played any role in the awarding of the contracts to Kellogg, Brown and Root, whose work in Iraq includes a $7 billion contract with the Army Corps of Engineers for the restoration of Iraq's oil sector and an $8.6 billion contract with the Army for logistical support. Mr. Thibault would not be specific about the basis on which the auditors have found evidence that the Halliburton subsidiary has overcharged for the fuel it is providing in Iraq under the oil contract. But government documents show that the United States is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel. nytimes.com