Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations

[elder999]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_contracts_2

WASHINGTON - Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.


The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.


The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.


The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.


Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries.


"No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government," Center executive director Charles Lewis said. "This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism."

[Marc Renouf]

"The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years."

No offense, but when I hear stuff like this I always shudder. a half a million dollars is a drop in the bucket in terms of campaing contributions, especially spread among 70 companies and contractors.

Similarly, was there a trend? Discounting Bush, did the same companies and contractors give more money to (say) Dole than they had to any other politician over the previous dozen years? Are the dollar amounts given for the past dozen years adjusted for inflation?

Keep in mind that nobody who donated to Bush's 2000 campaign could have had any inkling about getting any lucrative reconstruction contracts, because 9/11 wasn't until a year later, and Afghanistan and Iraq were farther removed still. So implying direct cause and effect is not only misleading, it's blatant fabrication.

Do I think that there's croynism in our government? Damn skippy. But I also think that a lot of people toss statistics and number around without thinking about them first, drawing conclusions that are not necessarily supported.

As for reconstruction contracts, that whole system has been a mess from the word go. I understand the original need for contractors to have security clearances (it's tough to ask for a pre-war bid for rebuilding the Al Hamzamoudi Power Plant without tipping your hand that it's high on your target list), but there are better ways to go about it. But what I dislike more than the way that the contracts were awarded is the ridiculously sluggish pace at which they are being executed. We're handing out absurd sums of money with very little to show for it at this point. This is actually one of the chief bones of contention to the Iraqis, from what I understand.

[Mitch Saret]

I thought I read the reason there was no competitive bidding for the contracts was there was only one bidder. Tough to compete like that.

I could be mistaken and won't swear to it, however.

[Dex]

Because a state of emergency was declared, there was no bidding, auditing or any kind of scrutiny.

The contracts were awarded by the gov't.

http://www.invisual.us/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=46&FORUM_ID=1&CAT_ID=1&Topic_Title=WMD+found+in+Iraq&Forum_Title=General+Chat

Look at my posts here to see how corrupt the system is.

------------------------------------------------------

Bush took these figures to the House Appropriations Commitee, I will compare them to the UN/World Bank estimates for the same work. (Bear in mind that the UN and World Bank have a lot of experience in these things)

Rebuilding electricty supplies:
Bush $5.7 billion
UN/WB $2.3 billion

Water and Sanitation:
Bush $3.7 billion
UN/WB $1.9 billion

Overall Reconstruction costs.
Bush $18.5 billion
UN/WB $9 billion

The Whitehouse of course has disputed the UN/WB figures. The Whitehouse says the funding requests are for 18 months (as I noted in my previous post about the ISG, where I also acknowledged that it was for an 18 month period).

But...All the funding mentioned in this post was for the fiscal year Oct 2003-Sept 2004!

And what would you like to bet that all these things run over budget?

Bush of course is telling the US taxpayer (and Iraqis whose oil he is stealing) that pretty soon the UN is going to hand over many billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops to help.

These contracts are funny too...they are gauranteed return with an inbuilt 7% profit margin.

So the usual suspects (Haliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed and all the rest) got huge, untendered, unaudited contracts with the US taxpayer via the military with a gauranteed return...and THEN doubled the price.

No way to run an economy.

----------------------------------------------------------

[Mitch Saret]

and by all reports, booming. The only negativity you've gotten on the economy over the last week is from opponents of the president.

As far as the U.N. or world bank having experience in the rebuilding process, America has quite a bit of experience too. And while I am not a fan of the government being involved in a lot, or their money management, the U.N. has been much worse, and the world bank is largely funded by us anyway.

The U.N. is an irrelevant organization of late. And when you find out that Kofi Annan has been stealing from the hunger funds and rebuilding funds set up for Iraq, the claim of Bush stealing Iraqi oil is ludicrous at best. It has been well documented that the intentions were for the Iraqi oil to be used to help pay for many of the things being done, as well as for it to flow freely to other oil using nations, and it is. The majority of the Iraqi people are damn glad we are there. Businesses, owned by women, are open in Bagdad for the first time in over 20 years.

The argument has also been made that terrorism is now focused on Iraq. Wasn't that part of the plan? The main point is the terrorism is not here! Are americans dying? Of course they are. And even one serviceman's life lost is too many. But they are the one's serving in the military, and willing to risk their lives. Part of the military's job is to be where the threat is, so it doesn't come here and we get 3000 civilians blown to bits again.

I have plenty of criticism of President Bush, but on Iraq, I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Heh, I've always thought the UN was irrelevant and worthless. A debating society in which nothing of importance ever happens.

:beer:

[rinpoche]

Keep in mind that nobody who donated to Bush's 2000 campaign could have had any inkling about getting any lucrative reconstruction contracts, because 9/11 wasn't until a year later, and Afghanistan and Iraq were farther removed still. So implying direct cause and effect is not only misleading, it's blatant fabrication.

Except that Bush talked about invading Iraq during his campaign. It's funny that people still believe that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. They never were except in the minds of the people.

The administration used the fear generated from the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq war. Here is a statement made by Bush in regards to Iraq:

We will make sure that an attack like 9/11 will never again happen oin US soil.

The logical fallacy is blatent here. First 9/11 was not carried out by Iraq. Second, in going after people who did not do 9/11 how on Earth do you prvenet another attack from happening? THis was a statement that had one clear purpose - to play off the fears of 9/11 to justify Iraq - which had been planned for years.

[Mitch Saret]

I was listening to a report yesterday where a top Al Quaida guy, who has been captured for a long time, has finally started to talk. He's linking support for Al Quaida to Hussein.

Now, I have never seen any direct evidence linking Iraq and 9/11, however, there seems to be more and more evidence surfacing Iraq/Hussein and Al Quaida, Hamas, and other terror organizations. Circumstantial evidence of the questionable links abounds.

While bin Laden is not Afghani, would you invade Saudi Arabia to look for him and his group? Of course not. And just because 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, does that mean they were involved and living in Saudi Arabia? It does not. Now I am not a big fan of the Saudi's right now, but we have to be a bit more practical.

As an aside, there were no links between Germany and Japan in WW II until after the beginning of the war, yet we forever link them as the enemy of that conflict.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
I was listening to a report yesterday where a top Al Quaida guy, who has been captured for a long time, has finally started to talk. He's linking support for Al Quaida to Hussein.

Now, I have never seen any direct evidence linking Iraq and 9/11, however, there seems to be more and more evidence surfacing Iraq/Hussein and Al Quaida, Hamas, and other terror organizations. Circumstantial evidence of the questionable links abounds.

While bin Laden is not Afghani, would you invade Saudi Arabia to look for him and his group? Of course not. And just because 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, does that mean they were involved and living in Saudi Arabia? It does not. Now I am not a big fan of the Saudi's right now, but we have to be a bit more practical.

As an aside, there were no links between Germany and Japan in WW II until after the beginning of the war, yet we forever link them as the enemy of that conflict.

There's been a link between Saddam Hussein and the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing almost since immediately after it happened, including F.B.I. suspicions that the "mastermind" behind it was a member of the Iraqi secret police.We also know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ‘93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, and returned to Iraq after the attack of ‘93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. This individual was Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in August 1993, and is the sole remaining fugitive from that attack.

I also would not discount the Saudi government's role in 9-11, but that's just me.