Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Powell Admits No Hard Proof Linking Iraq

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    January 9, 2004
    DIPLOMACY
    [b]Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda[/b]
    By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.

    "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

    Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has become widely accepted and something administration officials have done little to discourage.

    Mr. Powell offered a vigorous defense of his Feb. 5 presentation before the Security Council, in which he voiced the administration's most detailed case to date for war with Iraq. After studying intelligence data, he said that a "sinister nexus" existed "between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."

    Without any additional qualifiers, Mr. Powell continued, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants."

    He added, "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible."

    On Thursday, Mr. Powell dismissed second-guessing and said that Mr. Bush had acted after giving Mr. Hussein 12 years to come into compliance with the international community.

    "The president decided he had to act because he believed that whatever the size of the stockpile, whatever one might think about it, he believed that the region was in danger, America was in danger and he would act," he said. "And he did act."

    In a rare, wide-ranging meeting with reporters, Mr. Powell voiced some optimism on several other issues that have bedeviled the administration, including North Korea and Sudan, while expressing dismay about the Middle East and Haiti.

    But mostly, the secretary, appearing vigorous and in good spirits three weeks after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer, defended his justification for the war in Iraq. He said he had been fully aware that "the whole world would be watching," as he painstakingly made the case that the government of Saddam Hussein presented an imminent threat to the United States and its interests.

    The immediacy of the danger was at the core of debates in the United Nations over how to proceed against Mr. Hussein. A report released Thursday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan Washington research center, concluded that Iraq's weapons programs constituted a long-term threat that should not have been ignored. But it also said the programs did not "pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region or to global security."

    Mr. Powell's United Nations presentation complete with audiotapes and satellite photographs asserted that "leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option." The secretary said he had spent time with experts at the Central Intelligence Agency studying reports. "Anything that we did not feel was solid and multisourced, we did not use in that speech," he said Thursday.

    He said that Mr. Hussein had used prohibited weapons in the past including nerve gas attacks against Iran and Iraqi Kurds and said that even if there were no actual weapons at hand, there was every indication he would reconstitute them once the international community lost interest.

    "In terms of intention, he always had it," Mr. Powell said. "What he was waiting to do is see if he could break the will of the international community, get rid of any potential future inspections, and get back to his intentions, which were to have weapons of mass destruction."

    [b]The administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member team of American weapons inspectors who were charged with finding chemical or biological weapons stockpiles or laboratories, officials said this week. The team was part of the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which has not turned up such weapons or active programs, the officials said.[/b]

    The Carnegie report challenged the possibility that Mr. Hussein could have destroyed the weapons, hidden them or shipped them out of the country. Officials had alleged that Iraq held amounts so huge hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles that such moves would have been detected by the United States, the report said.

    The Washington Post this week reported that Iraq had apparently preserved its ability to produce missiles, biological agents and other illicit weapons through the decade-long period of international sanctions after the Persian Gulf war, but that their development had apparently been limited to the planning stage.

    On North Korea, he said he had received "encouraging signals" from his Asian counterparts that the North might be close to agreeing to another round of six-party talks. But he said the administration would not yield on its insistence that the North first state its willingness to bring its nuclear program to a verifiable end.

    Mr. Powell was equally hopeful about a peace agreement to end a grueling civil war in Sudan. "The key here is that after 20 years of most terrible war, Sudanese leaders have come together and are just one or two steps short of having a comprehensive peace agreement," he said.

    On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said the United States and the three other nations promoting peace talks had expected more movement ending hostilities and establishing a Palestinian state. "They are as disturbed as I am that we haven't seen the kind of progress that we had hoped for," he said.

    Turning to Haiti, where a decade ago Mr. Powell took part in a delegation that sought to persuade plotters in a military coup to step down, he voiced frustration at the failure of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to reach agreement with his political foes. Violence has flared in recent days as anti-Aristide protesters demanded an end to a political deadlock that has paralyzed the government. The country's Catholic Bishops Conference has tried to broker a new agreement.

  2. #2
    don't worry Tail, Weeb still thinks there are weapons there

    i mean the President couldn't have LIED to us to bring the country to war - cmon that's unthinkable!!! B)

    i especially like that Powell felt the Admin had to consider "the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

    didn't realize "considering the connections" mean bombing the crap out of bagdhad.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Bit and tail your just a bunch of anti-americans, anti-semites, and leftist dittoheads.

    Seriously, though this is pretty damaging evidence considering its comming from one of Bush's cronnies.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Funny, I don't remember them (the administration) ever claiming there was a smoking gun...I remember assertions that Al-Queda trained in Iraq and Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague.

    BTW: how come no link to the story? Bitonti..please try and post in coherent sentences. My spelling is poor but you still get the general idea.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 11:30 AM
    [b] Bit and tail your just a bunch of anti-americans, anti-semites, and leftist dittoheads.

    Seriously, though this is pretty damaging evidence considering its comming from one of Bush's cronnies. [/b][/quote]
    yes...and so are all your other conspiracies.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Funny, I don't remember them (the administration) ever claiming there was a smoking gun...I remember assertions that Al-Queda trained in Iraq and Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague.
    [/b][/quote]

    And that is justification for going to war and losing up to this point around 500 american soldiers?

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 11:36 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Funny, I don't remember them (the administration) ever claiming there was a smoking gun...I remember assertions that Al-Queda trained in Iraq and Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague.
    [/b][/quote]

    And that is justification for going to war and losing up to this point around 500 american soldiers? [/b][/quote]
    Obviously you are either deaf, dumb and/or ignorant (all three judging your posts).

    In America if you are an accessory to the crime you are guilty.

    Of course clowns like yourself were saying there would be "5,000" body bags with American soldiers (the ones you've already stated you do not support) coming back before this all began and the war effort was totally based on "blood for oil"

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 11:42 AM
    [b] Obviously you are either deaf, dumb and/or ignorant (all three judging your posts).
    [/b][/quote]
    those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Come Back to NY

    strong statement coming from the man who can't read my posts cause they aren't on a 4th grade reading level. :D

    if it makes you feel better consider my posts as free verse

    have to work a little to get the gist

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    From one of your favs...


    The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.


    The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. Hillary Clinton

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 04:50 PM
    [b] From one of your favs...


    The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.


    The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. Hillary Clinton [/b][/quote]
    Try to spead the blame all you want, but it was President Bush's administration that was in the vanguard suggesting that it was in the United States' urgent national security interests to invade and disarm Iraq of it's "Massive Stockpile of chemical and Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction".

    Now that its been proven beyond all doubt that Iraq had no such weapons afterall the egg belongs squarely on the president's face.

    BTW 5-ever...What's you opinion now that the U.S. is poised to terminate the search for the Iraqi WMD's. I seem to recall you saying that if they did this before any were found that you'd be pissed and admit we were misled into this war. Do you still feel this way?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 03:49 PM
    [b] have to work a little to get the gist [/b][/quote]
    Work hard to get the gist of your posts?

    This is a synopsis of a years worth of your posts:

    [i]Iraq had no WMDs.
    Saddam wasn't a threat to America.
    The USA is the worse country in the world.
    I only got a $0.95 tax break.
    George Bush is a rich, pampered fratboy.
    George Bush wore a flight suit.
    George Bush is a chicken-hawk.
    George Bush forced the democrats to vote in favor of the war.
    Haliburton runs the country.
    Wesley Clark may me the next coming of Christ.
    I'm an open minded liberal democrat that would never vote for a Republican.
    The last war worthy of fighting was the Revolutionary War -- and even then, too many people died.[/i]

    Bit, my kindergardener gets the gist of your posts.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 9 2004, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 9 2004, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JetFanTransplant[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 04:50 PM
    [b] From one of your favs...


    The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam&#39;s expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.


    The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. Hillary Clinton [/b][/quote]
    Try to spead the blame all you want, but it was President Bush&#39;s administration that was in the vanguard suggesting that it was in the United States&#39; urgent national security interests to invade and disarm Iraq of it&#39;s "Massive Stockpile of chemical and Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction".

    Now that its been proven beyond all doubt that Iraq had no such weapons afterall the egg belongs squarely on the president&#39;s face.

    BTW 5-ever...What&#39;s you opinion now that the U.S. is poised to terminate the search for the Iraqi WMD&#39;s. I seem to recall you saying that if they did this before any were found that you&#39;d be pissed and admit we were misled into this war. Do you still feel this way? [/b][/quote]
    Not spreading the blame tail... just helping you understand that Bush didn&#39;t lie. Maybe he was misled, and hell, that could be worse, but I don&#39;t believe that this was all planned on the farm in Texas.

    Agreed, if it turns out (all but a foregone conclusion thus far) that there are / were no WMD&#39;s then sure, the egg is on the face of G.W.

    But the reality is, it has happened, what is the exit strategy? Can you offer up one?

    Can&#39;t just cut & run like Nam, or can you?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Jan 9 2004, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Jan 9 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 03:49 PM
    [b] have to work a little to get the gist [/b][/quote]
    Work hard to get the gist of your posts?

    This is a synopsis of a years worth of your posts:

    1-Iraq had no WMDs.
    2-Saddam wasn&#39;t a threat to America.
    3-The USA is the worse country in the world.
    4- I only got a &#036;0.95 tax break.
    5- George Bush is a rich, pampered fratboy.
    6- George Bush wore a flight suit.
    7-George Bush is a chicken-hawk.
    8-George Bush forced the democrats to vote in favor of the war.
    9- Haliburton runs the country.
    10- Wesley Clark may me the next coming of Christ.
    11-I&#39;m an open minded liberal democrat that would never vote for a Republican.[/i]

    Bit, my kindergardener gets the gist of your posts. [/b][/quote]

    Allow me to answer.
    1- True
    2- True
    3- Ridiculous
    4- for anyone making under &#036;50,000, that&#39;s about right.
    5- True
    6- True, except of course when he was AWOL.
    7- True
    8- Forced no, misled ummmmm probably?
    9- False, but no bid contracts are yummy&#33;
    10- Doubt it.
    11- bit is one of the most open minded posters here.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,097
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 05:00 PM
    [b] Halliburton runs the country.
    [/b][/quote]
    Weeb, all the indignant shrieks from the left about Halliburton do nothing more than provide yet another illustration of their ignorance (at best) or their malevolent dishonesty (at worst).

    Halliburton was a favored vendor of the Clinton administration (you never hear about that though), and the cries of "no bid contracts" is yet another crock of baloney.

    This is long, but it&#39;s a good read.


    [quote][b][b]All Smoke, No Fire: The administration&#39;s critics are wrong about Halliburton and Iraq.[/b]
    by Byron York

    On March 24, Halliburton, the giant energy-services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, announced that a subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root,
    had signed a contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires in Iraq, as well as to evaluate and repair the Iraqi oil infrastructure. The
    announcement set off an Angry reaction in some circles on Capitol Hill. On March 26, California Democratic representative Henry Waxman wrote a letter to the
    Corps demanding to know why the contract was signed "without any competition or even notice to Congress." On April 8, Waxman, joined by Democratic
    representative John Dingell, requested a General Accounting Office investigation, writing that "ties" between Cheney and Halliburton "have raised concerns about
    whether the company has received favorable treatment from the administration." On April 10, Waxman wrote the Corps again, demanding more information.
    More Waxman letters followed on April 16, May 6, and June 6.

    Liberal voices in the press followed Waxman&#39;s lead. Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Michael Kinsley called the Halliburton contract "nation-building,
    Republican-style, with huge contracts awarded in secret to politically connected companies." The New York Times editorialized that the contract "looks like naked
    favoritism" and "undermines the Bush administration&#39;s portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre."

    One element missing from all the criticism was a serious examination of what the Halliburton contract actually involved and how it came to be signed. For
    example, was it really reached without competition, as Waxman charged? As it turns out, the evidence that is publicly available (some of it remains classified)
    suggests that Waxman&#39;s accusations are misleading at best and flat wrong at worst. It appears not only that there was not "naked favoritism" at work in the
    Halliburton contract, but that the Corps of Engineers, and the Bush administration, acted reasonably and properly in awarding the contract- no matter what
    Waxman says.

    Waxman has made three basic accusations about the Halliburton deal. The first is that it was signed without appropriate competition. The second is that it called
    for Halliburton to be paid under an arrangement that- Waxman says-often results in overcharges to the government. The third objection is that it is a questionable
    use of federal money because of what Waxman calls Halliburton&#39;s "troubling" performance record.

    First the competition issue. Last year, as administration officials made plans for war in Iraq, they were greatly concerned that Saddam Hussein would set fire to his
    country&#39;s oil fields, just as retreating Iraqi troops had done in Kuwait at the end of the first Gulf War. That, military planners knew, would result in a huge
    economic and environmental disaster. "The model we were looking at was what the Iraqis had done in Kuwait at the end of the Gulf War," says Lt. Col. Eugene
    Pawlik, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers. "We had to consider the possibility that the Iraqis would set that many or more wells on fire in Iraq and
    what it would take for us to throw a maximum response at a maximum destruction scenario."

    Last November, the Corps assigned Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton since the 1960s, to do a classified
    study of potential damage and repairs in the Iraqi oil fields. Contrary to Waxman&#39;s assertion, the work was done under a competitively awarded contract system
    known as the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The LOGCAP system came about because of the military&#39;s need to perform
    complex jobs-peacekeeping in Bosnia, intervention in Haiti-on sometimes very short notice. In such situations, American troops require lots of logistical support;
    camps have to be built, utilities have to be supplied, food has to be cooked. By the early 1990s, as the size of the active-duty force shrank, the Pentagon began to
    "outsource" much of that work, that is, pay civilian contractors to do it rather than tie up soldiers with non-essential tasks. Instead of going through a months-long
    competitive-bidding process for each job, the military came up with LOGCAP.

    LOGCAP is, in effect, a multi-year supercontract. In it, the Army makes a deal with a single contractor, in this case Halliburton, to perform a wide range of
    unspecified services during emergency situations in the future. The last competition for LOGCAP came in 2001, when Halliburton won the contract over several
    other bidders. Thus, when the oil-field study was needed, Corps officials say, Halliburton was the natural place to turn. "To invite other contractors to compete to
    perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful
    duplication of effort," Corps commander Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers wrote to Waxman in April.

    In February 2003, with the study done, the Corps of Engineers decided to issue a contract to actually execute the plan that KBR had drawn up for dealing with
    problems in the Iraqi oil fields. At the end of that month, Army headquarters authorized the Corps to issue a sole-source contract to KBR. (The assignment
    seemed logical for another reason: Halliburton/KBR put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.) "Only KBR, the contractor that developed the
    complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice," Flowers wrote Waxman. "The timing was driven by
    Central Command&#39;s operational requirement to have support available in advance of possibly imminent hostilities." Flowers added that the contract was always
    intended as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent contract that would be offered for competitive bidding.

    The next question was how large the contract should be. That was a difficult problem, because no one knew how big the problem would be. Would all the fields
    burn? Would none of them? Just a few? The Army assumed a worst-case scenario and decided the contract would be worth any amount between &#036;0 and &#036;7 billion
    (a common contracting practice known as ID/IQ, which stands for indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity). The &#036;7 billion cap was thought to be sufficient to
    handle any emergency.

    When the Army told Waxman that, he immediately began calling the KBR deal a &#036;7 billion contract. "We are told it was a short-term contract for very little
    money, then it turned out it was a &#036;7 billion contract," he said on National Public Radio in early May. What Waxman did not say was that he had been told a
    month earlier that the contract would not be worth anywhere near the cap amount. Because most of the anticipated disasters did not take place, the Army has
    asked KBR to do much less work than the original worst-case scenario envisioned, and the contract has therefore been worth far less than it might have been. "We
    will come nowhere close to the &#036;7 billion figure," says Lt. Col. Pawlik. As of mid June, Pawlik says, the task orders issued to Kellogg Brown & Root totaled about
    &#036;214 million. It&#39;s estimated that, in the end, costs will probably amount to around &#036;600 million. While that is not pocket change, it&#39;s also not &#036;7 billion-contrary,
    again, to Waxman&#39;s assertion.

    Army officials also suggest that critics consider what might have happened had the Iraqi situation worked out differently. Suppose the wells had been torched and
    the Army, following Waxman&#39;s advice, had begun a long, complicated competitive-bidding process to find a company to put out the fires. "I don&#39;t think people
    would have been satisfied for the wells to have been burning while we were going through standard contract practices," says Pawlik. "I think we would have been
    getting a lot of questions about why did we pursue that course of action."

    Waxman&#39;s second objection concerns the way the company will be paid for its services. The LOGCAP payment method, known as a cost-plus-award, calls for
    KBR to be paid its costs plus a profit of 1 percent. According to the General Accounting Office, KBR could also earn "an incentive fee of up to nine percent of
    the cost estimate, based on the contractor&#39;s performance in a number of areas, including cost control." In one of his letters to the Corps of Engineers, Waxman
    says that the cost-plus-award system is "generally discouraged in the executive branch because it provides the contractor with an incentive to increase its profits by
    increasing the costs to the taxpayer." But in fact, the cost-plus-award method is an extremely common arrangement throughout the defense-contracting industry;
    one can leaf through the pages of Defense Daily and see many hundreds of contracts handled on the same basis. Given such widespread use, it is hard to
    conclude that the cost- plus-award method somehow makes the Halliburton contract a sweetheart deal for a politically favored company. (Nor is the contract
    unusually generous; the LOGCAP&#39;s range of a 1 percent to 9 percent fee is in line with standard government/industry practice.)

    Finally, Waxman objects to what he calls Halliburton&#39;s "troubling" performance record, suggesting that Halliburton would not have gotten the contract had Vice
    President Cheney not once headed the company. But Waxman&#39;s charges-and their echoes in outraged editorials-overlook Halliburton&#39;s extensive history of
    defense work for earlier administrations. Indeed, far from having a "troubling" past, one could argue that Halliburton was a favorite contractor of the Clinton
    Pentagon.

    The first LOGCAP was awarded in 1992, as the first Bush administration (including then-Secretary of Defense Cheney) was leaving office. Four companies
    competed, and the winner was Brown & Root, as it was known at the time (Halliburton changed the name to Kellogg Brown & Root after an acquisition in 1998).
    The multi-year contract was in effect during much of the Clinton administration. During those years, Brown & Root did extensive work for the Army under the
    LOGCAP contract in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia; contract workers built base camps and provided troops with electrical power, food, and other necessities. In 1997,
    when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department,
    rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the
    Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the
    area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army&#39;s sole-source
    Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract.
    The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.

    That work received favorable notices throughout the Clinton administration. For example, Vice President Al Gore&#39;s National Performance Review mentioned
    Halliburton&#39;s performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows
    Combat Troops to Stick to Basics," Gore&#39;s reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which
    the report said provided "basic life support services-food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services- transportation, electrical,
    hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance."

    In 2001, after the Bush administration came into office, the giant LOGCAP contract expired again and another competition was held. Once again, Halliburton
    won the contract, and it was under that arrangement that the Iraqi-oilfield analysis was done. As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts
    under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman
    is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years.

    That is not to say that there have not been problems with Halliburton&#39;s work-under both administrations. For example, Waxman cites a case last year in which the
    company paid a &#036;2 million fine to resolve fraud allegations stemming from its work on a California military base. He also suggests that Halliburton/KBR
    overcharged the military throughout the Bosnia mission.

    In the California case, the company clearly engaged in wrongdoing. But the scope of the problem, when considered in light of the enormous amount of work
    Halliburton/KBR does for the government and the fact that the issues have been resolved, does not seem a reason to cut Halliburton off from future work. As far
    as Bosnia is concerned, while critics correctly point out that the company&#39;s payment far exceeded original estimates, they fail to mention that a 1997 General
    Accounting Office report placed the blame mostly on the Army, and not Halliburton/KBR. "Our review shows that the difference in the Army&#39;s estimates was
    largely driven by changes in operational requirements once the forces arrived in Bosnia," the GAO wrote. "Specifically, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Army,
    Europe, decided to increase the number of base camps from 14 large camps to 34 smaller ones and to accelerate the schedule for upgrading troop housing."
    Halliburton/KBR was paid more because the Army wanted more.

    Now the company is doing major work in Iraq. And while Halliburton&#39;s record is generally good, it seems clear that projects of such enormous scope and cost
    warrant constant scrutiny from government accountants. Because of that, Waxman&#39;s request for a GAO investigation of the Iraqi oil contracts seems entirely
    reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that by the time he made the request, the GAO had already decided to study the issue. The study will be part of a long line of
    GAO investigations of military matters. For example, from 1991 to 1993, the GAO published 75 reports on all aspects of Operation Desert Shield and Operation
    Desert Storm. It would not be unreasonable to expect as many from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    The problem, from Henry Waxman&#39;s perspective, is that the investigation will likely show that both the government and Halliburton/KBR acted properly. Such a
    conclusion won&#39;t help Waxman&#39;s ongoing campaign to suggest that there is something inherently corrupt in the relationship between the Bush administration and
    Halliburton. Nor is the New York Times likely to editorialize about it. But if the president&#39;s critics really want the truth, they&#39;ll have to accept the results of the
    investigations they have demanded.
    [/b][/quote]

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [i]Weeb, all the indignant shrieks from the left about Halliburton do nothing more than provide yet another illustration of their ignorance (at best) or their malevolent dishonesty (at worst).[/i]

    And what&#39;s funny is the man who has "energized" the party is an outright liar, fool and gave millions in tax breaks to keep Enron in his state&#33;

  16. #16
    [quote][b]4- I only got a &#036;0.95 tax break.[/b][/quote]

    For a young, single, middle-class guy with no kids, thats pretty damn close :(

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us