Ghost of BiB

Maybe not by design, but perhaps by circumstance, given the human aspect, perhaps a friendly ME business entity with personal connections to bad guys might be a good thing?

You're better than that. Think a while as an operator. Don't suck in to complacent.

I'm using the angle of your inane postings as a form of secret code to communicate with the terrorists in my next movie. Thank you for the idea. No, no royalties.

I'm breathless with anticipation.

Damn...since when did Yoga become an issue?

Yes, you've been consistant. Can I go home now?

But, what is your threat? Is it people "walzing" into the port? Or is it what's in the containers and bulk ships being handled? If I'm going to attack an LPG tanker to blow it up, I'll do it from the water. Plus, blowing up an LPG tanker isn't going to do a lot anyway. As for the rest of it, bite me - B word.

I need to call them and tell them I said it, first. No...wait...I'll have SDS make the call tomorrow, so they can get the facts accurately from someone with knowledge of the original activity. They'll probably B word because either I didn't personally call them and tell them, or have a staffer call immediately and tell them "An insult was made, but I'm not certain of what it was...You are free to speculate and report whatever you want until we get the facts in."

Unless it involves pickle juice, I don't know what BF is.

they got one boy plane and one girl plane, silly. Hasn't anyone ever explained this to you?

The crew responsible now have highly placed positions at CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT and Newsweek.

I have a feeling this was thought of as Cheney emerged as the VP candidate, and considered acceptable collatoral damage. Anything at all that the government does, that affects the people (I guess by definition, everything does) deserves scrutiny. But, that scrutiny should be held without rancor or agenda, and whatever findings there are presented in as neutral a manner as possible. I don't think that happens. And, once again veering to a tangent, the manner in which things are scrutinized and reported often affect policy. Not the facts themselves. CTM (and I, for that matter) have complained about the WH's inability to market. All true, but at the same time it has become just about impossible for any administration to market. The facts about what is really good thing are usually represented in a way to make it look bad, if not horrible. Makes for better news. I think that's why so may WH press releases sound so idiotic and simple minded. Anything of substance will be attacked, so why invite the controversey to start with? To a large degree, it's the WH's fault they got themselves there, but the bigger offender is the press.

That's what I meant by cost plus. U/P, basically T/M. Whichever specific contract we are talking about, has anyone looked at the scope and the delivery schedule? As KBR's work is almost always contingency based, in effect, reactive work to emerging circumstances it makes the best sense to me that one continue mods to the original contracts. Were I a government manager, and I already had people on the ground AND I needed something "yesterday", rather than two years from now there is no way I'm going to accept a bid from someone I have no experience with without a full RFP process and very nitpicky review of some type of proof of performance. As far as the type and conditions of KBR's work for the military, I have a sense that no one else really wants it, anyhow. They positioned themselves long before Halliburton came into the picture to provide what is essentially a unique set of capabilities. Once again, if Halliburton (Cheney) had not been involved, no one would give this the time of day. Sure, put together a RFP to provide the same type of services by the same schedule and put it on the street. Know what will probably happen? KBR will win the bid. Like I said, no one else domestically has positioned themselves for that type of scope, so someone else would have to start a new business unit for it, including the considerable investment in goods in order to compete (small thing, but how many construction companies that you know of have an Antonov 124 on call based in Houston for emergency deployments?). If there is anything that potentially smells bad in this, it's in the Halliburton purchase of KBR coinciding with Cheney's involvement prior to going to the White House. That to me is a very separate issue than Halliburton being "given" work because of the Cheney connection. Unless you want a Chinese or French construction company providing your infrastructure support in a war zone, KBR is it. Folks like Bechtel can scream foul if they like, but they aren't bidding on similar work anyway, for a reason.

Someone else answer for Balt, NY, etc - but what I saw at the GPA was that each major thing (security, environmental, transportation, etc) plus the overall directorship was headed by a state government employee(s) of the ports authority. Contractors were not in charge of anything, they answered to the government official on-site, part of who's job was to provide oversight. I'm guessing that the others operate in a similar fashion, otherwise, why would the port be considered run by or even called the Ports Authority? As far as security issues go, who is in charge of vetting and verifying the Longshoremen? The Union? The PA? That's to me a potentially weak link in the chain. Can I see a show of hands as to how many here think the Longshoremen's Unions are going to suddenly be overrun with muslims? Besides the ones already there?

Yup. There is that. Let's not ignore the chance to prove that the administration doesn't care about security either. I'm pretty certain that no one has done any thinking about seaports and container movement over the last few years.

So, then what difference does it make who executes a stated fee cost plus performance contract? And, how is a complete Federal RFP/RFB process including FR publication and the involved mandatory "time out" periods going to be quicker than extending an already in place performance contract order? I'm not even trying to defend Halliburton. I just don't get where you are coming up with this, given the scope of the specifications and the requirement to have something that can hit the ground running upon activation of the contract. A large scale PI project is not the same set of scope or circumstance as what is in effect a standby task order driven emergency response contract.

I'd like to see the answer, because "operations" pretty much should = "logistical" and "administrative". Headlines using words like "Control Of Our Ports", are meant to convey a certain sense, as they always do. To me, "control of" and "operation of" have two different meanings. But, media would never try to shape the news. How many times was Cheney's target described as being in "intensive care in xyz hospital", when the surgeon, the hospital administration and the victim himself said he was staying there for privacy, and not health reasons? Privacy from who - maybe the press? Sorry to go off on a tangent, but take all of it together and try to convince me that the media doesn't affect policy through the angles it takes in presenting a story. Here is a situation that could have long term trickle down implications. But, by choosing to present this in a certain light, it places people into a short term reaction mode. Who's to say the right call will get made either way? React to the story, not the facts. That's going to get us real far.

I'm pretty certain that port management has a lot to do with security. That is also why I think this was vetted, and those particular issues addressed. I also think it very proper that any details of such remain not discussed in the press. And again, none of this has any bearing on what gets shipped in from where and by who. Does it?

Back in my environmental remediation days, I did some work for the Georgia Ports authority - and as such had to deal with port management a lot, as well as enter and exit the container lots a lot. Even pre-9/11, things were pretty tightly controlled. I have a hard time believing that anyone would have just given this carte blanche without some serious thought. Once again, IMO primaraily port security rests on what is coming in, and who is shipping/bringing it. Who is actually managing port services really shouldn't have that much, if any impact. A little too much "24" getting watched in some parts. And, once again what kind of message does is send current and desired muslim partners if we politicize this and make it anti-arab? They are killing people over cartoons already. This could be a message to moderate Islam that the US is willing to partner in significant ways with their arab friends. Instead, folks like AQ can point this out as another example of US hypocrisy towards it's ME partners. Think there are any US or European folks in ME oil and gas fields? How about the terminals?

That's kind of my point too. Someone define "operations". Anyone here ever spent any time around a container port?

Typical CONCAP contract I call attention to the scope of work. 1. How many companies out there can provide this service as described? 2. Who has experience at performing such services? 3. Related to 1, how many would want to? Lots of room to lose one's ass. 4. How long do you think a bid process would take to cover all these items. 5. What would be the management and oversight costs of breaking up the scope into separate contracts for each item or item groups. 6. How would 5 affect the timeliness of delivery of those services because of the individual bids and bidding process? 7. Also, relating to experience - what makes anyone think Halliburton/KBR wouldn't win outright anyway? The company with the best experience generally is going to present the best bid, because they know what can and can't get done for x money.

If Congress wants to get involved (shudder...cold chill...) maybe they should look at a bill that designates what is critical infrastructure and prohibits operation of those facilities and institutions to anyone but Americans? I'm pretty sure the commerce department would have issues, and I can think of several go arounds - but for anyone with concerns, it might be a start. Another problem is, I'm not sure that everything is best operated by an American Company. Also, where dollars are involved, I'm cynical and pragmatic enough to think that American or not, it wouldn't much matter. Once again, whoever owns the container yards hasn't any control of what goes in or out of them, unless they ship a container - which they could do anyway.

Ever fly through Reagan National? You'd swear it was Kuwait City some days. Seriously, what really changes except for which bank acount the money goes into? It might become difficult to have any real arab partners if we cut them out of everything investment related because "all arabs are terrorists". Most meaningful port security is technology driven anyway, and we provide and run the technology. I don't think the Longshoreman Unions are getting replaced with a bunch of ME'ers. The problem still lies with the actual cargos and the crews of the ships that deliver them, and I don't see where this affects that.

Who or what are we talking about?

I have no idea who these people are.