Chilly Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Not publicly. The DoD's one of the better organizations for learning from their mistakes, however. Since Vietnam, they've developed and fostered a culture of constructive self-criticism and improvement at every level that, while it doesn't always work (and sure as sh-- doesn't in budgetary matters), is neither co-opted by PR or political motivations all that often either. I'd trust a DoD investigation before I'd trust a Congressional one. Plus...if anyone would bother to look back at events, Defense didn't get involved until the city and state governments and DHS had already dropped the ball. When they DID get involved, they got things sorted out rather rapidly (startlingly so, IMO). So what, exactly, is the criticism of the DoD here? That they didn't anticipate cleaning up the mess left by those ACTUALLY responsible? 602251[/snapback] I, actually, don't have the expertise to criticise them on this situation, and my only criticism is that I wouldn't trust a DoD report about the DoD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Granted, but DOD probably has the best tools to do so and the Army Corp did an incredible job rebuilding quickly the causeways leading into New Orleans, maybe they should get the whole job. DoD unquestionably has the tools to do so; I'll wager that no one in the world has more experience marshalling that level of resources into situations like that (i.e. dangerous ones, where all the support for the incoming resources has to be trucked in from somewhere else). Most people think you throw sh-- and people in the trucks and go...I know just enough about how large military units move and the organization and planning that goes into it to marvel at how bloody fast things went when the DoD finally took over. Just the idea determining the order in which elements go in overwhelms me. If anything comes out of this, it should be the reorganization of FEMA along military lines (yeah, they're not a military organization...but so what? Most municipal emergency response borrows from military organizations - fire companies and battalions, for example. That's not accidental.) Maybe put a retired general in charge with logistics experience, since disaster relief is fundamentally a logistical exercise in moving massive amounts of stuff to a point in a hostile environment largely unready to accept it, which is roughly a working definition of military logistics. As long as Haliburton is not a subcontrator. 602254[/snapback] The partisan bitching gets old after a while, and the incessant quoting of DNC talking points eventually masks the fact that you can actually think for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 DoD unquestionably has the tools to do so And is prevented by law from doing so, unless a convoluted, Congressionally approved process is followed, or a Presidential order is given. Wonder which happened? Not a pro-Bush statement, I have no doubt Clinton would have done so as well. If anything comes out of this, it should be the reorganization of FEMA along military lines (yeah, they're not a military organization...but so what? Oh my, what a dream. I wouldn't advocate this for most agencies, but FEMA is crisis response by definition. When you break it down, responding to a natural disaster is very much like responding to an attack by a very powerful adversary. Or, a nut case adversary with the right tool set. Like it or not, the military overall has been doing this for a few thousand years. The basic principles haven't changed. Yup, it's logistics. For a crisis response, who would you rather head domestic emergency response and relief? A good, proven General or a former Wal-Mart Exec? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Granted, but DOD probably has the best tools to do so and the Army Corp did an incredible job rebuilding quickly the causeways leading into New Orleans, maybe they should get the whole job. As long as Haliburton is not a subcontrator. 602254[/snapback] Honestly, could you people get off Halliburton? Every time it's brought up it's like one more hole in your helmeted head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Honestly, could you people get off Halliburton? Every time it's brought up it's like one more hole in your helmeted head. 602308[/snapback] Still can't lick the windows through the faceguard, though. When was the last time you heard anything substantial about KBR? (It's only Halliburton because Cheney was involved...guess everyone should strive to stay in government forever, if they belong to "X" party). But, this has been beat to death. It's business. It's sad that in this short a thread, two different posters bring up enlightening no-bid contracts that have nothing to do with anything. I haven't been remotely political for a couple three years, but I'm sure some will say I'm a Bush mouthpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Especially after we bomb Iran, Fox news this morning is highly advocating it. Better step up those emergency disaster regs. Iran and the rest of the world might just react. 601819[/snapback] And by the way...Iran should have been bombed years ago. About 1980. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Still can't lick the windows through the faceguard, though. When was the last time you heard anything substantial about KBR? (It's only Halliburton because Cheney was involved...guess everyone should strive to stay in government forever, if they belong to "X" party). But, this has been beat to death. It's business. It's sad that in this short a thread, two different posters bring up enlightening no-bid contracts that have nothing to do with anything. I haven't been remotely political for a couple three years, but I'm sure some will say I'm a Bush mouthpiece. 602322[/snapback] B.S. KBR is a Halliburton subsidary, same difference, it is the classic GOP renaming game that has folks confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 B.S. KBR is a Halliburton subsidary, same difference, it is the classic GOP renaming game that has folks confused. 602332[/snapback] I haven't been keeping up. My bad. I considered that most everyone here knew that, but thanks for pointing that out. KBR is easier to type than "Halliburton". Can I use "HB" from now on? It works on the football board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The GAO doesn't "belong" to either party, and is generally and uniformly hated by everyone (as they rarely, if ever have anything nice to say - that's not their job). I was more interested that that was their take. Don't confuse "responsive" with "perfection as evidenced by hindsight". Thought someone else might catch the GAO angle. As far as me personally, I don't give anything that comes out of Congress (Rep or Dem) the time of day 99% of the time. Everyone there has an agenda, mostly personal to one degree or another. 602016[/snapback] I know. Just being a wiseass. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 B.S. KBR is a Halliburton subsidary, same difference, it is the classic GOP renaming game that has folks confused. 602332[/snapback] Actually, what is going on is typical sloganeering by someone who can't do anything more than that. But keep on trucking, lemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Oh they will listen allright, and some poor staffer working with those folks will generate some great ideas, but then some lobby group friendly to the Chair of whatever committee it comes before will state that there isn't enough funding for his pockets in it and another lobbyist will want to go another direction and as a result will get killed in Committee Congress will never see it again or just ignore until it goes away. Unless a big slush fund like Iraq appears and then they will all jump on board, demanding non-competitive contracts like Halliburton did and waste a lot of tax payer dollars. 602189[/snapback] Uh, this rant is related to the article how? Hey look, a mention of Haliburton. Now there's something you don't see everyday. FYI, Haliburton was geting no-bid contracts during Clinton's terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 it is the classic GOP renaming game that has folks confused. 602332[/snapback] It's a corporate merger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 It's a corporate merger. 602355[/snapback] Moland Springs? I mean, MOLAND? What kind of name is that! Moland springs... lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 I know. Just being a wiseass. Sorry 602345[/snapback] I think we knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I think we knew that. 602386[/snapback] Oh, you're just saying that to make me feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 It's a corporate merger. 602355[/snapback] Nah, but nice to try to state another company was accused of abuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Nah, but nice to try to state another company was accused of abuses. 602509[/snapback] Let's back up a minute...you said this was an example of some sort of neo-con shell game designed to confuse people. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton. What, exactly, is so confusing about that? And how is noting that Halliburton's acquisition of Kellog and Brown & Root an attempt to mask that fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Let's back up a minute...you said this was an example of some sort of neo-con shell game designed to confuse people. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton. What, exactly, is so confusing about that? And how is noting that Halliburton's acquisition of Kellog and Brown & Root an attempt to mask that fact? 602537[/snapback] Because he earlier stated that we should ID another company accused of accepting nobid contracts other than Halliburton. He named KBR as an example...at least that is what I understood what he used as an example. Duh, KBR is not another company, so what was the point other than to confuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Because he earlier stated that we should ID another company accused of accepting nobid contracts other than Halliburton. He named KBR as an example...at least that is what I understood what he used as an example. Duh, KBR is not another company, so what was the point other than to confuse? 602572[/snapback] Accuracy and brevity. I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone regularly posting here knows that, so I didn't feel it worth mentioning. That said, KBR does it's own thing. Mother Ship Halliburton is primarily concerned with energy, mostly oil. KBR was purchased by HB, but operates generally independantly. The only reason folks scream "Halliburton" as a mantra is because of Cheney. I have yet to see the press, or the liberals attack Disney over ABC programming or the commentary of Joe Theisman. No one says "Disney Sucks" when refering to ESPN. When was the last time anyone blamed Philip Morris for a bad bag of Oreo cookies? It's the age of buyouts and mergers. One would be hard pressed to find many big players not owned or linked to someone else. That goes for the construction industry as well as the cookie industry. Look up Koch, or Gammon-Skanska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 No one says "Disney Sucks" when refering to ESPN. 602615[/snapback] Uhhhh...I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts