KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 You're not actually saying the Democrats should try to regain the executive branch without intending to solve the problems they inherit? They better have a !@#$ing plan, if they want the job. 632601[/snapback] Solving problems is hard. All the problems need to be solved first, before we should elect Democrats into the White House.
cromagnum Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 Are there other companies that provide the services halliburton offers? and if so, it should have went out to bid. And does halliburton subcontract any services and in doing so, put it up for bid.
The Avenger Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 Solving problems is hard. All the problems need to be solved first, before we should elect Democrats into the White House. 632615[/snapback] As opposed to creating problems and then screaming at others for answers on how to solve them? Gee - that sounds familar - kinda like a certain poster who is trying to get ME to answer who would have been better than Haliburton and then accuses me of deflecting and avoiding? You make your bed, you lie in it. Republicans should be the ones whose feet are held to the fire for solutions - it's completely crazy to try and hold Democrats accountable for the solutions to these problems.
cromagnum Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 The democrats will most definately need solutions to solve the problems, or its just like hiring a different juggler for the circus.
SilverNRed Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 This is just like the Bushies who, when criticized on Iraq, come back with, "well, what would YOU do?" I don't have to answer that question and figure out the solution - YOU'RE the people who ^&%'ed it up in the first place - you solve it, genius. 632488[/snapback] Best. Unintentionally funny post. Ever.
GG Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 Are there other companies that provide the services halliburton offers? and if so, it should have went out to bid. And does halliburton subcontract any services and in doing so, put it up for bid. 632624[/snapback] The scope of the work is so huge that HAL is probably the only company in the world that can handle it all. Schulmberger probably could do the oil field and infrastructure work, but they have a little country issue. Other companies could probably do the supply logistics. But, when you needed someone on the ground right away, with the right expertise and the best shot of not screwing up, with people's lives on the line, HAL was the most logically obviously properly correct choice. Doesn't mean that you can't pin Cheney's picture next to a HAL contract and cry, "Insider dealing." It also doesn't prevent people from making claims that no one knew about the HAL contract until something went wrong. It also allows people to harp on the audits of HAL's services in the early stages as proof that the company is corrupt, even though after the audits were completed, HAL received full payments, and in many cases, received bonuses for exceeding contract milestones.
cromagnum Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 The scope of the work is so huge that HAL is probably the only company in the world that can handle it all. Schulmberger probably could do the oil field and infrastructure work, but they have a little country issue. Other companies could probably do the supply logistics. But, when you needed someone on the ground right away, with the right expertise and the best shot of not screwing up, with people's lives on the line, HAL was the most logically obviously properly correct choice. Doesn't mean that you can't pin Cheney's picture next to a HAL contract and cry, "Insider dealing." It also doesn't prevent people from making claims that no one knew about the HAL contract until something went wrong. It also allows people to harp on the audits of HAL's services in the early stages as proof that the company is corrupt, even though after the audits were completed, HAL received full payments, and in many cases, received bonuses for exceeding contract milestones. 632723[/snapback] So, it's a monopoly
Sirius99 Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 So, it's a monopoly 632738[/snapback] The government has been encouraging consolidation of contractors for years - both intentionally and unintentionally. However, a "no-bid" contract is a partisan and inaccurate representation of how this works. It is called sole source contracting, and there are tons of stipulations in the (monstrous) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) which puts any of these types of contracts under a TON of scrutiny - including scrutiny from the GAO and Congress, which if I recall correctly, is made up of Democrats as well as Republicans. A bid is most DEFINITELY required and several rounds of negotiatons typically happen prior to the contract being let. Bottom line, Congress authorized this kind of acquisition by enacting the pertinent laws and also, via committee at least, participated in the source selection process. Any member of congress who proclaims ignorance regarding this decidedly imperfect process has abdicated their responsibilities.
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 As opposed to creating problems and then screaming at others for answers on how to solve them? Gee - that sounds familar - kinda like a certain poster who is trying to get ME to answer who would have been better than Haliburton and then accuses me of deflecting and avoiding? You make your bed, you lie in it. Republicans should be the ones whose feet are held to the fire for solutions - it's completely crazy to try and hold Democrats accountable for the solutions to these problems. 632629[/snapback] Love the lahjik. Keep electing people who screw things up and vote out people who solve problems. Yup. The last thing we need is problem-solvers in government.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 Love the lahjik. Keep electing people who screw things up and vote out people who solve problems. 633109[/snapback] But we're a representative democracy. Which means the people elect those that most closely represent them and their interests. In which context, voting problem creators in and problem solvers out makes perfect sense.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 We've been over this ground many times. KBR has positioned themselves to fill what is basically a niche market, US force overseas base support. No one with a legitimate bid is going to beat them competitively. I think they had to do some serious ramping up with the Iraq/Afghanistan task and probably hired a few folks who could have been better qualified. Seems like Congress has done that too - but that's another subject. Let's see, still have folks in Bosnia, got Iraq, Afghanistan, about 4 other Stans, Dubai, Quatar, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Phillipines, about 6 I won't mention, and probably quite a few I don't know. I'm pretty certain that across the board there are probably slews of problems. I'm also pretty certain that across the board, much more is done right than wrong. But, just like anything else if a lib wants to run up waving a news article over their head going "woo woo", they are going to do it. I hear you can go to jail for buying rubbers in Missouri now.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 Let's see, still have folks in Bosnia...633248[/snapback] But...but...but...Clinton put a hard time-limit of one year on that deployment! How can there still be troops there? Sorry...not germane to the topic, but I had to do it, for the "We need a hard-and-fast schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq" crowd.
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 But we're a representative democracy. Which means the people elect those that most closely represent them and their interests. In which context, voting problem creators in and problem solvers out makes perfect sense. 633238[/snapback] ...and people wonder why things continually get worse.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 The government has been encouraging consolidation of contractors for years - both intentionally and unintentionally. However, a "no-bid" contract is a partisan and inaccurate representation of how this works. It is called sole source contracting, and there are tons of stipulations in the (monstrous) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) which puts any of these types of contracts under a TON of scrutiny - including scrutiny from the GAO and Congress, which if I recall correctly, is made up of Democrats as well as Republicans. A bid is most DEFINITELY required and several rounds of negotiatons typically happen prior to the contract being let. Bottom line, Congress authorized this kind of acquisition by enacting the pertinent laws and also, via committee at least, participated in the source selection process. Any member of congress who proclaims ignorance regarding this decidedly imperfect process has abdicated their responsibilities. 633004[/snapback] Thank you. That explains things quite well. The aquisition course itself is enough to put people under the table. Folks here make it sound like ole Dick got on the phone and said "Hey, started a war so we could make a few billion".
SilverNRed Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 Folks here make it sound like ole Dick got on the phone and said "Hey, started a war so we could make a few billion". 633327[/snapback] What worries me is I think a lot of people believe that.
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 Folks here make it sound like ole Dick got on the phone and said "Hey, started a war so we could make a few billion". 633327[/snapback] You mean it is not true?
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 What worries me is I think a lot of people believe that. 633331[/snapback] ...and they vote.
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2006 Author Posted March 17, 2006 But...but...but...Clinton put a hard time-limit of one year on that deployment! How can there still be troops there? Sorry...not germane to the topic, but I had to do it, for the "We need a hard-and-fast schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq" crowd. 633251[/snapback] How's that Bosnia intervention going? Thousands of troops killed? A hundred? How come there weren't daily bombings of civilians and soldiers 3 years after we intervened in an area with differing ethnic groups? How's the international community's support? Did they establish their gov'ts within 3 years? Did they show a commitment to resovling their issues? When you have good leadership and a good plan, and listen to varied views on a situation, things usually work out pretty good.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 How's that Bosnia intervention going? Thousands of troops killed? A hundred? How come there weren't daily bombings of civilians and soldiers 3 years after we intervened in an area with differing ethnic groups? How's the international community's support? Did they establish their gov'ts within 3 years? Did they show a commitment to resovling their issues? When you have good leadership and a good plan, and listen to varied views on a situation, things usually work out pretty good. 633412[/snapback] So you're saying, in effect, that the open-ended commitment in Iraq is evidence of the lack of a plan and poor leadership, but in Bosnia it's evidence of a good plan and good leadership. So you're saying, in effect, that the up-front admission of an open-ended commitment in Iraq is evidence of the lack of a plan and poor leadership, but committing to a "limited" deployment in Bosnia that's gone on eight years longer than planned is evidence of a good plan and good leadership.
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 Newsflash: There are issues with drinking water in the US on a regular basis. For some reason the government and media tends to keep them on the downlow.
Recommended Posts