My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« VP Debate Freedom Count: Cheney, 5; Edwards, 0 | Main | Commission on Iraq reports: Saddam repressed Iraqis, buried hundreds of thousands in mass graves, and had to be stopped »

October 06, 2004



So, who should have received that contract
instead of Halliburton? Who else could
do the job? Is there a company out there
complaining that they could have handled
the contract?

Frank Warner

Cheney should have done two things when it appeared his old company was heading for a no-bid war-related contract.

1. Insist on inviting other companies to bid on as much of the work that could have been bid out securely.

2. Resign to protect the honor of the mission.

There was another U.S. company that said it could have done most of Halliburton's work. Unfortunately, I have to admit that company's complaint was aired on "60 Minutes." So I'm not sure how accurate it was.

In any case, for much of the Iraq oil-fields work, it wouldn't have hurt to ask for competitive bids.


Competitive bidding get a lower price but
they drag out the process -- a lot!
Didn't you hear Kerry? We're not
stabilizing Iraq fast enough.
Sometimes time is of the essence and this
was one of those times. Halliburton
subcontractors are getting killed in Iraq.
And you cry "foul" because it was a no-bid
U.S. soldiers are responsible for Abu Gharaib
prisoner abuse. Does that disqualify them
for the job of destroying the insurgents?
Who will replace them.
Halliburton is a big corporation because
they got big delivering on jobs like the
one in Iraq. They have the experience.
It is very possible that they were the
best choice for the job.

Back to my beer now.


According to a guy who was interviewed live on air today (10-7) from the folks who bring us, he said that contract was actually going to be bid at first but ended up being an extension to an existing contract that Halliburton had established under the Clinton administration. It saved time and taxpayer money. Those types of bids are very complex, lengthy, take time to analyze to be sure everyone is allowing a comparison between apples and apples, and take iterations to get to a final award because the bidders bring up legitimate angles the government/owner never thought of that has to, in fairness, be passed back to other bidders to be sure they are bidding on apples and not oranges.

And those who are working as part of that contract in that KBR (Kellogg/Brown & Root) subsidiary are just as prone as our courageous troops who are serving out their full terms, not just 4-1/2 months, to getting shot at and killed, as some in fact have been. I'm wondering how strongly the other contractor 60 Minutes talked to was in getting their employees killed and injured as well.

Also, the man from said there was no evidence whatsoever that Cheney had any influence or part in any of that process.

But, if you want to be more concerned with image, like most Democrats are, over substance, then cry away over big bad Cheney. Make him your personal anti-Christ.


I don't care if he lines his pockets as long as he gets the job done. That's the real question. Is he doing the job necessary to free Iraq from its various slave-masters? Cheney was one who wanted to do it on the cheap, and I also suspect that the administration is starting to give into public criticism.


Here's a relevant link (requires registration):

The comments to this entry are closed.