Halliburton Bonus?!?
More on why I think the current administration is corrupt and has to go, independent of their conservative or liberal leanings:
I saw a report today that Halliburton has received $76 million dollars in bonuses on the contract in Iraq.
Now, you can argue that Cheney's past running of Halliburton doesn't invalidate them from being the best company for the job at hand, and you might even convince me that the no-bid contract they "won" was fair because no one else could have handled the job. (I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's possible).
However, we hear reports on a regular basis that troops have insufficient equipment. One recent article on the Huffington Post blog pointed out instances of soldiers having to buy their own equipment (radios, batteries, tools, things which they need to get their jobs done), and we continue to hear reports of insufficiently armored vehicles. Meanwhile, Halliburton (or more correctly, KBR) folks drive around in multi-hundred-thousand dollar armored vehicles on the bases, but the folks we send out into danger have to drive un-armored SUVs.
Look at how much our armed forces make. It starts at less than $14000/year and goes up to just under $48000/year. And for this money, we require them to leave home and family, lose any momentum they might have had in a regular job, which would otherwise have the potential to make more in the future. We require them to put their lives in harms way in the cause (ostensibly) of keeping the rest of us safe.
We ask them to do this, for paltry pay, with insufficient equipment, and then pay out huge bonuses to a company which has already been caught gouging gas supply prices and in several other improprieties.
Halliburton was run by Dick Cheney before Cheney became the Vice President. Halliburton gave Cheney more than 30 million dollars when he left the company to run to become the Vice President. And so Halliburton gets rewarded for (it seems) repeatedly providing insufficient service at inflated prices.
How do intelligent people not look at this and think "Y'know, this smells a little bit fishy."
Look, I don't care if they were actually doing a bang up job. I don't care if they had done everything 100% perfectly and gone above and beyond for this country. The fact is, we have troops who are asked to risk their lives, and we're not supporting or supplying our troops sufficiently. Until that situation improves, every available dime that we have to spend over there should be spent in the service of that cause, not to line the corporate coffers and pad the stock holders' bottom lines.
Copyright (c) May 12, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 5/12/2005 09:21:00 AM
25 Comments:
Liam,
Where are you seeing the stories about insufficient armor for the military. I haven't heard anything since that reporter planted a question for Rumsfeld months ago.
When I hear Halliburton mentioned, I immediately assume that I will hear no facts and that Cheney will be mentioned as well as sole-source and much money. If you want my interest here, don't just repeat Democrat talking points, tell me what happened, what the options were and why any decision involving Halliburton is automatically bad.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:02:00 AM
Out of curiosity I did a "thorough" study of the matter. Ok, I took precisely four minutes and searched the internet using Yahoo. So sue me. But with this rather quick "analysis" there seemed to be few reports of deficiencies over the past six months roughly. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some measure of effort was being made to better supply the troops (the military doesn't like bad PR). But I also sense (also an astute analysis) this same military has put a tight muzzle on those who might complain further on this issue. My point is, I don't trust them. If there was significant improvement, my hunch is we'd have heard about it one way or another. No news hardly means, ...well, no news.
Regardless, Liam's statement of "Y'know, this smells a little bit fishy," is like saying the Atlantic Ocean is a little bit wet. Sure it's dangerous for Halliburton employees too. But wouldn't a well-equiped army be out there protecting them? I also suspect that Halliburton isn't taking chances and isn't soliciting the protection of our "highly equiped" military troops.
Something's wrong. I watched some report on television a few months ago, showing the dangers of simply driving to the airport there. Isn't rule number one of any take over is you secure the airport? So why isn't it secured? It's because Halliburton employees are riding to and from the airport with private security protecting them, and our soldiers are busy scrounging in dumpsters looking for spare parts for their vehicles.
......she rants. .....
Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:59:00 PM
Liam, during your rant you list a number of things wrong with the military such as the poor pay (I agree) and you insinuate that it is the reason for the change of this "bad" administration. The rest of my reply could be just a "ditto" of Ralph. Face it Liam, your a liberal who really believes at heart that the democrats should be in charge and not the party that was elected in the last two elections.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:54:00 PM
To Ralph and Anonymous,
I would have to agree with you in your assessment that Liam's a liberal and for now a Democrat. He would never profess to this, for he likes his friends.
I have a family friend, a man about my father's age. I always assumed he was a conservative and Republican, until not long ago when we chatted and I learned that in fact he was quite the Democrat. He has conservative sides to him, but he's an adamant liberal for the most part. But you might guess otherwise to look at him. I know he golfs alot, especially now that he's retired. I also know many of his golfing buddies are Republicans. I asked Mr. Shockley how he managed to keep his secret while golfing with his buddies. "Easy," he said. "We just don't talk politics."
So Liam is that kid who plays in the sandbox and wants everyone to play nice. Fortunately (in only my opinion, of course), Liam has my liberal leanings. Lean on, Liam!!
Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:22:00 PM
I don't understand you people who HAVE to put people into one camp or the other. I really don't.
I am not a Democrat, and I am not a Republican. It is possible to think that one person or one administration is damaging without belonging to the other party.
You seem to forget that I've said on a number of occasions, of the last two rounds of elections, the guy I'd most like to have had in office was John McCain. Hardly a liberal democrat. But a man of principle (the current administration seems to have none).
I didn't like Kerry. If I had to choose my favorite of the gang-of-10 (the original 9 Democrats plus Bush), I think I'd probably have to lean towards Dean, not so much for what he stands for, but that I think we KNOW what he stands for. I liked him for the same reasons I liked McCain, I got the sense that there was a bit more there than the empty suit "I'll tell you whatever you want to hear" that we've gotten out of the current administration and the one that preceded it.
By the way, you don't do yourself a service by arguing that this election (or the previous one) was "The will of the masses". The previous one, I'll remind you, the President was elected with a MINORITY of the vote. By the way our system works, he won fair and square (well, there's still some questions in Florida, but...), but the total number of votes was (slightly) in favor of Gore. So Bush did not have the "will of the masses" behind him.
And this time... well, I'm about to give up on voting entirely. Because I've come to believe that there was extensive fraud on BOTH sides, and that the election is no longer determined by the "will of the masses", but by which side is more effective at committing election fraud.
Also, by the way, I've said on a number of occasions, I was just as uncomfortable when Clinton had a Democratic congress as I am now. I think we're safest when the parties SPLIT the two elected branches of government.
However, since I think the current administration is the worst we've had in years (not because they're Republican, but because they're corrupt, evil people, who have done more damage to this country than the terrorists did), I'd just as soon it be the Executive that changes hands than the Legislative.
However, in 2008, when the current crop are term limited out of the Executive, if the better option available for the Executive is a Republican, then I'll vote for them and then pray for a change of Congress.
Checks and balances. We're safer when neither side's extremists have unfettered access to their insanity.
And IMO, you (anonymous) are a part of the problem, when you'd rather accuse me of being part of the "other" party than be willing to consider the fact that the one you belong to might be flawed.
Liam.
Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:25:00 PM
Hahahah!
I had a hunch Liam would respond a tad vehemently.
That's alright, Liam.
I know you can't be pigeon-holed.
Not a free spirit like you!
But you see, it's so much more fun trying to shove you into one category -- it's the American way! Besides, our national elections are all about choices, you either vote FOR a candidate or AGAINST the one you find the least offensive.
But in defense of the pro-Bush campers, what would we do without Laura Bush's newfound standup comedic humor, hmmm?
Friday, May 13, 2005 7:36:00 AM
Liam,
I disagree. McCain is a great liberal Democrat. Maybe your antagonizm to politics is grounded in your New Jersey upbringing.
I can definitly see a McCain/Dean ticket. They wouldn't get my vote but the campaign would be a hoot.
Friday, May 13, 2005 10:37:00 AM
See, while he's more moderate than some in his party, I think he's no more a liberal Democrat than Joe Leiberman is a conservative Republican, something he's been accused of by members of HIS party.
I still think this relates to the black and white nature of our collective attitude towards politics in this country. If you're not with US whole heartedly, then you're with THEM.
If you don't support the war, you must support the terrorists. If you don't support Kerry, you must be a Republican. If you don't support W, you must be a Democrat.
Meanwhile, those somewhere in the middle associate themselves with the party they feel closer to, knowing that they'll always be accused of being one of "them" every time one of the issues comes up with which they DON'T agree.
And although I disagree about getting my vote, I do think it would be really cool (and really entertaining) to see a McCain/Dean ticket.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 2:26:00 PM
Personally, I'd like to see Obama run for President. ..... just to see a president with a name starting with an "O"
Ok, I'll shut up.......
Friday, May 13, 2005 4:01:00 PM
Couldn't happen. Too much confusion. Just imagine the headlines:
"Obama Hunts Osama".
Trust me, when the news reporters got it right, we dyslexics would still read it wrong.
Just not fair to anyone.
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34:00 PM
Worse yet, if he turns out to be another Clintoneque figure, the temptation for the New York Post and similar tabloid papers would be too great.
"Obama: Sin Laden"
Liam.
Friday, May 13, 2005 4:36:00 PM
Ok Liam,
Lay it out for us on traick poneys. You don't want terrorists AND you don't want the war. What do you want?
Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:21:00 PM
Can't type straight either, one trick ponys.
Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:23:00 PM
Is there something I've missed? Are all the terrorists now in Iraq? Is that why we're there fighting? I thought the terrorists were camping out in Afghanistan. Did they move? Are they living in the Baghdad Hilton?
"Terrorists" and "the war" -- I don't get the connection. I thought we were at war because of all the weapons of mass destruction we couldn't find.
I know you didn't ask me, but I couldn't resist complaining. If this were a clear-cut war on terrorism, then I might agree with the whole thing. But it's not. If there was oil in Afghanistan, we'd have gone there, right? I just never understood why after 9/11 when we were after Bin Laden, why we took a right turn into Iraq instead. And now that we're there, for no apparent reason, we have troops dying, also for no apparent reason. I know you all will disagree with me, but Liam said I could post. (though he probably didn't have this in mind) Sorry, Liam.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:00:00 AM
I'm not anti-war... I'm anti THIS war. I don't think Iraq has proven (or was ever reasonably believed to be) a threat to the US. They didn't have WMDs, didn't even (as far as we can tell) have a program to DEVELOP WMDs. They had no contact with al queda (someone tell me how to spell that, I always get it wrong).
So this war in Iraq created a breeding ground for anti-American sentiment, and a new generation of terrorists, served as a smoke screen to the mass of the American electorate that can't tell the difference between one "towel head" and another, and distracted us from the real, justified war, the war on bin Ladin and his group.
IMO, unilateral war should be reserved for issues which are demonstrably critical for the survival and safety of our country (which the Iraq war has not proven to be, and which many people never believed it was, so it's not just with hindsight's clarity that we see it was not justified).
Plus, what was different about Iraq? Was it the nasty things that Hussein was doing to his citizens? Well, Darfur is much worse, why aren't we there? Was it the WMDs? Kim Jong Il *HAS* them, it's not merely a suspicion. Why aren't we there?
In my opinion, we are in Iraq because:
1) Bush was determined to go after them because the first Iraq war kind of made his father look like a doofus.
2) As a smokescreen to convince the electorate that we were doing something about the events of 9/11 (and this worked. Survey after survey shows that the majority of people surveyed still believe in the WMDs, and in the connection between Hussein and bin Ladin, even though neither existed).
3) I'll throw in because of the OIL. I can't decide if it's too cynical to think it's because of the OIL, or too naive NOT to.
We're there NOW, so obviously we need to proceed and finish what we've started. But we should never have started it. And meanwhile, we should be putting as many of our resources as possible to tracking down Osama bin Ladin.
Liam
Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:18:00 AM
Liam,
You didn't answer my question. What should we be doing about terrorism?
Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:24:00 PM
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.
I'm not sure, to be honest. I have some ideas (interestingly, as notice of your comment came in, I was just finishing up my "Modest Proposal" which by now you've probably seen). I'm not entirely certain what we SHOULD be doing. I'm not sure anyone knows.
But I do believe we shouldn't be distracting ourselves with tactics which clearly won't work and clearly don't address the problem, and I don't believe we should be talking ourselves into giving up the rights which define our country. Certain behaviors so undermine what this country is that they are, in the end, more damaging than any terrorist attack could ever be.
What should we be doing about terrorism? Finding better ways to protect our infrastructure (both physical and governmental). Doing a better job of hunting down the people who actually hit us, or are clearly a threat to us instead of "Wagging the Dog" with smokescreen wars. Strengthening (rather than weakening) our international relations with other countries so that together we can combat terrorist states, rather than giving focus to those states on US, as we go it alone. Not behaving in unilateral and sometimes quasi-legal ways which will only serve to recruit new opponents to our country (was it really necessary to debate whether the Geneva convention against terrorism really applied to us?).
Oh, and when a national tragedy like the events of 9/11 presents us with near universal goodwill, I think it would be a good idea to not squander it and turn the good wishes of most of the countries of the world into enmity and disdain in a mere couple of years.
Sure, since no one knows what WILL work, we have to try some things which MIGHT work, and hindsight may show that some of these DIDN'T work. But I don't believe we should be trying things that really NEVER could have been expected to work.
And I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the Iraq war performed any service to the end of national safety, or that Iraq was as much of a threat as North Korea is. Even if you do choose to argue that we can't be tunnel-vision focused on getting bin Ladin.
Liam.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:51:00 PM
How do we get rid of the terrorists?
We send Dan Rather over as bait.
Think they'll bite?
Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:21:00 PM
Linda,
We did that once (the Sadam interviews) but unfortunately they didn't keep him.
Liam,
How can you say that what we are doing doesn't work when we continue to capture Al Quada (I don't know how to spell it either) leaders. We have eliminated two places where they received santuary and funds (Afghanistan and Iraq) and are slowly closing down Syria. How about free Lebanon?
If you don't know anything better to do then don't bash someone who does.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:37:00 PM
Ouch.
Liam, did you feel that?!?
Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:42:00 PM
I didn't say NOTHING we're doing is working. I said that I don't like the things we're doing which we know won't work, like the war in Iraq.
One of your statements does not comport with reality, the implication that the terrorists received sanctuary and funds from Iraq. This has been debunked again and again. The answer that always comes back from the Pro-War crowd is "Ah, but we know there were some AQ operatives trained in Iraq!". True, but we also have no indication that there was any connection with the government of Iraq, and so the same could be said of the US. Should we also invade the United States and depose the government, because we know that AQ operatives trained here? They took their flight training here, for heaven's sake!
I was absolutely in favor of invading Afghanistan, because they made themselves our enemy by abetting bin Ladin. And the rest of the world did not begrudge us our campaign in Afghanistan. It wasn't until we started making flimsy excuses for invading Iraq and then calling everyone else names for not taking our word on it and joining the battle that we turned the world against us.
Oh, and I also disagree with your implication that Bush knows anything better to do. He invaded Afghanistan. Big deal. There's not a politician in this country who, faced with the facts of 9/11 and those that immediately followed, would not have invaded. At this point, he and his administration ran out of ideas.
They sat watching as the American electorate began to get antsy at his failure to bring bin Ladin to justice, and someone said "Hey, if we tell 'em Hussein was involved, we can look like we're doing something about the war, AND finish the job that made your Dad look so foolish."
The point at which it all went awry was the point at which we decided that the events of 9/11 could be used to justify a completely unrelated war in Iraq, to the detriment of the actual war on terror, as well as to the benefit of the recruiting efforts of the next generation of anti-American terrorists.
You mention Syria. Why didn't we go after Syria first? The evidence of their involvement in and complicity with AQ is much stronger, so a war there could be much more easily justified. Or Iran, where the Muslim government is much more in line with bin Ladin's religious crusade than the secular Saddam Hussein was.
Or, if we're really worried about madmen with WMDs, why don't we go more aggressively after Kim Jong Il in North Korea?
We wanted a smokescreen, Bush wanted an opportunity to invade Iraq, and so this war was conceived. In the process, we have been made less safe, not more so.
Liam.
Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:17:00 PM
Liam is not for turning!
Monday, May 16, 2005 12:00:00 AM
Another good article from Huffington Post, indicating much of what I'm saying here: That the war in Iraq was unjustified. This bolsters my opinion that, far from being useful in the war on terror, it was at best a distraction FROM it, and at worst a detriment to it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/harry-shearer/invited-contributors-nel.html
Liam.
Monday, May 16, 2005 9:55:00 AM
Whoops, here it is as a link. I should remember to do that every time.
Here's the link.
Liam.
Monday, May 16, 2005 9:55:00 AM
That Harry Shearer. He's such a funny guy.
Monday, May 16, 2005 11:42:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home