Critics say Contracts Open to Cronyism

Thje Chicago Tribune ^ | 04-13-2003 | William Neikirk

[Chirodoc]

By William Neikirk Tribune senior correspondent Published April 13, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The United States' plan to rebuild Iraq, which will cost billions of dollars, already is facing criticism for being a closed process vulnerable to cronyism. Several members of Congress have denounced the administration's method of handpicking the contractors--many with strong Republican ties--who will be responsible for major reconstruction projects involving roads, oil wells and other infrastructure.

[Chirodoc]

To the Victors go the Spoils

[Always Right]

Got Format?

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Thanks Registered

[Thebaddog]

You takes your chances to play the game. Didn't Clinton have a few in the bag for him. Neikirk plays a good Virgin Mary.

[jackbill]

Paragraphs are our friends.

"No paragraphs" get ignored.

[LauraJean]

This is from the Chicago (Daileyville) Tribune. With the exception of John Kass the Trib has never shown any interest in reporting the Dailey old boy network. And lets not forget about Jesse ''King of Bud'' Jackson, a fine Chicago institution if there ever was one. Cronyism and Chicago go together like pizza and green beer.

[nanny]

This is from the Chicago (Daileyville) Tribune. With the exception of John Kass the Trib has never shown any interest in reporting the Dailey old boy network

If we don't like the messenger - just ignore the message?

That Halliburton was the best for the job may be true - but everyone who will be honest will have to admit if this was Clinton and his cronies, there would be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth here. And please, don't give me any 'well, Clinton was a bad guy and President Bush is wonderful stuff', or "well if it was Clinton, we wouldn't have had the war'. Those are not answers -

And you bet, there will be cronyism and political payoffs - it is the way the system works and as long as people worship the politicians and political parties rather than hold them accountable - it will continue.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Excerpts only from the Chicago Tribune.

[snooker]

>>>but everyone who will be honest will have to admit if this was Clinton and his cronies, there would be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth here.

... and the media would ignore it all. Even if there were provable collusion, pay-offs, or kickbacks.

But the problem I have with this is what is being said is that if anyone in government worked at a company, the company is automatically ineligible for any government contracts. Somehow I don't see why this should be. If there were provable collusion then it would be different.

I would like to see some real proof before the weeping and wailing part.

[Thebaddog]

Good Call, LauraJean. Chicago does have a rich history to draw on, and Neikirk is a virgin here too.

[speekinout]

If we don't like the messenger - just ignore the message?

The best option is to look a little deeper. There's usually "more to the story".
In this case, there was a need to find a company that could quickly repair damages to the oil wells. We had no idea how much that would be, or when it would be necessary, but we needed a company that could handle whatever it was quickly.
The way our gov't works, a competitive bid process would have taken at least 6 months, and maybe a year. That would not be acceptable. So, they contracted with a company that could do the work on demand.
Given that Bush, Cheney, and many of their friends were in the oil industry, any company they picked would have had some tie.

[Cicero]

As the French would say, tant pis.

[nanny]

There's usually "more to the story".

There always is.

Still doesn't change the fact that instead of speaking to the points of the story, quite often, it is just dismissed as 'that liberal rag'. Sometimes those liberal rags do tell the truth.

I don't doubt that Halliburton is the best one - but you know there is no way that would have been accepted if Clinton was still in office.

The double standard Republicans apply here just doesn't make them look very good. They look and sound like the democrats during the 8 years of Clinton. I really thought Republicans were better than that -

[Hildy]

having lost any credibility with their assessment of a war, the libs now are chanting this mantra. I've heard the Halliburton thing now from five of my lib friends from different parts of the country. Do they ALL get talking points?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Agreed!

[dix]

You know, I get so sick of everybody worrying about appearances. Who in the world would you get, but businesses based in Texas to handle the work that needs to be done in Iraq? I say let the libs scream ‘till the cows come home. Halliburton, and its subsidiaries are second to none when it comes to these types of projects.

[nanny]

You know, I get so sick of everybody worrying about appearances.

The Republicans were worried enough about appearances when Clinton was in office. That is my only point. I haven't even suggested Halliburton wasn't the best - it probably is. You know, just once, when a story comes out like this, I wish the people who love President Bush would just say, "Yes, it does look bad and yes, I would have been screaming if Clinton was still in office." Or if they would just say - "Yes, the contracts are going to be given to cronies." Those are just facts - why does everyone want to hide from it.

But you realize appearances is all we have of our government. Please tell President Bush that all his pandering to the Muslims that appearances don't matter. Actually, I don't think it matters to the Muslims - but the President seems to think it does.

[speekinout]

There are knee-jerk partisans on both sides. That's why we need to look at more of the story.
In this case, the Bush Admin. is justified in what they did. If you want to point out a case where the previous admin. was just as justified, but was criticized as much, it would add to your argument. I can't think of one.

[nanny]

My posts have mostly been about the defenders or apologist for President Bush. I don't know if he did the right thing or not and there is nothing we can do if he isn't. But Republicans just need to start being honest about the situation. Why not just say, "HE is probably jusitified - but if he isn't, as another poster said, we operate under the spoils systems" Just be honest -

None of us posting, unless there really are people close to the President know the truth - but just be a little more objective about it.

AS for partisans on both sides, you are right - I just really did not realize there were so many in the Republican party. Just shows you how naive I am.

[speekinout]

And what I have been saying is that it is our obligation to find out if the politicians (be it Bush, clinton or others) are justified in what they are doing.

Neither defending nor attacking the administration is reasonable unless one knows something about the issue. And in most cases, we have plenty of information available if we just spend the time to get it.

The issue that started this discussion is one where there is plenty of evidence to show that the Bush Admin. did the right thing. People who defend them are not "knee-jerk" partisans; they are people who took the time to find out what the facts are.
I'm sorry if that looks like partisanship to you - you admit that you don't know if he did the right thing. But I looked at the facts, and I think I do know. You can call me partisan because I support Bush, but I support him because I took the time to understand the issue.