|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 5, 2007 22:59:03 GMT -6
The amount of taxpayers' money going into the pockets of private contractors has simply exploded under the Bush Corporatocracy. In 2000, taxpayers paid federal contractors $207 billion dollars. Thanks to Bush's "No-Contractor-Left-Behind" policy, $400 billion of Corporate Welfare was going into contractors' pockets annually as of 2005. The situation has gotten so bad that the Government Services Administration hired, ironically, another private contractor to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors.
More ironic still is that the agency hired for this, CACI International, was recently under investigation itself for contracting misconduct. (CACI was a contractor for interrogators at Abu Ghraib.)
Free market competition for these contracts has greatly decreased under the Corporatist, anti-free market Bush regime. In 2001, 79% of federal contracts were open to competititve bidding. By 2005, Bush had reduced that number to 48%.
The [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/washington/04contract.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1170565200&en=dfb318129496cb61&ei=5094 &partner=homepage&oref=slogin]New York Times[/url] writes: The most successful contractors are not necessarily those doing the best work, but those who have mastered the special skill of selling to Uncle Sam....
And how do they "sell to uncle Sam"? Again, from the New York Times: The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns. “We’ve created huge behemoths that are doing 90 or 95 percent of their business with the government,” said Peter W. Singer, who wrote a book on military outsourcing. “They’re not really companies, they’re quasi agencies.” Indeed, the biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the Departments of Justice or Energy.
Unlike Federal agencies, contractors are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Thus contractors are under no legal obligation to open their books or reveal their activities to the public. Thus they can easily embezzle money and defraud taxpayers without ever having to show where the money went.
With the takeover of Congress by the Democrats, the leadership of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform changed from its previously poor leadership under Republican Tom Davis to Democrat Henry Waxman of California.
Waxman goes on to state: "Billions of dollars are being squandered, and the taxpayer is being taken to the cleaners." As evidence of the change to come, last year Waxman received a grade of "F" from the Contract Services Association, a government contractor lobbying group. In contrast, outgoing Republican Tom Davis received an "A" grade from the contractor lobby.
Even U.S. Comptroller General David Walker expressed some misgivings about government contractors. He acknowledges that private companies can't be expected to look out for the taxpayers'. (Especially when it cuts into their profits.)
Again, from the NYT, Walker goes on to state: ""There's something civil servants have that the private sector doesn't, and that is the duty of loyalty to the greater good -- the duty of loyalty to the collective best interest of all rather than the interest of a few. Companies have duties of loyalty to their shareholders, not to the country....""
Measured in dollars, the amount of Corporate Welfare going to contractors has doubled under Bush. And this still doesn't include his latest giveaways, such as the Medicare Prescription-Pharmaceutical Company Welfare Bill, with an annual price tag of over $70 billion.
As usual, the Bush Hypocri-ship talks out of both sides of its mouth on "smaller government," "free markets" and "entrepreneurship." Under Bush "free markets" means freedom from competition on government contracts, and freedom from paying the market rate for labor, both by importing cheap foreign labor and exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. To Bush, "freedom" means the ability to deprive anyone of their own freedom, if it interferes with Corporate America's ability to profiteer.
Under Bush we've become an unabashed Welfare State.
A Corporate Welfare State, that is.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 6, 2007 9:20:05 GMT -6
Well written, thanks, Unlawful. Keep up the good work.
Talk about war profiteering...
If we took away the job creation by govt and its contractors, we would have a big negative in the employment numbers, I'm sure.
GB
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 6, 2007 15:34:25 GMT -6
As usual, the Bush Hypocri-ship talks out of both sides of its mouth on "smaller government," As usual the lefty doesn’t know what is meant by smaller government. It means less INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES. "free markets" and "entrepreneurship." Nothing has changed. Under Bush "free markets" means freedom from competition on government contracts, and freedom from paying the market rate for labor, There is no less competition on government contracts under Bush than before. both by importing cheap foreign labor and exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Nothing to do with the government. To Bush "freedom" means the ability to deprive anyone of their own freedom if it interferes with Corporate Americas ability to profiteer. Nobody has been deprived of their freedom Under Bush we've become an unabashed Welfare State. A Corporate Welfare State, that is. As usual a lefty doesn’t know what welfare is. Welfare is a HANDOUT. Government paying a company to DO something is not a handout, it is PAYMENT for SERVICES RENDERED
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 6, 2007 15:41:25 GMT -6
Well written, thanks, Unlawful. Keep up the good work. Talk about war profiteering... GB Experts Say Lucrative Contracts Yield Razor-Thin Profit Margins According to KBR's latest quarterly report, the profit margin on military services is 3.8 percent. (Typical defense contracts yield profit margins of 7 percent.) www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1559574Yeah, HUGE profits.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Feb 6, 2007 16:10:20 GMT -6
4% return on a no-risk investment isn't enough for you? Just how greedy are you? 4% for whatever they choose spend, with very little oversight. Just not making money fast enough i guess, its not like they will loose any money either. "Less intrusion in our lives", so why does bush want to be watching in our bedrooms, eavsdropping on our phone calls, monitoring our reading and spending habits and reading our email. Yea "less intrusion in our lives": "do what we say, not what we do" is the true conservative mantra.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 6, 2007 16:37:02 GMT -6
"4% return on a no-risk investment isn't enough for you? Just how greedy are you? 4% for whatever they choose spend, with very little oversight. " 1. There is huge oversight. 2. It isn't an investment it is WORK, and 4% profit is very small in the business world. Microsoft: 31.90% Amazon.com: 6.29% Cisco Systems: 22.09% Southwest Airlines: 7.13% McDonald's: 11.82% www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/breakdown/1998-01-26_breakdown.html"so why does bush want to be watching in our bedrooms, eavsdropping on our phone calls, monitoring our reading and spending habits and reading our email. Yea "less intrusion in our lives": "do what we say, not what we do" is the true conservative mantra. " He doesn't, he only wants to listen if you call a terrorist, or a terrorist calls you. Still less intrusion in our lives, no new government rules telling how we must live the way lefties want.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2007 16:51:05 GMT -6
He doesn't, he only wants to listen if you call a terrorist, or a terrorist calls you. And anyone that criticizes Bush or disagrees with his policies is labeled a terrorist. And Bush claims he has the sole right to make that determination, despite what the law or the Constitution says. The reason we have laws and courts is so that one mental defective, like Bush, isn't the sole determinat of who's a terrorist and who isn't. That's what the Constitution is for, and that's why Bush hates it so much, and ignores it routinely.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Feb 6, 2007 20:53:18 GMT -6
2. It isn't an investment it is WORK, and 4% profit is very small in the business world. A no bid contract on a cost plus basis with no fixed budget limit is work? Sounds more like graft to me. You cite companies that take risk, KBR is covered against loss instead. and thanks for pointing out what a thief gates still is. He started as a thief and continues to this day. Just new government rules telling us to live like the reptiles want us to live instead, which charities to tithe to, what religious morals to follow, they even want to decide who gets to live and die. I think the most telling part about the new government intrusion is that its done on the sly, at least liberals make their rules out in the open, no need for lies like "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 7, 2007 3:51:39 GMT -6
As usual the lefty doesn’t know what is meant by smaller government. It means less INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES. As usual, the righty doesn't know what he's talking about, and has no concern for the facts. Government spending has increased dramatically under Bush. Government intrusion into our lives has increased dramatically under Bush. Citizens have less protection under the laws under Bush. Corporate America has new "freedoms" to fix the market, eliminate competition through collusive practices, and increase their control of government. Everything has changed. Citizens have been deprived of many of their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under Bush, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right of Habeas Corpus. Meanwhile, Corporate Welfare has increased at an astronomical rate under Bush, with every type of government contracting nearly doubling in size when measured in dollars. There is no less competition on government contracts under Bush than before. Unequivocally and categorically wrong. Read the article I referenced. 79% of contracts were fully competitive in 2001. Now only 48% are fully competitive. No-bid contracts are the rule, not the exception under the Bush Corporatocracy. Nobody has been deprived of their freedom Everybody has been deprived of their freedom under Bush, except for Corporate America and Bush cronies. The Bush dictatorship attacks freedom of the press on a daily basis. By allowing an insane amount of media mergers, they've given control of the media to only a handful of large, pro-Bush Corporate conglomerates. Many Americans have even been deprived of the right to vote, and the right to have their vote counted, as evidence by Bush's fraudulent election in 2000 by election fraud in Florida, and re-election by fraud in Ohio in 2004. Under Bush we've become an unabashed Welfare State. A Corporate Welfare State, that is. As usual a lefty doesn’t know what welfare is. Welfare is a HANDOUT. Government paying a company to DO something is not a handout, it is PAYMENT for SERVICES RENDERED As usual, righty re-defines welfare and "handouts" to serve his own purposes. When taxpayers' money goes to a Corporation on a no-bid contract, against the wishes of taxpayers, that's a handout and it's Corporate Welfare. No taxpayer has ever agreed to have his money given to a Corporation in a no-bid contract. This is clearly "taxation without representation." It's taxpayers' money being involuntarily given to a Corporate entity. Technically it's only Corporate welfare and a Corporate handout. In my opinion, it's Corporate crime and the perpetrators should be put in prison. As usual, righty supports full and unrestricted handouts to big business and Corporations, especially when righty is one of the benefactors. Corporate Welfare, and anything that helps the rich get richer, is fine and dandy. But giving money to people who would actually spend the money and drive our economy is "welfare," and is not fine and dandy with righty. And never mind the fact that "social" welfare is in the range of $40-80 billion/year, while Corporate Welfare is in the 100's of billions. Righty always likes to ignore the facts and statisics to make his case. And if that isn't good enough, righty likes to redefine the English language in more "business-friendly" terms.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 7, 2007 10:11:13 GMT -6
" Government spending has increased dramatically under Bush. " Never claimed it didn't, only that it has nothing to do with the conservative desire for smaller government. "Government intrusion into our lives has increased dramatically under Bush. " It hasn't increased at all. "Citizens have less protection under the laws under Bush. " We have the same as we always have had. "Corporate America has new "freedoms" to fix the market, eliminate competition through collusive practices, and increase their control of government. " Corp America has no more ability to collude on prices than before. If you think it does PROVE it. "Everything has changed. Citizens have been deprived of many of their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under Bush, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right of Habeas Corpus." The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. "Meanwhile, Corporate Welfare has increased at an astronomical rate under Bush, with every type of government contracting nearly doubling in size when measured in dollars. " What Corp Welfare? I see lefties claim this all the time but never actually back it up. "Unequivocally and categorically wrong. Read the article I referenced. 79% of contracts were fully competitive in 2001. Now only 48% are fully competitive. No-bid contracts are the rule, not the exception under the Bush Corporatocracy. " There is no such thing as a no-bid contract. Go look up LOGCAP. " Everybody has been deprived of their freedom under Bush, except for Corporate America and Bush cronies. The Bush dictatorship attacks freedom of the press on a daily basis. By allowing an insane amount of media mergers, they've given control of the media to only a handful of large, pro-Bush Corporate conglomerates. " Nobody has been deprived of their freedom, if you think so PROVE it. "Many Americans have even been deprived of the right to vote, " No legal voters have been deprived of their right to vote. If you think so PROVE it. Under Bush we've become an unabashed Welfare State. "As usual, righty re-defines welfare and "handouts" to serve his own purposes. When taxpayers' money goes to a Corporation on a no-bid contract, against the wishes of taxpayers, that's a handout and it's Corporate Welfare. " Again there is no such thing as a no-bid contract, go look up LOGCAP.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 7, 2007 10:15:49 GMT -6
" A no bid contract on a cost plus basis with no fixed budget limit is work? Sounds more like graft to me. "
There is no such thing as a no-bid contract. Go look up LOGCAP.
"and thanks for pointing out what a thief gates still is. "
You aren't a thief if people VOLUNTARILY buy your products.
"Just new government rules telling us to live like the reptiles want us to live instead, which charities to tithe to, what religious morals to follow,"
Yet you don't bother to list any new laws to back up those claims.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 7, 2007 10:20:43 GMT -6
"And anyone that criticizes Bush or disagrees with his policies is labeled a terrorist. "
An yet you can't give even one case where this is true.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 7, 2007 16:37:10 GMT -6
" Government spending has increased dramatically under Bush. " Never claimed it didn't, only that it has nothing to do with the conservative desire for smaller government. I'm glad you agree on that point. t;Government intrusion into our lives has increased dramatically under Bush. " It hasn't increased at all. Another completely fact-free statement. Bush's intrusion into personal lives has increased dramatically. His newly claimed powers essentially are nothing short of dictatorial. They are completely in violation of the law and of the U.S. Constitution. (Which is only a g**d*** piece of paper, according to Der Fuhrer.] Bush can now wiretap anyone's phone whom Bush (in his own infinite wisdom) deems a terrorist or a "threat" to national security - without having to obtain a warrant. Bush can now open the mail of anyone he determines to be a potential "threat," without having to get a warrant or prove to anyone that the letter writer or receiver is a threat. Bush has completely condoned data mining by the NSA, and can monitor the calls of each and every American, if he "claims" they're a threat. And, again, who makes such a determination? Why, the "great decider" himself. And we know he'd never lie to us, don't we. "Citizens have less protection under the laws under Bush. " We have the same as we always have had. Another completely "fact-free" statement. Now a U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely, without a trial, and without even being charged. Though the Courts have told Bush this is illegal, he continues to do so anyway. He simply replaces any judges who disagree with them, and appoints as many as possible as "recess" appointments, so they don't require Senate approval. And then he enlists the help of Arlen Specter, who helped slip a bill through that allows Bush to fire old anti-Bush judges and replace them with pro-Bush judges, without ever requiring Senate approval. Bush has essentially declared dictatorial powers, despite the prohibitions laid out in that "g**d*** piece of paper" we call the Constitution. "Corporate America has new "freedoms" to fix the market, eliminate competition through collusive practices, and increase their control of government. " Corp America has no more ability to collude on prices than before. If you think it does PROVE it. 1st Example. The Medicare Prescription Drug handout to the Pharmaceutical Cartel specifically forbids the government from negotiating prices. That's beyond simple collusion. It's theft of taxpayers' money. Pharmaceutical Companies can charge as much as they'd like for Pharmaceuticals, taxpayers must pay that amount, regardless of how high it is, and law forbids the the representative of U.S. taxpayers (the U.S. government) from even negotiating to lower prices. As a result, Drug companies can legally fix the price. Worse still, the government must pay this non-free market price, regardless of how high it is. 2nd Example. An increase in the amount of Corporate Welfare being distributed on a no-bid basis. From 21% no-bid contracts in 2001 to 52% no-bid in 2006. No-bid means the price is "fixed" at whatever 1 supplier wants to charge. 3rd Example. The unjustified, anti-free market extension of patents on almost ALL pharmaceutical products. Though patent exclusivity is strictly spelled out in law when a company receives its original patent, almost ALL patents are extended through Congressional lobbying by the American Pharmaceutical Cartel. Thus competitors products are barred from entering the market, even after the original manufacturer's patent has expired. The Pharmaceutical Cartel has concocted numerous ways to eliminate competition, by bending the law. First, they can falsely claim they are testing an old drug for a new use, such as for treating a different disorder, or for use in children. This gives them an automatic extension on their current patent exclusivity. When the latest "extension" nears expiration, they file for another extension for another use. This can be carried on almost indefinitely. And it usually is. And this is done on an overwhelming majority of drugs approved over the last 15 years, and many that were approved even before that. In fact, there are multiple drugs that have been on the market for 30+ years that are still only made by 1 manufacturer as a result of this connivery. The original manufacturers often goes so far as to buy out ALL of the producers of the raw materials needed to make the drug. This most certainly is "price fixing" and market collusion, though in many cases the "collusion" is facilitated by our Corporate-controlled government. The granting of telephone & cable contracts to only 1 company are classic examples of collusion, price fixing, and government granted monopolies. "Everything has changed. Citizens have been deprived of many of their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under Bush, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right of Habeas Corpus." The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. And yet it has. And for no reason whatsoever. The only "public safety" concern of Bush is that he might be prosecuted and thrown in prison for lying to Congress and the people, and for violating international and U.S. law. However, Habeas Corpus suspension might be considered "pre-emptive" by Bush, since he's afraid of losing his dictatorial powers without the backing of the previous lock-stepping, rubber-stamping, Neo-Fascist Republican Congress. "Meanwhile, Corporate Welfare has increased at an astronomical rate under Bush, with every type of government contracting nearly doubling in size when measured in dollars. " What Corp Welfare? I see lefties claim this all the time but never actually back it up. You must be having trouble reading then. Evidence of Corporate Welfare expansion has been published widely on the internet, on this board, and even this thread multiple times. The evidence is abundant and overwhelming. Bush is a Corporate Welfare King. He takes money from less affluent American taxpayers and gives it to Corporate America and the most affluent Americans. He takes money from my pocket and gives it to Halliburton and other Defense contractors, so that CEOs receive exorbitant salaries and bonuses, guaranteed golden parachutes when the bankrupt the country, and all at the expense of American workers and American taxpayers. "Unequivocally and categorically wrong. Read the article I referenced. 79% of contracts were fully competitive in 2001. Now only 48% are fully competitive. No-bid contracts are the rule, not the exception under the Bush Corporatocracy. " There is no such thing as a no-bid contract. Everyone knows no-bid contracts are the rule, rather than the exception, under the Bush dictatorship. If only one contractor is allowed to bid on a contract, there is no counter-bid that he has to compete with. So most of us consider this a "no-bid" contract, since this so-called "bid" will be accepted, regardless of how ridiculous it is, because no competing bid is even allowed. Thus, this is nor really a "bid." It's a contractor saying I'll do the job for this much money, take-it-or-leave it. I don't call that "bidding." I call it a "no-bid" contract.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 7, 2007 18:28:47 GMT -6
"Another completely fact-free statement. Bush's intrusion into personal lives has increased dramatically. His newly claimed powers essentially are nothing short of dictatorial. They are completely in violation of the law and of the U.S. Constitution"
He hasn't declared any new powers.
"(Which is only a g**d*** piece of paper, according to Der Fuhrer.] "
Another leftwing lie that has yet to be proven.
"Bush can now wiretap anyone's phone whom Bush (in his own infinite wisdom) deems a terrorist or a "threat" to national security - without having to obtain a warrant. "
No President's coud do this long before Bush came to office, it has been approved by the SC decades ago.
"Bush can now open the mail of anyone he determines to be a potential "threat," without having to get a warrant or prove to anyone that the letter writer or receiver is a threat. Bush has completely condoned data mining by the NSA, and can monitor the calls of each and every American, if he "claims" they're a threat. And, again, who makes such a determination? Why, the "great decider" himself. And we know he'd never lie to us, don't we. "
All authorized by the Supreme Court Decades ago.
"Another completely "fact-free" statement. Now a U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely, without a trial, and without even being charged. "
Wrong again, they can not.
1st Example. "he Medicare Prescription Drug handout to the Pharmaceutical Cartel specifically forbids the government from negotiating prices."
As it should the government shouldn't be negotiating prices.
Pharmaceutical Companies can charge as much as they'd like for Pharmaceuticals, taxpayers must pay that amount, regardless of how high it is."
Yes, that IS the free market system and exactly the way it should be.
"nd Example. An increase in the amount of Corporate Welfare being distributed on a no-bid basis. "
Is none, there is no such thing as a no-bid contract.
"he Pharmaceutical Cartel has concocted numerous ways to eliminate competition, by bending the law. First, they can falsely claim they are testing an old drug for a new use, such as for treating a different disorder, or for use in children. This gives them an automatic extension on their current patent exclusivity. "
Perfectly reasonable.
"Hwever, Habeas Corpus suspension might be considered "pre-emptive" "
Is authorized by the Constitution under conditions that exist today.
"Evidence of Corporate Welfare expansion has been published widely on the internet, on this board, and even this thread multiple times. The evidence is abundant and overwhelming. "
Neither you nor anybody else has presented ANY evidence of any corp welfare. I am STILL waiting.
"He takes money from my pocket and gives it to Halliburton and other Defense contractors, so that CEOs receive exorbitant salaries and bonuses, guaranteed golden parachutes when the bankrupt the country, and all at the expense of American workers and American taxpayers. "
No he PAYS the businesses to do something the government wants them to do, no matter how you try to spin it, that isn't welfare.
"Everyone knows no-bid contracts are the rule, rather than the exception, under the Bush dictatorship. If only one contractor is allowed to bid on a contract, there is no counter-bid that he has to compete with. [/quote]
Again there is no such thing as a no-bid contract, the contracts were bid on by multiple companies and the winner of the bidding process gets the contract. Only the uninformed think there was on competative bidding by multiple companies.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 7, 2007 22:14:18 GMT -6
Again there is no such thing as a no-bid contract, the contracts were bid on by multiple companies and the winner of the bidding process gets the contract. Only the uninformed think there was on competitive bidding by multiple companies. It's amazing how you keep falsely stating this. It's common knowledge that many of the contracts in Iraq were completely no-bid, especially to Halliburton. Exactly how many and to whom will come out in the next few weeks under the investigation by Congressman Henry Waxman. Again, as per the article I previously quoted for you, only 48% of government contracts are fully open to competitive bidding at present. There's been a definite decline in competition on bids for Corporate Welfare under the Bush dictatorship. All the denial in the world doesn't change that. Only 48% are now competitive, as opposed to 79% in 2001. The only thing worse giving handouts to Corporate America is when these giveaways occur without even letting anyone else bid on them.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2007 3:26:52 GMT -6
Just new government rules telling us to live like the reptiles want us to live instead, which charities to tithe to, what religious morals to follow, they even want to decide who gets to live and die. I think the most telling part about the new government intrusion is that its done on the sly, at least liberals make their rules out in the open, no need for lies like "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Well put Huck. Bush "tells" us he needs a court order. And then he authorizes wiretaps with out a court order. He "tells" us he doesn't torture prisoners, but then when an anti-torture bill passes Congress he puts a signing statement on it saying he'll torture detainees anytime he feels its necessary, regardless of what the bill says (or what that g**d*** Constitutions says.)
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 8:05:34 GMT -6
"It's amazing how you keep falsely stating this. It's common knowledge that many of the contracts in Iraq were completely no-bid, especially to Halliburton. " It is a simple FACT, KBR (Haliburton sub.) won the contract in a COMPETATIVE bidding process. "Under the Army's previous order for logistics support, Halliburton was paid $6.3 billion for work during the first two years of the occupation, including $3.98 billion between the beginning of May 2004 and the end of May 2005. Under the new deal, Halliburton will receive $4.97 billion to support U.S. troops in Iraq until May 2006. Both orders stem from a 10-year contract known as LOGCAP, which KBR won in a **** competitive bid **** in 2001. " www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501655.html"When Brown & Root won the first LOGCAP contract in 1992 over three other bidders" In 2001, KBR outbid Dyncorp and another company to win back the LOGCAP contract, now extended to a duration of 10 years. www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_37/b3849012.htmI love catching lefties on this one, it just proves how uninformed they are and that they are gullible enough to buy anything the liberal media tells them. LOGCAP was a program created in 1991 and used throughout the 90's. The LOGCAP contract is put out for competative bidding, the company that wins it will get all the jobs that fall under the LOGCAP program for a 5 year period (now 10 years). Haliburton won it in 1991, Becktel won it in 1996 (and therefore got all the jobs in Kosovo), and Haliburton won it in 2001.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 8:15:27 GMT -6
"Well put Huck. Bush "tells" us he needs a court order. And then he authorizes wiretaps without a court order. "
No, he has not put any wiretaps in without a court order. What he has done is authorized listening in to the domestic side of phone call from/to a warranted wiretaped phone number captured in a terrorists cellphone/comnputer.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2007 17:18:06 GMT -6
"Well put Huck. Bush "tells" us he needs a court order. And then he authorizes wiretaps with out a court order. " No, he has not put any wiretaps in without a court order. What he has done is authorized listening in to the domestic side of phone call from..... That means he has authorized a wiretap without a court order. What kind of phony reason he gives for breaking the law is immaterial. Bush is legally required to obtain a court order to tap a phone for any reason, regardless of whether, in his own infinite wisdom, he decides there's a good reason. It's not up to Bush to decide whether a wiretap is legal. It's up to the court. Without a court order, he's breaking the law regardless of what kind of B.S. reason he concocts.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 19:05:48 GMT -6
"Well put Huck. Bush "tells" us he needs a court order. And then he authorizes wiretaps with out a court order. " No, he has not put any wiretaps in without a court order. What he has done is authorized listening in to the domestic side of phone call from..... "That means he has authorized a wiretap without a court order. " No, he got a court order for the wiretap, the President doesn't need a court order to listen to the domestic side of the conversation. FISA Appeals Court 2002 "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.2 We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could NOT ENCROACH on the President’s constitutional power. www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979 by the Carter administration. www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-barone28.html"court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” " www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 8, 2007 20:26:54 GMT -6
"That means he has authorized a wiretap without a court order. " Testimony Before Congress Mr. John Schmidt March 31, 2006 STATEMENT OF FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN SCHMIDT "I served from 1994 to 1997 as the Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department under President Clinton" "I have a long history of leadership positions in the campaigns of Democrats for office at the local, state and national levels, including those of Bill Clinton, Paul Simon and Richard Daley" "The conclusion that the President retained constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, outside the procedures of the FISA Act, is also supported by the position taken by Edward Levi, the most respected Attorney General of the modern era, who played a critical role in the development of the FISA legislation" "The conclusion that the President's constitutional authority is not limited by the FISA Act is supported by the 2002 opinion of the 3-judge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review which said that, based upon prior federal court of appeals decisions, the court "take[s} for granted" that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and "assuming that is so, Congress could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." " www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/033106schmidt.html
|
|