It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Defense bill's contracting rules rankle Bush team

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:39 PM

Provisions that would govern contracting are contentious points in a defense authorization bill the Senate is debating today.

Bush administration officials objected to the Senate’s fiscal 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 3001), partly because of provisions that would restrict the relationship between contractors and the Defense Department.

If this bill passed un-vetoed the poor boys at Blackwater and other 'security' contractors would have to be replaced by military personnel. It would require that such security as is required by DoD would be provided by DoD personnel.

Bush and the ideologues are cleverly trying to convince us that the military is 'stretched too thin' so we should be "competitively" bidding out these security positions. Of course, that means major money for the folk investing in 'security' businesses as well as an automatic 'in' with DoD contracts and services.

Icing on the cake:

The administration also opposes language in the Senate’s defense bill that would create a new database for information on improper conduct and questionable behavior by contractors.

The database, which is based on a bill by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), would require DOD to post information on fines, defaults on contracts, and suspensions and debarments. The database would be available to federal officials.

Accountability? We don't need no stinking accountability!

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:44 PM
Actually I have lost all faith in any one of those dirty politicians in Washington.

I doubt that our corporate ridden government will allow this one to pass by, after all money has been soo good for the private business involved in the defense department that they can afford the best lobbyist money can buy all at the expenses of tax payer.

So while it sounds mighty good and about time it may only be for show because of election year.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by marg6043

That's a really good point. It very well all could be for show.


log in