It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Could any other company have bid on the no-bid contracts?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Seems Edwards said it many times and then I got to thinking, in my construction experience, i could think of only 2 that could do it in that scale and timeframe.

Brown and Root
Bechtel


Then I realized that Brown and Root was bought by Halliburton and Bechtel is just and engineering firm as is Black and Vetch.

Remember the 1st Gulf war, could anyone have been expected to put out the fires EXCEPT Red Adaire? I bet he got no bid contracts also....



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
edsinger,

You are correct, The GAO came out and stated that only Haliburton could do the job and get it done on time. There was no-one else to do this. The same thing happend in Bosnia under Clinton, but the Democrats won't talk about that. This is just an attempt to confuse the electorate. a distortion of truth by the democrats is not new. see this thread on the truthfulness of the Kerry/Edwards camp.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
edsinger,

You are correct,
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks, I wonder why there isnt any argument about this though? Seems if the left keeps bringing it up that they would at least have a leg to stand on....



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
The Democrats believe in the use of fear and smear. They are more concerned about making the President look bad not the truth. Kerry is not an honest man, he sold out the families of POW/MIA's by shredding documents, intimidating witnesses, and denying factual reports that American POW's might still be alive in Vietnam so his cousin could get a big fat billion dollar contract from the Communist Vietnamese after normalizing trade. This man would be in bed with Saddam, just like the French if he could make some money off of the deal. He has his own self in mind, not the American people.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What about multiple firms? Why just one? What about international firms? To rebuild strained alliances...???
Sorry, it still stinks to high heaven....

It's like if Home Depot had a Weather machine, created all the FL hurricanes, and then Home Depot was the only one anyone could buy reconstruction material from.

In like manner, Cheney had a War machine, they conducted the war, and then allowed only his former company to reconstruct.

It's about as subtle as a 2 by 4 upside the head...



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I think that there is such a commotion about it because the contract was given to just one big company, whereas it could have been broken down into several smaller ones, for smaller companies, so that everyone could take part in reconstruction. It's a big job, yes, but that doesn't mean that it can't be broken down and split up among several different companies.


I for one am fairly upset that it was no bid. That just means that the government said here, this is a giant check. It may be about twelve billion dollars in excess of what you need, including markup, but here it is anyhow. I don't know. It just seems a bit off to me.

The words 'Conflict of Interest' just keep jumping out at me...



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I'd like to know if Edwards was being truthful when he mentioned Halliburton getting their funds up front, unlike other companies in the past, so they could cover their legal fees. Is this true? Does anyone remember that comment during the debate?

(On topic: I agree with Gazrok's thoughts.)



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Edwards is a lawyer, what do you think? no way is he honest. He's the one who channelled a baby's death in the mothers womb before a court of law claiming that he could feel her pain.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Whoever claimed any of them were honest?


The point raised in the thread though, was basically, could any other company complete the job? The answer seems to be NO, BUT the job could have been broken up, then offered to smaller firms, to allow bids, and thus save the American taxpayers money.

It's like building a house and looking for one company (and one only) to do all the construction, plumbing, wiring, etc. (and for a big lump sum) instead of having individual companies do their specialty (and compete with each other via bid). It's an insult to the intelligence of the average American, to think that we can't see this crap.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the average American, they seem to be correct, as I'll bet the majority of Americans never even heard of Haliburton before the debate...nor realized Cheney was once CEO...



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Gazrok, while I agree with you that this could have been broken up, that's not the way the federal government does it contractor work. If you think the contract was bad for this, Imagine the total price all the contracts would be if this had been broken up. Each contract would have to have thier own lawyer and staff for them. If for example the contract that Haliburton got was broken up into 10 different contracts, then you would have to have 10 different lawyers and staff's to maintain each contract. I know, when I was in the Air Force we contracted out a new computer system hardware and software to three different companies. Our 3 million dollar contract ended up costing us 10 million because of the extra staff we had to hire in order to satisfy federal law. I also find it Funny that no one complained about Haliburton when they got a similar deal from the Clinton adminstration to do the same thing in Boznia. double standard? of course, Haliburton is just being used to attack the President.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Yes a double standard...it has already been proven crap but it still is getting spinned.

Actually I find it funny because I personally know that Halliburton was having to subcontract a lot of this stuff becuase even they couldnt do it that fast. And some of these had to go to competitors even


Look Haliburton is huge, there is abuse in all companies, they are just more in the spotlight becuase of the old CEO.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Many companies could do the work necessary, and do it better, and cheaper.

"Could" they have bid? No, under this corrupt administration, they could not. That is what a no bid contracts are about - monopolization, crony capitalism and crime against US taxpayers.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Many companies could do the work necessary, and do it better, and cheaper.


Oh really? Name one US company that does that type of work on that scale?

And dont say KB&R...

I happen to know this area fairly well and like I said, Red Adare got no-bid contracts after GulfWar1. There is a reason.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Not really big on politics , so excuse my jumping in here, but maybe this site might be of interest to you guys:

www.nationalreview.com...

It seems to explain a lot of the Halliburton stuff that I didn't understand/know before.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
They should of traded contracts to other countries in exchange for troops.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDead
www.nationalreview.com...

It seems to explain a lot of the Halliburton stuff that I didn't understand/know before.



This "analysis" dates back to July 2003, before the s*** hit the fan with price gouging on gas into Iraq and more detailed review of the no-bid "process". It's old.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDead
www.nationalreview.com...

It seems to explain a lot of the Halliburton stuff that I didn't understand/know before.



This "analysis" dates back to July 2003, before the s*** hit the fan with price gouging on gas into Iraq and more detailed review of the no-bid "process". It's old.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I seem to have bidded twice to make my previous post.

More than some companies in the corrupt crony capitalist illegal war economy under the auspices of the Bush administration ever need to do.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Ah yes you are correct MA.
Sorry about that, like I said, not big on politics myself, I'll just slide back into the the other forums.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Topical stuff is always worth a read, and it's important to know the currency of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join