Makes you feel all warm inside, knowing that in a situation particularly ripe for exploitation of this sort, Wolfie and friends have insured that contracts will have far less oversight than the Pentagon’s activities usually see.
While I agree that stupidity rather than malice should usually be the default explanation, that presumption has been long since rebutted in the general arena of the US’ invasion/occupation of Iraq. This has been a rigged game since Day One. We don’t like the intelligence on WMDs in Iraq, we rig the intelligence. We don’t like the predictions that the Iraqi populace may be less than friendly toward us once we’ve gotten rid of Saddam for them, we get a pet Chalabi to tell us that they’ll love us. We make up info on everything from schools to representative local governments to the frickin’ Thanksgiving turkey. Regarding the Bushies and friends in Iraq, malice is the rebuttable presumption.
[Diana King] Oh why, oh why, oh why
you tell me li-li-li-li-li-li-li-li-lies…
[/Diana King]
RT, since this discrepancy was found by ordinary Pentagon auditors – the kind who have, according to your cite, “access to all internal information deemed necessary to carry out their duties” – and not by the CPA, I don’t know why you think what I’ve said isn’t “real world.”
Each article cited implies that the audits discovering the discrepancy were routine. Nothing in your article indicates that the IG/CPA will have anything to do with these contracts (though I agree that the restrictions on their authority is a bad idea; if they’ve got clearance, they should be able to do what then feel is necessary).
And frankly, I’ve helped draft billion dollar agreements before (admittedly, not with the government, but still…). There is almost always some mechanism for one side to check out the other side’s numbers, and it’s precisely because errors happen. Fraud is a concern, yes, but errors and unforeseen circumstances weigh far more heavily in the minds of the contracting parties. And I’ll take my personal experience over your anonymous weblogger every day and twice on Sunday.
Oh, dear. I’m afraid poor Sylla has come under the grip of another delusion, that he is a master of invective.
But, friend Scylla, isn’t an insulting reference to the other fellow’s winky a bit…well, junior high? I mean, its not like Oscar Wilde ever referred to Whistler as “needledick”, now is it?
You have a considerable talent in the area of domestic comedy. Might I suggest you emphasize your strengths? Pour you attention onto the production of “Horror of Blimps II” and we’ll all be the better for it!
Wow! Now Joshua Micah Marshall, whose articles I’ve been reading for years in topnotch publications, is an “anonymous weblogger”.
Posting before coffee this morning?
Not to mention, he was in his turn citing Wolfowitz’ original memo. You don’t think that’s a good source, take it up with the Department of Defense. They seem to think he’s a Deputy Secretary or some such.
The ‘real world’ part is the restriction on such auditing from here on.
Which works well when there are two sides who are in a position to demand checks on one another. Who, exactly, is the ‘other side’ here? Howard Dean?
Actually, you’re right. I should have said I’ll take my personal experience over the histrionics of some anonymous message board poster, because nothing in Marshall’s article suggests that the CPA proposal would affect the auditing of contracts such as those involved here. It certainly sounds like that particular proposal deals with moneys appropriated for direct expenditures in Iraq to fund the CPA and its activities, and not with ordinary private-sector contracting with US companies.
And as I noted in my prior post, I think the proposed restrictions on CPA auditors are a bad idea. But they’re wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand here. **
Which affects private-sector contracting exactly how? **
No, you freakin’ moron, it’s the US goverment. And they clearly are in a position to demand checks, since they were able to audit the contract, and they are clearly in a position to enforce those checks as well.
Good Lord, you have to be a bloomin’ idiot to claim something untoward on the part of the government here. They performed the audit, frcryinoutloud! They uncovered the discrepancy! They’re the ones demanding repayment!
If this admininstration is as hellbent on funneling unearned cash to corporate cronies as you seem to think it is, they’re doing a pretty poor job of it. The government is the entity that brought the discrepancy to light. If you’re running a corrupt administration, one of the key things you don’t do is allow malfeasance to come to light, and force your conspirators to refund their ill-gotten cash. If you’re gonna funnel illicit cash to your bedfellows, you do it in a way designed to avoid detection by routine audits, or you stymie those audits in the first instance. The venal explanation just doesn’t make sense here.
Stupidity vs. malice, stupidity wins nearly every time.
True. I have have done some nice an positive things on this board and been recognized for it in things like Threadspotting, Teemings, and indeed across the entire internet, going so far as to be translated into several different languages for the entertainment and education of others across the world.
I realize of course that this is a daunting example, and one you are unlikely to be emulate.
In the three years or so that I’ve observed and interracted with you, you have seldom done anything but talk shit about other people. Bush, Repbulicans in general, Me, other posters, rare is it that anything flows from you but insults and criticicism.
Do yourself a favor. Take your own advice, and attend to yourself.
Indeed. And we can have little doubt that being forced to disgorge such gains will be a hard lesson to future would-be malefactors! Might we dare hope for a stern talking-to as well?
Previous post was directed towards Dewey. I may yet respond to Scylla’s display of galactic self-esteem after I regain my composure and clean off my keyboard.
(Though the prospect of talking cross-wise to an international celebrity is daunting…)
In this case, you have on one side contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton. And on Side 2, a White House and Defense Department that gives Bechtel and Halliburton blowjobs morning and night. They might just as well be on the same side.
The point being that regular old auditors and inspectors-general won’t be in a position to demand such checks much longer, due to the actions of the political appointees.
OK, I’ll spell this out in small words that even a lawyer ought to be able to make sense of without reaching for Black’s Law Dictionary.
“The government” is a big outfit. You may have noticed this.
The set of persons in the executive branch of government who serve at the pleasure of the President is a much smaller group.
It should not surprise you that Group #2, as a rule, brings different motivations to bear than the rest of the executive branch.
Therefore, to argue as if ‘the government’ has one big group mind is rather ludicrous.
In this case, it was the part of the executive branch other than #2 that found the discrepancy.
It’s the #2 part that’s trying to make it harder to find such discrepancies in the future.
What’s Bush gonna do now that it’s public - say “no, they shouldn’t pay it back”?
I agree that he’s against corporate corruption, when it’s in the papers. What I doubt is any deep desire to uncover same when it hasn’t gotten there yet, and I’m certain that he doesn’t mind if ‘burdensome’ regulation and oversight that might make it easier to uncover same is removed from the laws and regs, through the appropriate processes for each.
You overestimate how hell-bent I think this admin is on funneling cash to their cronies. I certainly think they won’t hesitate to give no-bid contracts to their buddies whenever possible. I certainly think they’ll do whatever they can to minimize regulation and oversight of their buddies.
“Anonymous”? Dewey, you’re amusing.
Funny, I was under the impression that I’d actually met you. I’ve certainly got what purports to be a clear recollection of what you look like. Maybe it was something I ate. Maybe I bought back my introduction to you.
Let’s quote Wolfie:
You don’t think, over there, that they can’t block just about any audit for months or years by claiming disclosure might threaten national security?
Exactly how many Presidential administrations did you sleep through, Dewey?
What we have here is basically a contract dispute. Contract damages are not punitive in nature. So basically, yeah, you disgorge the gains plus interest and that’s the end of it. That’s the way all these types of discrepancies are handled between contracting parties.
Except that they will, because the article you cited didn’t deal with auditing of contracts with US companies, but rather audits of expenditures by the CPA. **
Let me spell this out in equally small words: if the administration is so willing to allow Halliburton to get more than what they’re entitled under their contract with the government, why would they be doing it in manner so easily caught by routine audits? One presumes that the folks on both the government and Halliburton sides of the table are reasonably smart folks, who understand the scope of basic contract audits, and who wouldn’t intentionally do something where they’re virtually guaranteed to get caught. The venal explantion just doesn’t make sense. **
You were actually sober enough to remember my face? I am impressed.
Nonetheless, to the SDMB readership at large, you are for all practical purposes anonymous. The description is apt. Don’t be so fucking literal. **
Of the CPA? Yes, and as I’ve noted – repeatedly – I think this is a Bad Thing. But that’s unrelated to what we’re talking about here.
I don’t think so. The quote implies that these sorts of things are decided by shadowy cabals of evil businessmen – real-life Stonecutters, if you will. Which is absurd. Far-ranging conspiracies simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. They simply require too many people with too many competing interests to be cooperating in silence for too long to be plausible.
Which frankly is why I dismiss this kind of stuff out of hand. What’s the simpler explantion, that Bush et al had a hand in a nefarious scheme to defraud the US government, or the usual corporate fuckups led to an overcharge which was discovered and will be repaid? Yeah, the latter is a lot more boring, but it’s a hell of a lot more plausible.
Not really following this thread, but this struck me.
A cheap shot and an ad hominem attack, all in the same sentence.
I’ve not been able to attend many Dopefests IRL, but the ones I’ve attended had both liberals and conservatives at them, getting along and having fun, getting to see the ‘person’ behind the screenname.
to know that you’d take something from a dopefest and make it into a personal attack in an unrelated argument is, IMHO, very poor form.
WTF wring? I’ve been to plenty of Dopefests. They are marked by the consumption of copious amounts of alchohol by all participants, myself included. I’m frankly surprised that anyone remembers anything the next day.
Fuck you for taking a perfectly innocuous wisecrack and trying to transform it into a personal attack. You ought to be ashamed.
So, has anyone found out anything new and interesting about the Kuwaiti outfit: Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company?
I noticed that the name is very similar to that of a lebanese charity which runs orphan homes and such:
http://www.altanmia.org.lb/english/organization/
However, other than having a credit report available for purchase, the company Altanmia seems to have no internet presence whatsoever. How’d Halliburton find these guys?
