What I totally fail to fucking understand is why only US companies were invited to bid for the first raft of contracts.
Is there anything at all that justifies this? Bush supporters, can you come up with anything?
I’m sorry and I don’t mean to be unduly provocative but what credibility - yours must be a US perspective from within the US, right ?
Sure Clinton developed a degree of credibility in some quarters and Bush could have had some post 9/11 but he squandered it. Otherwise, the only credibility the US has on the world stage follows on from greasing palms or threatening to use economic or military power.
Under this administration, the US *buys * its credibility. Period.
Well gee, I’m not a Bush supporter any more, but I have something to add to this.
I do know that at least one British and one German company competed for the contract, but under the umbrella of an American company which owns a majority stake in them. However, the work and income would have been kept in Britain and Germany. So the BBC article is either glossing over that purposefully to make a point or else is ignorant of that. However, I have never got the BBC online to publish my feedback commentaries correcting them any time they are wrong on science and engineering matters, so they can fuck off.
Obviously the bidding process should have been open to all countries except those who opposed the United States and Britain, especially as the money (at least the USAID money) is coming from the United States in the first place. As is the additional several billion ($8 billion, was it?) proposed in the budgetary additional funding request.
Can you imagine this political scenario: sending $600 million US to a French company like EdF, already the sleaziest power-related and engineering-related company in Europe, which is bankrolled by the French government? Yeah, that sounds like a winner at election time.
From what country is the funding for the contract coming? That is, who will pay the winning company’s invoices?
My question is this Anth, why exactly are the Bush Administration deciding who gets the contracts or not to rebuild Iraq. If/when Saddam is removed from power, should it not be the government that is put in place that is awarding contracts?
As far as I’ve read, the Iraqis will ultimately fund it through oil revenue. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Ah, but those contracts will be awarded by (for lack of a better word) a colonial governor…either a military or civilian one.
Even if it wasn’t the Bush administration making the award it would be someone who answered to the administration doing so.
While I agree that the whole thing stinks, I believe that under U.S. law, when the U.S. government lets contracts, there is a legally-required preference for domestic contractors. I’ll wager that many, many other countries have similar provisions in their statutes. It could be changed, but it would take an Act of Congress, and the lobbying against such a change in the law would be intense, to say the least. The lobbying would also be successful, since foreign companies can’t contribute to the campaign coffers of Senators and Representatives!
If the U.N., rather than the U.S., were doing the reconstruction, the situation would be much different.
I could be wrong, but I think that they are going to try and put out the oil fires as soon as the area is totally secured, which may be before the war ends and a new Iraqi government is installed.
Deferred compensation is just what it sounds like, money that was earned, but not paid. The compensation is deferred.
Let’s say. for example. I hire you to be the CEO of my company. Let’s go on to say that we agree that the salary will be 2 million/year. You do a quick huddle with your CPA and look at the tax tables and go WOW, am I gonna be screwed on April 15th. So you come back to me and say Rick ole buddy, ole pal, can we change this contract? How about you pay me 1 million and give me the second millon later? Like say when I retire.
My response would be sure! no problem! I’ll put that million right here in this desk drawer.*
Now from a tax standpoint, you only get taxed as the money is received, (million now, and the other million later), from the companies standpoint this is great we don’t have to pay the second million out this year.
This is all very legal, and proper. IIRC this was first done with a boxer in the 50’s (Sonny Liston?), it was ruled on by the tax court and found to be legal.
*in reality the second million would probably become a larger number due to intrest, I am on;y trying to illustrate an example.
Does it not strike anyone else as being a bit sick to go out awarding contracts to rebuild a country that your planning on leveling. Before the shooting had even started, never mind actually having successfully taken the place.
I mean i know contingency palns have to be made but the whole thing just strikes me as a breath-taking mix of hubris and gross insensitivity.
I don’t think you are. The more the administration acts like it’s in it for nefarious reasons the stronger that belief in the rest of the world. Giving the appearance of being above board on this one would have positive effects on its reputation.
If the US had any interest in levelling Iraq, there’d have been no trace of Baghdad left after the first night.
I think we’re actually thinking of different scenarios perhaps.
I am saying if the US is funding the work, they can decide who to exclude or not. Although in fairness and honesty, they should include anyone who supported them in the recent efforts, especially if they said they would do so.
If Iraq actually funds the work (via oil sales or whatever), then I feel you are correct, and the Iraqis should be the one to decide who does it.
Are we thinking of the same thing here?
And here’s the thing:
(a) Iraq is not - and should hopefully never - be “under US law” (unless it’s the next Hawaii - Baywatch Baghdad anyone??)
(b) there are British troops there too, so why US law not British?
While Neurotik is correct as regards putting the oil fires out, I was under the impression that the contract Haliburton won would extend into the “rebuilding Iraq” phase. While it is a great thing the US is doing in funding the rebuilding, I would hope that their decisions for awarding the contracts would at least have some degree of transparency. If all the contracts for the rebuilding and upgrading of the Iraqi oil industry are already decided before a government is actually created, It will leave the incoming government a bit impotent in relation of the control of their own assets. And lets be under no illusions that the majority of any rebuilding that happens will be making sure there is sufficient means of getting Oil from the ground to the ships.
On an aside, It is staggering to think that out of the approx 750 billion this war has been bugeting for, only 150 billion approx will be needed to “rebuild” Iraq, with the remainder spent on destroying it.
I like the idea that Halliburton get the gig without actually pricing anything. They get paid what the work costs irrespective – and they get to do the pricing, it seems – plus a percentage for their trouble on top.
Interesting angle on what used to be known as ‘tendering’; charge what you like and add a piece on top. Your tax dollars at work, Texas style !
See if there’s a local chapter of “Conservative, but not completely bonkers” in your area. Sometimes we get together for cookouts and vollyball.
Well the news for Halliburton can’t be that good, their stock has been trading sideways. I’m sure it will be headed north sometime soon though.
Why wasn’t it bid on rather than just “awarded”?
So that’s the group I’ve been looking for.