Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Where is Bush and Rummy?
Published on March 15, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
The Defense Department Inspector General has finally asked the Justice Department to join the investigation of Hilliburton about the massive overcharges the Pentagon discovered. This began in December 2003 with the initial $1.2 billion overcharge for fuel sales in Iraq. In January there were the disclosures of $6.3 million taken by two other employees. In February another 16 a million-dollar overcharge for for meals was disclosed. In February 16th another hundred and $140 million in food billing services were suspended.

It is encouraging that the inspector general at the Defense Department has now sought the assistance of the Justice Department who has significantly greater powers in dealing with these overbillings. It's disappointing is that neither the president nor the secretary of defense said anything about this issue. Another very strange issue is why we continually contract with a company who was so flagrantly overcharged the American public hundreds of millions of dollars. Would any of you continually deal with a business that overcharged you time after time? I'm well aware that the vice president's payments from Halliburton are from prior employment, however I also believe the vice president and president have associates and contributors that are key figures in Hilliburton. I cannot believe if this continues to simmer and why is DoD dealing with the company? It is time that Halliburton he forced to comply with the law and that we seek alternate contractors that will deal honestly with the American taxpayer.

Comments
on Mar 15, 2005
Good Lord the naivete! I don't know why it's hard for people to understand the realities behind all of this. Yeah I've gone through this before, people calling me a leftist nutball with an axe to grind blah blah blah. So many moronic Americans think, somehow make themselves believe, that there is no connection between the frigging Vice President of the US being at the top of Halliburton and Halliburton getting all the NO-BID sweet contracts. They somehow think that because he supposedly got rid of his Halliburton investments that makes him non-biased and coincidental when Halliburton's serious cash flow started. That's how stupid the warhawks, wait, pardon me, the f**king couch-potato-warriors can be when it comes to admitting reality. These idiots just have to think about it in another light. Some arsewarhawkidiot owns a company called A. The vice-president of the USA is running a company called B. War starts. Company B, the Vice-Presidents company, gets billions and billions of US money to rebuild the oil infrastructure in another land. Company A, the arsewarhawkidiot's company, wasn't allowed to bid on any of the projects because company B, the Vice-president's company, got all the no-bid work. Company A, the arsewarhawkidiot's company, tells how the VP's company B is stealing from the US treasury as well as shorting the US soldiers by giving them gross crap in unsanitary conditions. No one cares. So while Halliburton has a backlog of court cases against them by the US government itself, it still continues to profit. Man some people who think there's no patronage obviously see life through blood-soaked glasses.
on Mar 15, 2005
Whoa, Reiki........ I thought I was adversarial and contentious. Of course we're only contentious when we disagree with the rightwing, neocon deathcult puppetmasters of the dubya dummy administration.

Hail to the dubya dummy!!!

Ooops, I'm getting ahead of myself. We're not a full-blown fascist state yet. But, with the government aligning itself with industry, the makings of fascism are set in place. Hence, the mongo neocon profitmasters making megabucks off the neocon deathcult invasion of Iraq.

Oil, mon. It's the oil.......
Sure would have been cheaper to just buy the stuff.
on Mar 15, 2005

The policy of contracting combat support and combat service support functions to private contractors needs to be eliminated. This concept was intended to increase the level of combat forces available without increasing the overall end strength of the military.

Two problems have been documented from this policy. First, the salaries private contractors need to pay are substantially higher then we pay our military in order to attract the civilians to work in a combat zone. One example is that truck drivers in Iraq were receiving as much as $80,000 per year in salary which was far greater than the equivalent salary we were paying to military truck drivers. Add the overhead and profit for the private companies and the cost of providing combat support and combat service support functions via private contractors in a combat zone is actually greater than by just employing more military.

The second issue is that when the civilian contractors come under attack in a combat operation, they are unable to defend themselves and require the active military to divert resources in order to protect them. This is essential not only from a humanitarian standpoint but to also protect the services that they are providing such as logistics or food preparation.

Therefore the concept of contracting military support functions to private contractors has both increased our costs and created operational problems in the area of combat when these units come under attack by the enemy.
on Mar 15, 2005
Another good post Col, and a great rant Reiki.

It amazes how much people want to believe there is no connection and insider networks devoted to those in power consolidating wealth. Unbelievable! Things happen in front of us everyday, but people toss aside easily seen observations as conspiracy when those observations fail to conform with their preferred view.