Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 19, 2006, 11:22:25 AM
-
::)
Sean Penn: Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
By Roger Friedman
Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn called for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in an impassioned speech Monday night in New York.
The occasion was Penn's winning the first annual Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award from the Creative Coalition, a non-partisan advocacy and lobbying group founded by New York actors such as Reeve, Ron Silver and Susan Sarandon more than a decade ago.
Penn was one name on a long list of honorees that included Branford Marsalis, Harvey Keitel and Marcia Gay Harden. He was introduced by PBS' Charlie Rose, who was preceded by Matthew Reeve, the documentary-making eldest son of Christopher Reeve and Gae Exton.
Penn, wearing slicked-back hair, suit and tie, came to the stage at Duvet, a party space on West 21st St., with serious intentions. Unfortunately, his cell phone rang a couple of times during his pointed remarks, and finally he had to answer it.
Such are the consequences of public speaking in the modern era.
Penn is no stranger to controversy, politics or their intersection. But last night's speech was a little different — even for him — amping him up to the next level in the war between liberals and conservatives over the war in Iraq.
Penn spoke in measured tones but was actually quite inflammatory. The combination worked. He also threw a verbal grenade into the crowd when he said: "So look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a [oral sex act], yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a [human] stain on the flag we wave."
The deleted word registered the level of shock it was supposed to, even for the fairly A-list hip crowd that included Heather Graham, Laurence Fishburne, Kerry Washington, Ruben Santiago Hudson, Giancarlo Esposito, Tony Goldwyn, Joe Pantoliano, Richard Belzer, Tamara Tunie and Richard Schiff, plus media types such as John Sykes, Matt Blank (Showtime) and Gerry Byrne.
Penn's proclamation went beyond just staining the red, white and blue. He preceded that line with: "Let's put his administration under oath," he said. "And then if the crimes of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States constitution provides, and remove the president, vice president, and … civil officers of the United States from office."
He added: "If the Justice Department then sees fit to bunk them up with Jeff Skilling, so be it."
Penn later told me he's thrilled for Clint Eastwood's double successes with "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Flags of Our Fathers."
Penn is directing his own movie, based on Jon Krakauer's story "Into the Wild," with Marcia Gay Harden leading an all-star cast. It's due out next year from Paramount Vantage.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237357,00.html
-
Impeaching Bush for violating the Presidency is definitely something that should be investigated.
Let it be investigated, and only impeach Bush and/or Cheney if there is something substantial, not like when that homo Starr went after Clinton.
That was a disgrace.
If an investigation cannot find anything substantial, then just drop it.
This is about protecting the Checks and Balances of the US Constitution, so I pray they won't fcuk with it just to score some party political points.
But indeed, Bush seems like he's been violating the presidency somewhat.
-Hedge
-
8 year ago today: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/
House Impeaches Bill Clinton
-
8 year ago today: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/
House Impeaches Bill Clinton
Ah memories. :) What a fiasco. A partisan impeachment in the House. DOA in the Senate. Wouldn't be any different with Dubya, except it will never get off the ground.
-
yeah, that was great political entertainment.
I especially liked it when Newt Gingrinch resigned when his extra-marital affair became known then 9 days later Livingston resigns for the same reason. I wonder wtf they were thinking? F'ng hypocrites
-
Absolute hypocrites. Larry Flynt allegedly had a lot of Congressmen shaking in their boots. He was going to do a story on various extra-marital affairs by members of Congress around that time. He apparently backed off when the wife of one of the targets called and pleaded for their privacy.
-
Justify what? I'm just talking about whether there are grounds to impeach Bush. I haven't heard a credible argument from you or anyone else on impeachment. Lots of hyperbole (like Sean Penn). That's about it.
-
Here's (presumably) is a whole book of arguments.
-
Here's (presumably) is a whole book of arguments.
I looked up the author, she's obviously a liberal Bush hater, so far I found 51 articles she wrote bashing the President!!
-
Honestly Rob, celebrities opinions don't matter. Just ask Alice Cooper who said the same thing. They live a good life no matter who is in office. Nothing but the next movie role affects them.
-
I looked up the author, she's obviously a liberal Bush hater, so far I found 51 articles she wrote bashing the President!!
Who else do you expect to write a book like that?
If it's factual (I don't know because I haven't read it) then that's all that should matter
-
I agree a biased author can present the facts in an unbiased way, but that usually doesn't happen.
-
I agree a biased author can present the facts in an unbiased way, but that usually doesn't happen.
true - but then again good luck finding anyone who's not biased in some way. Just picking a side automatically makes you biased to some degree.
-
true - but then again good luck finding anyone who's not biased in some way. Just picking a side automatically makes you biased to some degree.
Yes we all have biases, but the issue is whether the author has a bias against the person/ideology that he or she is writing about.
-
true - but then again good luck finding anyone who's not biased in some way. Just picking a side automatically makes you biased to some degree.
I can see being unbias toward someone, but 51 articals is a little extreme!!
-
I can see being unbias toward someone, but 51 articals is a little extreme!!
isn't it odd that we're debating a book that none of us have even read?
-
clinton lied under oath, something that for all the outrage Bush has never done.
Bin Laden himself said that when Clinton pulled america out of somalia after mogadishu it made him believe that the US, or more specifically its politicians, were too weak and cowardly to respond to force in kind. this led to an increase in both terrorist attacks on the US and the boldness of the attacks.
Oh whoops. Sillly me. Bin laden had nothing to with 911, I forgot.
-
isn't it odd that we're debating a book that none of us have even read?
lol. True, true. :) . . . Wait, we're discussing whether the author has a bias, not the subject matter of the book.
-
lol. True, true. :) . . . Wait, we're discussing whether the author has a bias, not the subject matter of the book.
yeah but how do we know if the book is bias.
Is there anyone on the planet that is not biased for or against Bush.
He's one of the most polarizing people on the planet
-
clinton lied under oath, something that for all the outrage Bush has never done.
Bin Laden himself said that when Clinton pulled america out of somalia after mogadishu it made him believe that the US, or more specifically its politicians, were too weak and cowardly to respond to force in kind. this led to an increase in both terrorist attacks on the US and the boldness of the attacks.
Oh whoops. Sillly me. Bin laden had nothing to with 911, I forgot.
That could be because Bush never goes under oath. That might change soon
-
yeah but how do we know if the book is bias.
Is there anyone on the planet that is not biased for or against Bush.
He's one of the most polarizing people on the planet
We don't know. The problem with reading a book written by an author who is biased against the subject matter of the book is people won't trust the content, or in many cases won't even read the book. Based on Mr. I's find, I probably wouldn't read this book.
I think the president of the United States is always a polarizing figure. I don't think Bush is any more polarizing that Clinton. Conservatives absolutely hated Clinton. It's the nature of the beast (politics).
-
We don't know. The problem with reading a book written by an author who is biased against the subject matter of the book is people won't trust the content, or in many cases won't even read the book. Based on Mr. I's find, I probably wouldn't read this book.
I think the president of the United States is always a polarizing figure. I don't think Bush is any more polarizing that Clinton. Conservatives absolutely hated Clinton. It's the nature of the beast (politics).
Well, just to belabour the point. How do we even know she's biased. The person who said it clearly has his own bias. Has he read all 51 articles. How many other articles has she written. Are they all one-sided?? and on and on - blegh - do we really even care anymore
-
Well, just to belabour the point. How do we even know she's biased. The person who said it clearly has his own bias. Has he read all 51 articles. How many other articles has she written. Are they all one-sided?? and on and on - blegh - do we really even care anymore
I don't know if she's biased. I know Mr. I has a conservative bias. Okay, it's more of a religion. :) But I'll take his word for it.
But back to the impeachment issue: I think it's all smoke. No fire.
-
I don't know if she's biased. I know Mr. I has a conservative bias. Okay, it's more of a religion. :) But I'll take his word for it.
But back to the impeachment issue: I think it's all smoke. No fire.
So someone with a conservative bias can be objective in declaring that someone else has a liberal bias??? It can't go both ways.
BTW - I'm not reading the book either. It's irrelevant. The House will investigate and if they decide there is an impeachable offense then they may choose to initiate an impeachment. If it passes the House it goes to the Senate and then they get to decide. Personally, I suspect that Bush has committed many crimes worthy of impeachment but I also think that impeachment would be really really bad for our country. Besides, who wants a pissed off Dick Cheney running the country or for that matter Nancy Pelosi?
-
Honestly Rob, celebrities opinions don't matter. Just ask Alice Cooper who said the same thing. They live a good life no matter who is in office. Nothing but the next movie role affects them.
Alice Cooper said celebrity opinions don't matter? Doesn't that mean that his opinion on celebrity opinions doesn't matter?
-
why should a celebrity opinino matter more than anyone else?
most of these hollywood celebrities have very little education
-
why should a celebrity opinino matter more than anyone else?
most of these hollywood celebrities have very little education
I didn't say they mattered any more
I don't think they matter any more or any less
you're presenting a celebrity who is saying that celebrity opinions don't matter
I just find that kind of ironic
they have better access to media than you or I (well at least me for sure)
education doesn't really matter (at least not to me)
what are the education requirements to offer an opinion on this site?
-
So someone with a conservative bias can be objective in declaring that someone else has a liberal bias??? It can't go both ways.
BTW - I'm not reading the book either. It's irrelevant. The House will investigate and if they decide there is an impeachable offense then they may choose to initiate an impeachment. If it passes the House it goes to the Senate and then they get to decide. Personally, I suspect that Bush has committed many crimes worthy of impeachment but I also think that impeachment would be really really bad for our country. Besides, who wants a pissed off Dick Cheney running the country or for that matter Nancy Pelosi?
It's not about going both ways. I just doubt Mr. I made up what he said about the author. Not a big deal. Certainly nothing worth debating. :)
What, specifically, are they going to investigate?
Aside from the fact I think there is nothing to this impeachment talk, you raise a good point about the end result: President Cheney.
-
It's not about going both ways. I just doubt Mr. I made up what he said about the author. Not a big deal. Certainly nothing worth debating. :)
What, specifically, are they going to investigate?
Aside from the fact I think there is nothing to this impeachment talk, you raise a good point about the end result: President Cheney.
warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
pre-war intelligence
war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
medicare legislation
using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
Remember Congress has done virtually zero oversight in the last 6 years....not counting the crucial hearings on steroids in baseball
-
Bias shouldn't matter - the arguments and supports of the argument are all that should matter.
no one is without some kind of bias. Most are biased toward their own beliefs.
-
Which is fine, and A-Ok!
But when you evaluate the work of an author, to dismiss it because "he's a fookin neo!" or "damn liberal" is perhaps the stupidest thing one can do.
Far wiser is to look at the argument, look at the supports he/she uses, and determine if it's right or wrong.
hell, I am no longer a far right repub, but I still see much of what they write, and a lot of it still makes sense. I believe Rush is a salesman for republican ideals that he doesn't even believe in, but he makes good points - when he is talking issues and not just spouting "the right is right cause they're better than the liberals!" Now and then, even a guy like him has great ideas. It's dismissing everything a person has to say because of their party which is perhaps the easiest way to stop growing your own party and belief system.
I think we're pretty much in agreement but there is no way I'd waste my time listening to rush's shit on the hope that he might drop some pearl of wisdom
If he says something important then I'm sure I'll eventually hear about it
he's also a celebrity so we should discount his opinion to zero
-
Alice Cooper said celebrity opinions don't matter? Doesn't that mean that his opinion on celebrity opinions doesn't matter?
I should have posted clearer. Specifically he said that they have no business talking about politics. His words were "we do all kinds of drugs, sleep til 4 in the afternoon and don't know much about what is going on"
Frankly they are idiots
-
rush is a highly paid whore
if you got him high he would probably admit that
-
sean penn went to iran and got his camera and video equipment taken by the local authorities--and he was SHOCKED!
he really knows what is going on in the world
-
I should have posted clearer. Specifically he said that they have no business talking about politics. His words were "we do all kinds of drugs, sleep til 4 in the afternoon and don't know much about what is going on"
Frankly they are idiots
so Alice Cooper speaks for all ??? musicians? people on drugs? people who are famous??
and I guess you speak for Alice Cooper or at least use his words
which one is sean penn?
-
so Alice Cooper speaks for all ??? musicians? people on drugs? people who are famous??
and I guess you speak for Alice Cooper or at least use his words
which one is sean penn?
No I don't consider him the celeb spokesperson but he makes alot of sense. Their lives are not impacted by any president, congressman, senator, etc. When Martine Sheen spoke out, he sounded like an uneducated moron saying he supported the people we were fighting. Same for Alec Baldwin. He said he was going to move to Canada if Bush won. I'm pretty sure he is still here.
Sean Penn was in "Colors".
-
Alice Cooper said celebrity opinions don't matter? Doesn't that mean that his opinion on celebrity opinions doesn't matter?
Cooper is a stupid twit. He doesn't think Rock should ever be political. ::) Alice Cooper is a coward. At least a band who want to do something political isn't hiding anything, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy their CD, so what... They're right up front what they want to express... UNLIKE COOPER, who just drops subtle right wing political innuendos while he's on the radio playing his selection of non-political rock ::) Fucking turd.
-
Well, just to belabour the point. How do we even know she's biased. The person who said it clearly has his own bias. Has he read all 51 articles. How many other articles has she written. Are they all one-sided?? and on and on - blegh - do we really even care anymore
Well of course I haven't read all 51 articles, but judging by the titles of the articles, I'd say she's really has it in for the Pres!
http://www.google.com/search?q=elizabeth+de+la+vega&btnG=Search&domains=www.tomdispatch.com&sitesearch=www.tomdispatch.com
-
Well of course I haven't read all 51 articles, but judging by the titles of the articles, I'd say she's really has it in for the Pres!
http://www.google.com/search?q=elizabeth+de+la+vega&btnG=Search&domains=www.tomdispatch.com&sitesearch=www.tomdispatch.com
Read one article, give us some feedback on it. It would be interesting.
-Hedge
-
warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
pre-war intelligence
war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
medicare legislation
using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
Remember Congress has done virtually zero oversight in the last 6 years....not counting the crucial hearings on steroids in baseball
So you're saying Congress should use our tax dollars to investigate whether George Bush committed a crime by being involved, in some way, in the preceding activities? Sounds like a witch hunt to me. I can see from a mile away that none of those issues involved "high crimes and misdemeanors" by George Bush.
-
So you're saying Congress should use our tax dollars to investigate whether George Bush committed a crime by being involved, in some way, in the preceding activities? Sounds like a witch hunt to me. I can see from a mile away that none of those issues involved "high crimes and misdemeanors" by George Bush.
It's interesting that you can already see "from a mile away" that no "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed. How could you possibly know that when there has been no congressional oversight. Perhaps you should contact the incoming congressional leaders and let them know that you've looked into all those things so they don't have to waste their time. I can't see how investigating the alleged massive corruption in government contracts for Iraq and also Katrina would be a waste of our tax dollars. We're talking about billions and billions of $'s that are unaccounted for and/or lost through fraud and corruption. How many of our tax dollars were wasted investigating whitewater, clintons hummer from monica, or even the Clintons alleged misuse of the whitehouse Christmas list. Those "investigations" were witchhunts that accomplished nothing. The stuff were talking about are actual crimes and worthy of investigation. Regardless of our opinions it appears that congress will start doing their job again soon and you may have a whole bunch of new facts to digest. I do think it's quite possible that they will discover many impeachable offenses but still choose not to impeach but either way, oversight is coming like it or not.
-
It's interesting that you can already see "from a mile away" that no "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed. How could you possibly know that when there has been no congressional oversight. Perhaps you should contact the incoming congressional leaders and let them know that you've looked into all those things so they don't have to waste their time. I can't see how investigating the alleged massive corruption in government contracts for Iraq and also Katrina would be a waste of our tax dollars. We're talking about billions and billions of $'s that are unaccounted for and/or lost through fraud and corruption. How many of our tax dollars were wasted investigating whitewater, clintons hummer from monica, or even the Clintons alleged misuse of the whitehouse Christmas list. Those "investigations" were witchhunts that accomplished nothing. The stuff were talking about are actual crimes and worthy of investigation. Regardless of our opinions it appears that congress will start doing their job again soon and you may have a whole bunch of new facts to digest. I do think it's quite possible that they will discover many impeachable offenses but still choose not to impeach but either way, oversight is coming like it or not.
I was completely opposed to the Clinton witch hunt. A complete waste of my tax dollars. I thought the "impeachment" was a joke. A partisan vote on impeachment is never good for the country. And the underlying offense wasn't even a crime IMO. I was stunned that the Starr report (and I read the entire thing) never addressed the fact that Clinton's lie under oath was not about a material issue, and perjury is lying under oath about a material issue. But I'll get off that soap box . . . .
In a nutshell, here is why there will likely not be any "investigations" into the issues you raised:
warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
I'm not sure the order to do warrentless wiretaps came from Bush, but even assuming it did, he relied on the advice of counsel, just his predecessors. No way he gets impeached over this.
pre-war intelligence
Democrats do not want to go here, because they are knee deep in comments to the American people about what a threat Saddam posed. There is no logical way to separate Bush's stance on Saddam's threat before the war with the numerous Democrats who echoed Bush's comments. Not gonna happen.
war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
Red herring. Bush isn't a party to the contracts with private companies. I doubt his name appears as a responsible party anywhere. These aren't government entities. Halliburton is a private company. Absolutely nothing to investigate regarding Bush here.
medicare legislation
Congress is going to investigate whether Bush committed a crime by advocating and/or signing various pieces of legislation? I don't think so.
using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
This is a civil, not criminal matter. I'm sure if there was violation of tax laws, groups like Common Cause or Judicial Watch would have been all over it. Nothing there.
lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
That would be part of the definition of witch hunt, I believe. :)
-
Beach Bum doesn't understand the laws and concepts we're discussing here. No offense to the guy, he's very loyal, but he's blind and a little behind the curve.
240 you don't know the first thing about the law. Anytime you try and discuss specific provisions of the law (like the time you said American citizens were going to be arrested under the new law recently passed by Congress to combat terrorism), your brain gets tied in knots. Stick to your conspiracy theories. The law, logic, and common sense aren't as much of a factor when addressing those issues. That's where your strength lies.
But anytime you want to stop acting like a little punk kid and discuss specific provisions of laws you think Bush violated, you let me know.
-
I was completely opposed to the Clinton witch hunt. A complete waste of my tax dollars. I thought the "impeachment" was a joke. A partisan vote on impeachment is never good for the country. And the underlying offense wasn't even a crime IMO. I was stunned that the Starr report (and I read the entire thing) never addressed the fact that Clinton's lie under oath was not about a material issue, and perjury is lying under oath about a material issue. But I'll get off that soap box . . . .
In a nutshell, here is why there will likely not be any "investigations" into the issues you raised:
warrentless wire taps (already admitted to but not yet fully investigated)
I'm not sure the order to do warrentless wiretaps came from Bush, but even assuming it did, he relied on the advice of counsel, just his predecessors. No way he gets impeached over this.
pre-war intelligence
Democrats do not want to go here, because they are knee deep in comments to the American people about what a threat Saddam posed. There is no logical way to separate Bush's stance on Saddam's threat before the war with the numerous Democrats who echoed Bush's comments. Not gonna happen.
war profiteering (think no-bid, cost plus contracts, graft, waste)
Red herring. Bush isn't a party to the contracts with private companies. I doubt his name appears as a responsible party anywhere. These aren't government entities. Halliburton is a private company. Absolutely nothing to investigate regarding Bush here.
medicare legislation
Congress is going to investigate whether Bush committed a crime by advocating and/or signing various pieces of legislation? I don't think so.
using us tax dollars to fund political activities (think faith based initiatives)
This is a civil, not criminal matter. I'm sure if there was violation of tax laws, groups like Common Cause or Judicial Watch would have been all over it. Nothing there.
lot's of other stuff that we probably know nothing about
That would be part of the definition of witch hunt, I believe. :)
Applying the witch hunt label is pejorative. One persons witch hunt is another persons investigation.
I rattled that list off in about 5 seconds. In hindsight I agree with you about the Medicare legislation
although it's not the "signing" that needs to be investigated but how the whole deal was put together but it most likely does not involve Bush (though it could possibly involve the White House). BTW - notice I didn't even include 9-11 on that list.
Everything else on that list - who knows? Neither you nor I have much information.
Regarding pre-war intelligence - I don't really get your argument. If someone lies to you and then you support them because of it that's make you responsible for their lie and also makes them immune?
All the other stuff - while I can respect your opinion but that's all it is, your opinion. The fact is that all of your opinions (as mine and everyone else's) are all based on the scant information that leaks into public domain. I'd like to let Congress actually do their job. Investigation will lead to more information. If there weren't questions then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You should welcome oversight because if you're right you will be vindicated and if you're wrong you'll still win because it will hopefully lead to reform (or if not at least justice). For you investigation is win - win.
-
Regarding pre-war intelligence - I don't really get your argument. If someone lies to you and then you support them because of it that's make you responsible for their lie and also makes them immune?
All the other stuff - while I can respect your opinion but that's all it is, your opinion. The fact is that all of your opinions (as mine and everyone else's) are all based on the scant information that leaks into public domain. I'd like to let Congress actually do their job. Investigation will lead to more information. If there weren't questions then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You should welcome oversight because if you're right you will be vindicated and if you're wrong you'll still win because it will hopefully lead to reform (or if not at least justice). For you investigation is win - win.
My view on pre-war intelligence is there is no question Saddam had WMDs and was trying to acquire more before we invaded. The issue is when he moved those items out of the country. He may have done so long before we invaded. But essentially the entire world believed he either had them or was trying to obtain them. It wasn't just Bush and his administration making the claim. Numerous members of Congress, including Democrats, made categorical statements that Saddam had WMDs before we invaded. Did they solely rely on information provided to them by Bush? I doubt it. Then you have numerous resolutions supporting the war after it started, which most all Democrats supported. I don't see a logical way for those same members of Congress to then target Bush, claiming he never should have gone to war. Too late.
Yes this is all a matter of opinion. I don't believe the impeachment talk makes it past things like this internet message board, but that's just my opinion. It's okay if we disagree. :) I'll be extremely upset if Congress wastes my tax dollars, AGAIN, running down rabbit trails. They need to focus on how they can keep us safe and allow me to keep more of my hard earned money.
-
BB,
If Bush and Co. did nothing wrong, why did they all get lawyers in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office? It's not something Presidents and their staffs usually have to do- quickly hiring criminal defense firms individually.
Also, in your opinion, has Bush committed any crimes since in office, yes or no?
1. I never said Bush "did nothing wrong." I said I've seen no logical argument that he has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would warrant impeachment.
2. Forgive me for not believing you about Bush & Co. (whoever that is) getting lawyers in 2004. I'm not addressing a straw man argument.
3. We cannot have this discussion, because you don't like to deal with the facts. A while back we were going to debate whether Bush has lied to the American people. We couldn't get past the definition of "lie." I wanted to use the dictionary definition (which most people use). You wanted to make up your own. But if you want discuss specific "crimes" you think Bush committed, give me a citation, I'll read it, and give you my opinion.
-
BB,
If Bush and Co. did nothing wrong, why did they all get lawyers in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office? It's not something Presidents and their staffs usually have to do- quickly hiring criminal defense firms individually.
Also, in your opinion, has Bush committed any crimes since in office, yes or no?
bush got those lawyers togather in '04 for the election. polling stations had lawyers to make sure everything went right. the same thing the demecrates did. kerry had more lawyers then bush did
-
Place a wager. I'll get you their names and firms for each admin member if it's worth the time
I'm not placing any wager. What's your source? Provide me with the source that Bush and his administration hired lawyers "in 2004 in anticipation of facing charges upon leaving office."
-
My view on pre-war intelligence is there is no question Saddam had WMDs and was trying to acquire more before we invaded. The issue is when he moved those items out of the country. He may have done so long before we invaded. But essentially the entire world believed he either had them or was trying to obtain them. It wasn't just Bush and his administration making the claim. Numerous members of Congress, including Democrats, made categorical statements that Saddam had WMDs before we invaded. Did they solely rely on information provided to them by Bush? I doubt it. Then you have numerous resolutions supporting the war after it started, which most all Democrats supported. I don't see a logical way for those same members of Congress to then target Bush, claiming he never should have gone to war. Too late.
Yes this is all a matter of opinion. I don't believe the impeachment talk makes it past things like this internet message board, but that's just my opinion. It's okay if we disagree. :) I'll be extremely upset if Congress wastes my tax dollars, AGAIN, running down rabbit trails. They need to focus on how they can keep us safe and allow me to keep more of my hard earned money.
There were numerous sources that contradicted the view that Saddam had weapons, starting with the actual inspectors on the ground right up through the CIA.
The cost of investigation will most likely be a tiny fraction of the $'s that have already been lost through graft, corruption and negligience (i.e lack of oversight). Why aren't you upset about the billions and billions that have already been lost. Without some oversight that could just continue. Does that bother you at all??
-
There were numerous sources that contradicted the view that Saddam had weapons, starting with the actual inspectors on the ground right up through the CIA.
The cost of investigation will most likely be a tiny fraction of the $'s that have already been lost through graft, corruption and negligience (i.e lack of oversight). Why aren't you upset about the billions and billions that have already been lost. Without some oversight that could just continue. Does that bother you at all??
The money hasn't been lost. It is part of the cost of going to war. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power. We've debated that issue a lot on this board. I've gone back and forth with Ozmo about this. More than once. :) Our failure to find significant stashes of WMDs doesn't change my opinion that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
Whether we have managed the war properly is a different issue. I have serious concerns about our overall post-invasion strategy. But tactical errors don't amount to crimes either.
-
The money hasn't been lost. It is part of the cost of going to war. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power. We've debated that issue a lot on this board. I've gone back and forth with Ozmo about this. More than once. :) Our failure to find significant stashes of WMDs doesn't change my opinion that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
Whether we have managed the war properly is a different issue. I have serious concerns about our overall post-invasion strategy. But tactical errors don't amount to crimes either.
How about this for a start. After this we can get into the "no bid cost plus" contracts issued in Iraq (let's not even get into Katrina). These are contracts that allow contractors to make a profit based on the percentage of the cost incurred. The more cost the higher the profit. I'm at work now but if you really want to have a discussion about how money is being lost on a massive scale I'll provide more info late. Remember this is your tax dollars. Whether you think it's necessary or not this will be investigated.
8.8 Billion Dollars in Iraq Funds Unaccounted For
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senators Ask Where $8.8 Bln in Iraq Funds Went
Thu Aug 19, 2004 03:10 PM ET
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.
The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority's own Inspector General blasts the CPA for "not providing adequate stewardship" of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.
The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by journalist and retired Col. David Hackworth. A U.S. official confirmed the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth (www.hackworth.com) were accurate.
The development fund is made up of proceeds from Iraqi oil sales, frozen assets from foreign governments and surplus from the U.N. Oil for Food Program. Its handling has already come under fire in a U.N.-mandated audit released last month.
Among the draft audit's findings were that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under Coalition Provisional Authority control were padded with thousands of ghost employees.
In one example, the audit said the CPA paid for 74,000 guards even though the actual number could not be validated. In another, 8,206 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 people doing the work could be counted.
Three Democratic senators -- Ron Wyden of Oregon, Tom Harkin from Iowa and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota -- demanded an explanation from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the use of the funds by the CPA, which handed over authority to the Iraqis in June.
"The CPA apparently transferred this staggering sum of money with no written rules or guidelines for ensuring adequate managerial, financial or contractual controls over the funds," said the letter sent by the senators on Thursday.
"Such enormous discrepancies raise very serious questions about potential fraud, waste and abuse," said the senators.
A spokesman for the CPA Inspector General's office confirmed "field work" had been completed on the audit but declined to give specifics. He said auditors were awaiting comment from the Pentagon before releasing the final report, probably later this month.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to questions.
An international audit report released last month that was requested by a U.N.-mandated monitoring body chided the CPA for oversight of spending of Iraq's oil revenue
-
How about this for a start. After this we can get into the "no bid cost plus" contracts issued in Iraq (let's not even get into Katrina). These are contracts that allow contractors to make a profit based on the percentage of the cost incurred. The more cost the higher the profit. I'm at work now but if you really want to have a discussion about how money is being lost on a massive scale I'll provide more info late. Remember this is your tax dollars. Whether you think it's necessary or not this will be investigated.
8.8 Billion Dollars in Iraq Funds Unaccounted For
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senators Ask Where $8.8 Bln in Iraq Funds Went
Thu Aug 19, 2004 03:10 PM ET
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.
The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority's own Inspector General blasts the CPA for "not providing adequate stewardship" of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.
The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by journalist and retired Col. David Hackworth. A U.S. official confirmed the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth (www.hackworth.com) were accurate.
The development fund is made up of proceeds from Iraqi oil sales, frozen assets from foreign governments and surplus from the U.N. Oil for Food Program. Its handling has already come under fire in a U.N.-mandated audit released last month.
Among the draft audit's findings were that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under Coalition Provisional Authority control were padded with thousands of ghost employees.
In one example, the audit said the CPA paid for 74,000 guards even though the actual number could not be validated. In another, 8,206 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 people doing the work could be counted.
Three Democratic senators -- Ron Wyden of Oregon, Tom Harkin from Iowa and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota -- demanded an explanation from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the use of the funds by the CPA, which handed over authority to the Iraqis in June.
"The CPA apparently transferred this staggering sum of money with no written rules or guidelines for ensuring adequate managerial, financial or contractual controls over the funds," said the letter sent by the senators on Thursday.
"Such enormous discrepancies raise very serious questions about potential fraud, waste and abuse," said the senators.
A spokesman for the CPA Inspector General's office confirmed "field work" had been completed on the audit but declined to give specifics. He said auditors were awaiting comment from the Pentagon before releasing the final report, probably later this month.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to questions.
An international audit report released last month that was requested by a U.N.-mandated monitoring body chided the CPA for oversight of spending of Iraq's oil revenue
I know about the no-bid contracts and how cost-plus contracts work. We can discuss it later.
I don't know what the status is of the funds cited in the article you posted, but I'd definitely like to know what happened to the money. Still, this isn't going to implicate Bush. You're not saying he personally somehow covertly directed 8.8 billion in non-U.S. funds to this CPA, which then (from what it sounds like) embezzled the money?
You cannot work and post at the same time? You gotta learn how to multi-task. I do it all the time. :)
-
No I'm not saying Bush is responsible for this money. I'm responding to your comment that money hasn't been lost. Massive amounts of money have been lost and we really have no idea how bad the problem even is (horrible sentence structure there)
Like every other thread on this site we're off on a tangent. I do think this is a clear example of how the Republican controlled Congress has failed to do their job. Frankly, I'd rather impeach them than Bush.
My opportunity cost during work hours is pretty expensive.
-
I know about the no-bid contracts and how cost-plus contracts work. We can discuss it later.
I don't know what the status is of the funds cited in the article you posted, but I'd definitely like to know what happened to the money. Still, this isn't going to implicate Bush. You're not saying he personally somehow covertly directed 8.8 billion in non-U.S. funds to this CPA, which then (from what it sounds like) embezzled the money?
You cannot work and post at the same time? You gotta learn how to multi-task. I do it all the time. :)
BTW - you might want to ask yourself why you haven't heard of this story. It's over two years old and had quite a bit of play in the mainstream and "liberal/progressive" media. I'm guessing it didn't get quite so much coverage in the conservative media.
-
No I'm not saying Bush is responsible for this money. I'm responding to your comment that money hasn't been lost. Massive amounts of money have been lost and we really have no idea how bad the problem even is (horrible sentence structure there)
Like every other thread on this site we're off on a tangent. I do think this is a clear example of how the Republican controlled Congress has failed to do their job. Frankly, I'd rather impeach them than Bush.
My opportunity cost during work hours is pretty expensive.
I agree that whomever is responsible for the stolen and/or mismanaged money should be held accountable.
-
BTW - you might want to ask yourself why you haven't heard of this story. It's over two years old and had quite a bit of play in the mainstream and "liberal/progressive" media. I'm guessing it didn't get quite so much coverage in the conservative media.
Covered by CNN and Fox. I read and watch both. They report most of the same news, but with different spins. :)
I suspect it may not be getting much play, because it didn't involve U.S. funds.
-
Covered by CNN and Fox. I read and watch both. They report most of the same news, but with different spins. :)
I suspect it may not be getting much play, because it didn't involve U.S. funds.
fair enough but every $ could have saved another $ of US Funds. It's also an indication of how little accountability there has been during this entire "war"
Here's a letter from Henry Waxman to Joshua Bolten, Director, Office of Management and Budget that's from October 2003. I wonder how many billions have been lost since then to the items that are addressed in this letter.
VOL. XLVI
No 40
06-October-2003
Evidence Of Waste Of US Taxpayers’ Dollars In Iraq Contracts
The following is the text of a letter sent by Representative Henry A Waxman (D-Calif), US House of Representatives Ranking Minority Member, to Joshua Bolten, Director, Office of Management and Budget on 26 September.
Dear Mr Bolten,
For the past six months, I have been investigating the activities of Halliburton and Bechtel in Iraq. This has been difficult because of the failure of the White House and federal agencies to respond to my inquiries. In fact, although I have written to the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary Rumsfeld, the Secretary of the Army, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Export-Import Bank, and the Army Corps of Engineers, only the Corps has responded consistently to my inquiries. As a result, basic facts are not being shared with me or others in Congress about the process by which contracts are being awarded, the scope of specific contract terms, the details of task orders, and the payments being made to Halliburton and Bechtel.
Despite the Administration's refusal to provide information, a picture is now beginning to emerge of waste and gold-plating that is enriching Halliburton and Bechtel while costing the US taxpayer millions and imperiling the goal of Iraqi reconstruction. The problem is this: too much money appears to be going to Halliburton and Bechtel for too little work and too few opportunities for Iraqis. Already, these two companies have contracts worth $3.14bn from the conflict in Iraq and the reconstruction efforts.
The information that I have been receiving is anecdotal. But it is reliable, comes from a variety of different sources, and all points to the same conclusion. For example:
Members of the Iraqi Governing Council told my staff that the costs to the American taxpayer of many reconstruction projects could be reduced by 90% if the projects were awarded to local Iraqi companies rather than to large government contractors like Halliburton or Bechtel.
The general in charge of northern Iraq, Major General David Petraeus, told a congressional delegation that included my staff that US engineers estimated that it would cost $15mn to bring a cement plant in northern Iraq back to Western production standards. Because this estimate far exceeded the funds available to General Petraeus, he gave the project to local Iraqis, who were able to get the cement plant running again for just $80,000.
A journalist for the Santa Monica Daily Press, a newspaper in my district, told my staff that she attended a meeting in Baghdad where a Bechtel executive interviewed Iraqi contractors seeking jobs rebuilding the Baghdad airport. The Bechtel executive informed the Iraqis that they could not participate in rebuilding their country's airport unless they got three different types of insurance: indemnification insurance, bid securities insurance, and performance insurance. When one Iraqi contractor asked how to obtain such insurance, which Iraqis never had to obtain before and which was not available in Iraq, he was told, "Don't worry, there will be American insurance companies coming in to sell you insurance.”
Individual line items in the Administration's request for an additional $20bn to rebuild Iraq raise similar questions. Item after item reads like a government contractor's wish list. Rather than seeking funding for low-cost solutions based on inexpensive local Iraqi labor, the Administration appears to be requesting huge dollar amounts for complex projects that will be awarded to well-connected US contractors operating at expensive premiums.
The question we need to confront is whether the Administration is putting the interests of companies like Halliburton and Bechtel over the interests of the American taxpayer and the Iraqi people. When inordinately expensive reconstruction projects are awarded to high-cost federal contractors with close political ties to the White House, the Administration can create a lose-lose situation: not only do US taxpayers vastly overpay for reconstruction services, but Iraqis are denied urgently needed employment opportunities.
The only way to address these issues is through greater transparency in the Administration's dealings with Halliburton, Bechtel, and other large campaign contributors operating in Iraq. Perhaps there is a good reason why the Administration is choosing what seems to be the most expensive option for rebuilding Iraq, but none has been provided. In fact, virtually no information of any kind is being provided about how taxpayer dollars are currently being spent in Iraq. Greater accountability to Congress and the public is urgently needed.
The remainder of this letter explains these concerns in more detail.
Evidence Of Waste Of Taxpayer Dollars In Iraq Contracts
The failure of the Administration to respond to congressional requests has made it impossible for members of Congress to have a full understanding of how the Administration is spending taxpayer dollars in Iraq. Thus, I have had to rely on other sources of evidence, such as anecdotal evidence and meetings with Iraqi officials and other knowledgeable sources, to investigate how the Administration is using federal reconstruction funds in Iraq. The results of this investigation are not encouraging. If the accounts I have heard are accurate, the American taxpayer is being dramatically overcharged while Iraqis capable of doing reconstruction work remain unemployed.
Recently, my staff had the opportunity to discuss reconstruction efforts with two members of the Iraqi Governing Council: Judge Wael Abdul Latif, the governor of Basra, and Ms Songul Chapouk, a civil engineer. These council members said that Iraqi firms could do work now being contracted out to international corporations more quickly and at less expense by relying more on Iraqi workers. In fact, they stated that Iraqis could do much of the reconstruction work at one-tenth of the cost that large contractors are charging coalition nations.
According to Judge Abdul Latif, for example, non-Iraqi contractors charged approximately $25mn to refurbish 20 police stations in Basra by providing new doors, windows, paint, and furniture. Judge Abdul Latif contends that a qualified Iraqi company could have done the work for about $5mn and that the remainder would have been enough to restore every government building in Basra.
The two members of the Governing Council described other instances of apparent overpayment. Council woman Chapouk, for example, described an instance in which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) renovated ten houses in Baghdad for members of the Council at a cost of $700,000. Ms Chapouk believes Iraqi firms could have built 10 houses from scratch at that price and employed more Iraqis in the process.
Ironically, the council members’ estimates that Western companies are overcharging by a factor of 10 finds corroboration in the justification that the CPA sent to Congress in support of the $20bn reconstruction supplemental. According to the CPA's own estimates, when work is done by Iraqi companies:
Cost of construction is 1/10th of US standard per sq ft in general construction, 1/5th in specialized medical construction and 8/10th in specialty construction.
US military commanders have made similar observations. In late August, members and staff of the Government Reform Committee traveled to Iraq as part of a fact- finding delegation. During the delegation's visit to Mosul in the north of Iraq, Maj Gen David Petraeus, the commander of the US Army's 101st Airborne Division, described his efforts to restore the operations of a cement plant within his area of responsibility. He asked engineers working for a Forward Engineering Support Team (FEST) of the Army Corps of Engineers to estimate the costs of repairing the plant. These teams often consult with private contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel in developing cost estimates for US-financed reconstruction projects. As the Army confirmed last week:
The FEST team ... calculated the total cost to bring the factory to total production capacity and western production standards at $15,139,972. ... The majority of the costs associated with the project are for several large-dollar equipment upgrades, electrical supplies and a large number of individual repair parts.
This estimate far exceeded the seized assets available at the time to General Petraeus to pay for local reconstruction projects. As a result, the general sought bids from Iraqi companies and awarded the work to a local company, which brought the cement plant back to operation for approximately $80,000. The Iraqi company did not build the state-of-the-art cement plant proposed by the FEST engineers, but it did succeed in returning the plant to a condition that could provide the cement that General Petraeus needed for other reconstruction projects. As the Army subsequently explained:
MG Petraeus commented on this particular project during the Davis Congressional Delegation visit. He was making the point that estimates often received are very substantial, in that we assess to bring production facilities back to western standards and to maximize production. The Iraqis, with some assistance from us, got the plant working again for a small amount of money.
Sometimes, the reconstruction process is structured so that low-cost Iraqi contractors are excluded from even bidding on projects. My staff recently met with Kelly Hayes-Raitt, a journalist for one of my local papers, the Santa Monica Daily Press. She recounted a meeting she attended between a Bechtel official and local Iraqi contractors at the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad. A full account of her observations was printed in the Santa Monica Daily Press. The purpose of the meeting observed by Ms. Hayes-Raitt was to determine if local Iraqi companies could obtain subcontracts from Bechtel for rebuilding the Baghdad airport. She reported that team after team of Iraqi contractors was rejected for lack of insurance. According to Ms Hayes-Raitt.
To get a job rebuilding their country, Iraqis are required by Bechtel to carry three types of insurance:
$2mn minimum indemnification insurance, which costs up to 10% of the contract's cost. It covers misfortunes such as equipment loss and injured workers.
Bid securities insurance, where banks provide a guarantee that the company will not withdraw its bid. The Iraqi contractor bidding on the project must provide a cashier's or certified check for 10% of the projected amount of the project.
Performance insurance [which] guarantees that the job is completed. It, too, can cost up to 10% of the projected cost of the contract.
According to Ms. Hayes-Raitt, the Iraqi contractors complained to the Bechtel executive that this insurance was not available in Iraq. The response from Bechtel was: “Don't worry, there will be American insurance companies coming in to sell you insurance.”
These examples raise important questions. The contracts with Halliburton and Bechtel are cost-plus contracts. This means that the bigger, the more complex, and the more expensive the project, the greater the profits for the companies. It also means that there is little incentive for Halliburton and Bechtel to reduce costs by subcontracting work to low-cost Iraqi contractors. It is easy to understand how this arrangement is lucrative for the companies involved. But what is unclear is how these arrangements protect the interests of the US taxpayer or further the goal of putting Iraqis to work rebuilding their own country.
The Supplemental Appropriations Request
On September 7, the President requested an additional $87bn for Iraq. Of this amount, $20.3bn is directed primarily toward security and infrastructure. On September 17, the CPA provided Congress with a justification for this request. In general, the CPA justification leaves many aspects of the budget request unanswered. Individual line items in the request are illuminating, however. They confirm that the Administration continues to plan complex, expensive projects that will be performed by large government contractors. In fact, of the 115 discrete projects described by the CPA fewer than 25 mention any employment opportunities for Iraqis.
For example, the Administration seeks $1bn to build new power plants, $150mn to install a high-tech "Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition" system for managing the distribution of electricity, $57mn to build a "robust communications package of UHF, VHF, digital, mobile and FM capabilities" for an Iraqi ministry, up to $575mn to build a new oil refinery and develop new oil fields, $400mn to construct two maximum-security prisons with "inbuilt security features" at a cost of $50,000 per prisoner, and $150mn to start construction of "a state-of-the-art" pediatric hospital in Basra.
These may be worthwhile projects, but they envision constructing state-of-the-art Western facilities in Iraq. Such projects are expensive enough in developed countries like the United States. When the objective is to build them in a war-torn country with serious security and infrastructure problems, the costs will soar dramatically, forcing the US taxpayer to pay large premiums to the contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel who are hired to carry them out.
Lack Of Oversight And Transparency
The concerns illustrated above are compounded by the apparently insufficient oversight of the companies receiving these contracts. Since the beginning of the US-led reconstruction effort in Iraq, I have tried to gather basic information on the taxpayer-funded contracts to rebuild Iraq's oilfields and other parts of Iraq's infrastructure. Despite repeated requests to federal agencies, however, the Administration has been either slow or totally unwilling to provide details on these large private contracts. In fact, of the agencies I have written, only the Corps of Engineers has provided regular answers.
For example, after reports that USAID awarded contracts worth over a billion dollars with competition limited to a few hand-picked companies, I asked the Administrator of USAID in April for basic information about the contracting process. This included a request for copies of the contracts and information on the extent of competition required for each contract. The agency provided an "interim response" on May 30 that provided none of the information requested. Despite repeated follow up requests for the information, the agency did not write again for another four months, and even then, the agency refused to provide copies of the contracts or information on source selection.
The Administration also has been reluctant to disclose details about its sole-source oilfield contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. The Defense Department entered into a no-bid contract with KBR on March 8, but did not disclose until April 8 that this secret contract had a potential value of up to $7bn. After repeated suggestions that the contract was limited to fighting oil fires and carrying out related repairs, the Defense Department later revealed that the contract was much broader in scope and extended to operating oil facilities and distributing fuel. Even today, despite a recommendation by the US Army Corps of Engineers to open this contract and its task orders to public scrutiny, the Pentagon continues to classify them as national security secrets.
The Administration has been similarly opaque about its new spending plan to repair the oilfields in Iraq. As indicated in my letter of September 12, the President's request for an additional $2.1bn to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure is more than 2.5 times larger than a detailed estimate projected less than two months ago by the Coalition Provisional Authority, Corps of Engineers, and the Iraqi Ministry of Oil. But the Administration has not yet explained this disparity or how the Administration developed its request.
Other senior members of Congress have encountered similar frustrations in seeking basic information about how taxpayer funds are being spent in Iraq. For example, on 29 July 2003, the ranking members of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Budget Committee wrote to you requesting a breakdown of US government expenditures in Iraq under the first supplemental appropriation of January 2003. Despite several follow up calls from committee staff, OMB never provided a response. In fact, OMB refused even to meet with committee staff to discuss the request as the ranking members asked in their letter. Similarly, Rep. David Obey, the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, accused civil administrator L. Paul Bremer of "stiffing" the committee by refusing to provide a five-year cost estimate. Even senior Republican Senator Pete V. Domenici publicly admonished the Secretary of Defense to "let Americans in on a totally transparent plan."
In fact, even members of the Iraqi Governing Council have the same concerns about this lack of transparency. During their recent visit to Washington, Judge Abdul Latif and Ms. Chapouk complained that members of the Governing Council receive little or no information about how the Coalition Provisional Authority is spending money on infrastructure projects. Another prominent Iraqi, Dr. Isam al-Khafagi, resigned from the Iraq Reconstruction and Development Council and testified last week that he did so because "there was no role for the Iraqis to play under the Coalition Provisional Authority.”
Not only has the Administration failed to respond to congressional and Governing Council inquiries, but there is growing evidence that the Administration's own internal controls are inadequate to protect taxpayer interests. USAID is overseeing 10 separate contracts worth more than $1.5bn. On top of this, USAID has announced a planned infrastructure procurement worth an additional $1.5bn. According to USAID, however, the agency currently has only 14 direct-hire employees in Iraq to oversee these contracts. It is hard to conceive how 14 USAID employees are able to ensure that $3bn worth of reconstruction funding will be delivered in the most efficient and effective manner possible. As GAO has reported, the agency "lacks a 'surge capacity' to respond to evolving foreign policy priorities and emerging crises."
USAID's response to this problem is telling. To remedy its staffing shortfall, USAID has hired yet another contractor, Management Services International, to monitor the actions of other contractors receiving USAID funds. It is certainly fair to ask whether hiring yet another contractor - at an additional cost to the taxpayer of $15mn - is the best way to protect the interests of the taxpayer from overcharging by contractors.
Questions
In light of the Administration's latest supplemental funding request, it is essential that you respond to concerns of overspending and lack of oversight and transparency in reconstruction operations in Iraq. Specifically, I request that you provide the following information:
In its justification of the $20bn supplemental, the CPA identifies over 115 discrete projects. Yet fewer than 25 of these descriptions mention hiring Iraqis or otherwise using Iraqi resources for the reconstruction work. For each project identified by the CPA, please indicate whether the Administration anticipates that the contract for the work will be issued to a large government contractor like Halliburton or Bechtel or to local Iraqi companies.
The CPA justification indicates that much construction work can be done by local Iraqis for 10% of the cost that large government contractors would charge. For each project identified by the CPA, please provide an estimate of the costs to the taxpayer of using larger government contractors and compare that cost to the costs of using local Iraqi companies.
Please outline the process by which OMB and the CPA will distribute any funding appropriated under the supplemental budget request to federal agencies and contractors for reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Please explain who will have authority to obligate funds for specific projects in Iraq. Please discuss what role, if any, the Iraqi Governing Council will play in deciding what expenditures are appropriate.
Please detail any oversight mechanisms established by OMB and other federal agencies to oversee the work being performed by contractors in Iraq to ensure that the costs claimed by contractors are accurate and reasonable.
As a nation, we have a vital interest in a successful reconstruction operation in Iraq. But we also have a vital interest in keeping costs reasonable and providing job opportunities to Iraqis. These goals are not in conflict, but they cannot be achieved without a far greater commitment to transparency and accountability by this Administration.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
-
Interesting. He about lost me after this comment: "The information that I have been receiving is anecdotal." :-\ Still, definitely worth looking into.
-
Interesting. He about lost me after this comment: "The information that I have been receiving is anecdotal." :-\ Still, definitely worth looking into.
Here's the entire sentence: The information that I have been receiving is anecdotal. But it is reliable, comes from a variety of different sources, and all points to the same conclusion.
Why would you get lost after that?
Doesn't he explain the reason for having to rely on anectdotal information in the paragraph that precedes that comment?
This has been difficult because of the failure of the White House and federal agencies to respond to my inquiries. In fact, although I have written to the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary Rumsfeld, the Secretary of the Army, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Export-Import Bank, and the Army Corps of Engineers, only the Corps has responded consistently to my inquiries. As a result, basic facts are not being shared with me or others in Congress about the process by which contracts are being awarded, the scope of specific contract terms, the details of task orders, and the payments being made to Halliburton and Bechtel.
Despite the Administration's refusal to provide information a picture is now beginning to emerge of waste and gold-plating that is enriching Halliburton and Bechtel while costing the US taxpayer millions and imperiling the goal of Iraqi reconstruction.
-
Here's the entire sentence: The information that I have been receiving is anecdotal. But it is reliable, comes from a variety of different sources, and all points to the same conclusion.
Why would you get lost after that?
Doesn't he explain the reason for having to rely on anectdotal information in the paragraph that precedes that comment?
This has been difficult because of the failure of the White House and federal agencies to respond to my inquiries. In fact, although I have written to the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary Rumsfeld, the Secretary of the Army, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Export-Import Bank, and the Army Corps of Engineers, only the Corps has responded consistently to my inquiries. As a result, basic facts are not being shared with me or others in Congress about the process by which contracts are being awarded, the scope of specific contract terms, the details of task orders, and the payments being made to Halliburton and Bechtel.
Despite the Administration's refusal to provide information a picture is now beginning to emerge of waste and gold-plating that is enriching Halliburton and Bechtel while costing the US taxpayer millions and imperiling the goal of Iraqi reconstruction.
I said he "about" lost me. I read it. I'm always a little wary when someone constructs an argument based on anecdotal evidence. But like I said, definitely worth looking into.
-
I think both Republicans and Democrats - BOTH - should agree that congressional and independent oversight keeps everyone honest. hell, most of us wouldn't mind a few quiet bucks in our pockets if we could get away with it, and people in power are no different. If anything, they might feel entitled to it, as their power and abilities are limited by gov't pay scales. A Cheney is worth $30+ million a year on the outside - why should he get only 400k? Everyone will be tempted to cheat, and some will.
Oversight ensures honesty. Anyone who doesn't endorse it for both sides is advocating the fostering of an environment which invites pilferage.
-
Sean Penn: Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
By Roger Friedman
Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn called for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in an impassioned speech Monday night in New York.
WooHoo!!!! Hey Dan-O...
...I'm getting closer and closer to having that orgasm,
...and I haven't forgotten about you my friend. :P