egg zactly

John Stanley writes:

> >>Are elections a waste of time? 
> 
> Possibly, but I keep voting independant anyway....
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: well now
> 
> 
> it looks fishy because the vice president of the United States is still
> receiving money from these folks. Of couse that is his golden parachute and
> of course he has nothing to do with awarding the contract. Oh and of course
> it isn't about the oil. 
> 
> When the contract wsa first awarded is irrelevant. Wrong is wrong under
> Clinton or under Bush, as I was trying to get Bill to see the other day.
> Maybe there had to be an inital no-bid contract for the reasons you
> outline. But what is the justification for extending it? Possibly
> Halliburton would win. But that would not make the bidding process a waste
> of time. Are elections a waste of time? 
> 
> Dana
> 
> Nick McClure writes:
> 
> > So in the last month the cost has gone up, probably because they have more
> > work to do now that the sanctions have been lifted and legal oil is
> actually
> > being shipped out of Iraq.
> > 
> > The first "no bid" contract was awarded to Kellogg Brown & Root in 1992,
> and
> > lasted until 1999, where the Clinton administration got an extension on
> the
> > contract until 2004. So the current contract for Kellogg Brown & Root
> which
> > is the one this article complains the most about was awarded by the
> Clinton
> > Administration.
> >
> (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/iraq/dispatches/59
> > 72319.htm)
> > 
> > 
> > Here is how the system works, which is very similar to other long term
> > contracts I am personally familiar with:
> > 
> > This no-bid contract thing isn't exactly what it sounds like. There is a
> > contract which says Halliburton is the primary supplier of X services.
> They
> > agree to Y terms. In much the same way a large corporation purchases
> office
> > supplies for instance. The terms in Y probably include basics costs for
> the
> > services needed.
> > 
> > The State of Kentucky has a contract with Cardinal Office Supplies, they
> > agreed on terms, but there isn't a limit to what the state can spend,
> except
> > of course what the legislature budgets for office supplies, but that is
> not
> > something Cardinal has any involvement in.
> > 
> > The state contract stipulates that the state must acquire all office
> > supplies from Cardinal unless Cardinal does not offer the product, or it
> is
> > needed immediately, or a few other things.
> > 
> > The contract with Halliburton is the same way. The Military has had a
> > contract with them for the past 11 years, a new contract was awarded
> > recently.
> > 
> > If the Military has to deploy troops tomorrow, they need to have a support
> > agreement in place to handle it. The contract with Halliburton does just
> > that. It provides a way for the US Military to deploy and worry about the
> > important things, like operations on the battle field. If we have to waste
> > two months with a public bidding process, it gives the enemy time to
> fortify
> > defenses, and hell, they can look at the bid and use that to potentially
> > determine some strategies. That is a big maybe, but it is still possible.
> > 
> > What I find most amusing, when these same contracts were awarded under the
> > Clinton administration, nobody seems to care, when the same things
> occurred
> > under the Clinton administration, nobody seems to care. If the current
> > administration does exactly the same thing, then it looks fishy.
> >  
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:01 AM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: well now
> > > 
> > > I was cruising around working on wrting up an explanation for Nick of
> why
> > > the Iraqi oil thing smells so much like a conspiracy to me, and I came
> > > across this little gem, which was so special I just had to post it all
> on
> > > its own.
> > > 
> > > http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7517&TagID=2
> > > 
> > > The source is obviously Arab and a fast check didnt reveal any ownership
> > > info, but... it's highly interesting, whether you look at it as fact or
> as
> > > propaganda.
> > > 
> > > Dana
> > > 
> > > But I don't make films
> > > But if I did they'd have a samurai - Bare Naked Ladies
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5

Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

                                Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
                                

Reply via email to