what were you trying to get me to see the other day? We were talking about a guy who broke the rules and got completely screwed because he did. We talked 0 about clinton and such.
You might be referring to someone else besides me "When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no skills. Sure, I was good with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it puts people off!" Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:54 PM 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
