Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
If Halliburton is best suited for the job, then they'd most likely win the bid anyway, but you must still allow other companies to TRY to compete for the contract, otherwise there's no semblance of competition in our "free trade" economy (and all you're left with at that point is the State appointing companies to tasks - that's the definition of socialism...)
EDIT: I just noticed I'm 2 pages behind in this discussion, so this post probably isn't relevant at this point (but it's not all that relevant anyway when people are unwilling to listen to the facts...)
|
We still don't know the details behind the decision.
The Administration and Top Brass have national security reasons at stake and I suspect that the minutes of the meetings will be "classified" for 30 years.
That still doesn't mean corruption/fraud occured.
It is still hard to argue that Halliburton was a bad choice since they have been successful.
And, I'll add that McCain agrees with you. He insisted on open bidding on the refueling tankers that resulted in picking AirBus over Boeing. But, that was a contract not directly involved with a specific military action. It is hard to compare picking Halliburton to play directly in the Sand Box and issue of picking AirBus over Boeing for refueling tankers.
Repeating myself again as I have already answered that.
It is crazy to think that the price of the bid is what drives an active military action. Success and security are paramount.
We don't have the details that drove the decision. We won't get the details. Lawsuits won't force the release of classified data so long as there is a good reason to keep it classified.
The logic that the only concern is money is just really narrow and inaccurate.