Daniel Drezner runs the numbers on Iraqi reconstruction contracts and political campaign contributions and finds that there is no statistically significant correlation between the two. In other words, there is absolutely no mathematical evidence that supports the Center for Public Integrity’s assertion that there was a connection between the two.
For a group with integrity in their name, the report is more of a hatchet job than some brave expose. Of course it won’t stop the usual suspects from launching the “It’s All About OILLLLL!” line, usually after partaking in some pot and Chomsky (which one is more hazardous to mental well-being is anyone’s guess). However, it does show that yet another argument of the radical anti-war left doesn’t stand even the slightest of real scrutiny.
“the slightest of real scrutiny” is the part you’ve been reading on the attacks on halliburton. The french justice department just launched another inquiry on KRD on Niger…
Once again (but last time also, because after that, I will consider you as mentally deficient): it is not ALL about oil. Oil is just one of the many reasons why Bush decided to spread democracy and love around earth.
No, that rebuttal using the second table doesn’t hold. The premise of the counterargument that uses it is that people who donated more to the campaigns and also received reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t appear to have received equal proportions of the booty. In essence, the claim is that, since GE gave more money to the campaigns, and since GE received some reconstruction contracts, then GE should have received more in contracts than other firms that gave less. That counterargument hold IF AND ONLY IS the sole purpose was to tie contributions to rewards.
However, the thrust of many public interest groups’ accusations has been that the ties between the Administration and Bechtel and Halliburton have caused these groups to receive undue favor. Check those tables again, and you’l see that, while GE received a negative return on their investment, Bechtel put in $3.3 million and received over $1 BILLION in reconstruction contracts. Halliburton contributes $2.4 million and receives almost a hundred times as much in contracts, many of which were no-bid. This is exactly what the Charles Lewis statement says: a combination of personal ties and investments in these companies has led the Administration to give them an unequitable share of the reconstruction contracts.
And one last point: does anyone actually believe that GE’s sole return on their contributions would be in the form of postwar contracts? How about media deregulation (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC Radio Network, etc.)? How about relaxed (excuse me, voluntary) environmental standards for manufacturing?
The idea that the CPI study has been refuted is ridiculous.
And, for the record, when I’ve got marijuana, Noam Chomsky is just too damn much of a buzzkill.
PHISH 4-EVER! Yay, patchoulli! I think I’m gonna go a week without bathing and then sleep with the daughter of a local middle-class family without using protection in the back of my VW bus while listening to Joan Baez and dreaming of a day when you capitalist pigs will suffer!
And if you believe that, I want some of whatever you’re smoking. You making that comparison is like me asking if all of you against affirmative action would like your sheets and hoods pressed and starched or just ironed and hung up. It’s a fallacious argument.
On top of that, anyone still believing that marijuana is the cause of mental illness needs to ask themselves how it’s possible that the last two major-party candidates for President were both ADMITTED former cannabis users.
Usually it’s an Arturo Fuente Curly Head Deluxe…
I was being sarcastic. There are legitimate concerns about the contracting process for Iraq and Afghanistan. However, those concerns are usually drowned out by a chorus of irrational anti-capitalists who hate any business other than there local head shop.
Furthermore, if you consider the list of companies who A) could actually do the required job in Iraq B) did not work for the Saddam regime C) wouldn’t bug out at the first site of trouble, that list becomes very small indeed. Other than Mammoet, I can’t think of a single other oil services company who meet those criteria. While it would have been better to have had an open bidding process, I doubt the results would have been any difference.
Besides, both Bechtel and Halliburton are doing the job. Bechtel has repaired Baghdad’s water and power infrastructure to pre-war levels and beyond. Halliburton has had a rougher time due to terrorism, but they have got at least some oil pumping to help the Iraqis rebuild their economy.
“Besides, both Bechtel and Halliburton are doing the job. Bechtel has repaired Baghdad’s water and power infrastructure to pre-war levels and beyond. Halliburton has had a rougher time due to terrorism, but they have got at least some oil pumping to help the Iraqis rebuild their economy.”
So, we’re not buying gasoline here and shipping it there to sell at a massive loss? Hell of a job they’re doing.
Additionally, I think it is important to note that not all of the contracts awarded were oil-related, and not all of the firms bidding are American. Lower bids have been submitted for reconstruction projects by British, French, German and (can we be too surprised) Iraqi firms, only to be rejected in favor of American firms that bid high and still overcharge. In terms of oil, the British firm Amec is, at last report, entering bids along with its US-based partner, Fluor, for a contract coveted by Halliburton. Let’s see how this one turns out…even I don’t think USAID will give this one to Halliburton.
And o/t, but did your CS Lewis quote just say that you’re in favor of telling Jerry Falwell and Pat “Nuke the State Department” Robertson to shut up?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
– C.S. Lewis
Personally, I’d rather live under neither robber barons nor moralists. A healthy dose of capitalism is easily tainted by a small amount of oligarchy, though, and becomes a bitter pill for many.
Sorry, last consecutive one:
You still haven’t addressed the fact that this “refutation” of the CPI’s report is seriously lacking. Specifically, my above post highlights a few of the weaknesses of the argument, and I think it probably deserves a response.
Just a thought.
The figures don’t lie. There is not a strong statistical correlation between campaign contributions and Iraqi reconstruction contracts.
Even if you don’t accept that evidence, there still is the fact that correlation doesn’t equal causation.
In order to prove the premise that Bush is engaging in favoritism you would have to prove that there are other companies that would be capable of doing the job, that those other companies would meet security requirements, that they did not do significant business with the Hussein regime, and that they would be able to fufill the all the terms of the contract.
In other words, it’s far more likely based on Occam’s Razor that the Halliburton contract was awarded because they were best for the job than any quid pro quo.
As for the bidding process, I agree that if an Iraqi or British company can do the job for less and still maintain quality, they should get the job. However, I would not allow bids from countries that had significant financial ties to Saddam Hussein, which would disqualify Russia, China, and France from consideration.
“you would have to prove that there are other companies that would be capable of doing the job”
ok Jay, I quit, it’s too hard! There really is just one company in the world that can build roads, bridges and pipelines.
“However, I would not allow bids from countries that had significant financial ties to Saddam Hussein”
So american companies are definitely not eligible either!
“disqualify Russia, China, and France from consideration”
I think this is the real reason why no other country followed Bush in this war: everyone knew that the connection between his crew and the corporate world would make it impossible for any other company to participate. Looking at the resume of Cheney, Rice and others, you know that their former companies (but still current employers) would get all the contracts. The US need help and money to rebuild? Maybe they should make it transparent. No country is ready to give money directly to the already big and subsidied american companies.
Jay, once again, you have not responded to my claim. Saying “the numbers don’t lie” and then arguing that contributions don’t equal contracts is WAY OFF from the point that I and the researchers made. If contributions were the only factor involved, you’d have a point. But you’re saying that the fact that Cheney ran Halliburton, and that the Administration’s ties to Bechtel are unimportant.
I think it’s SCARIER than if contributions equaled contracts: at least then we’d know exactly how this Administration was corrupt. As it stands, contributions help, but it’s the pre-existing ties that seem to tip the scales for Bechtel and Halliburton.
You’re hitting a straw man. Your argument is that there isn’t a direct corrolation between contributions and access. Great. Now answer the question: my original paragraph follows.
“However, the thrust of many public interest groups’ accusations has been that the ties between the Administration and Bechtel and Halliburton have caused these groups to receive undue favor. Check those tables again, and you’l see that, while GE received a negative return on their investment, Bechtel put in $3.3 million and received over $1 BILLION in reconstruction contracts. Halliburton contributes $2.4 million and receives almost a hundred times as much in contracts, many of which were no-bid. This is exactly what the Charles Lewis statement says: a combination of personal ties and investments in these companies has led the Administration to give them an unequitable share of the reconstruction contracts.”
The question: how is this not indicative of preferrential treatment being given to Bush’s cronies (or, as Lewis said, “cronyism”)?
Again, correlation does not mean causation. There’s no evidence that there’s any cronyism involved other than circumstantial arguments. It’s an argument that is unprovable. Bechtel is a very common US government contractor. They’ve done similar jobs in Bosnia in the past. No one said anything then, even though member of the Clinton Administration had either worked for or invested in the company.
The fact remains that both Bechtel and Halliburton would be expected to get a lion’s share of the contracts. Bechtel has had the largest share of overseas government construction contracts of any firm. Halliburton is the only oil services company that has experience applicable to Iraq in fighting oil well fires and building that kind of infrastructure.
In short, that argument assumes a link that does not necessarily exist. There are far more simple and rational explanations for the bidding process than having to yell ‘cronyism’.
So your point is that this manufactured pretense for war, infrastructure damage caused by unchecked looting, failure to secure oil lines necessitating replacement and importation of oil, rapidly increasing reconstruction funding, American unilateralism and closed bidding doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bush Administration is providing opportunity for political contacts that are untoward?
Your case seems to be one based on a lack of concrete evidence. The report’s case seems to be based on the glut of circumstantial evidence. Last time I looked, circumstantial evidence is more than enough for a conviction, provided the circumstances look incriminating and the jury is receptive.
Nevertheless, to say that Bechtel and Halliburton were the only firms that could handle these contracts is factually incorrect. SOME of those contracts, certainly they were the best for, such as oil well fires (which didn’t really become an issue in this invasion, if you recall). But reconstruction bids that are over 100 times larger than competitors’ bids should not be awarded the contract.
And on a more socially-scientific note, DIRECT causality is almost never found in political science. What you see are a variety of factors that influence outcomes. You know this already, Jay. And as a reasonably well-informed voter, you should also know that the government is not supposed to be factoring in anything remotely similar to contributions or prior private-sector relationships when handling government business. That’s malfeasance (or, as you have argued, an appearance of malfeasance), and I’m amazed that you aren’t more vocal in your criticism of it.