PROMISES, PROMISES: Scrutiny of Afghan no-bid deal [edited]

[ludahai]

link

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government awarded a no-bid, $266 million contract for a lucrative electricity project in southern Afghanistan despite promising last year to seek competitive bids from other companies, The Associated Press has learned.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for awarding contracts without competition, a practice he said cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars each year. But once in office, Obama didn't prohibit sole-source contracts, saying agencies needed the flexibility to tailor contracts to meet their needs.

The mantra of the Obama administration: "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[Guy Incognito]

The mantra of the Obama administration: "Do as I say, not as I do."

And the equally hypocritical mantra from the Republicans is: "Do as you say, not as Bush did."

 

[MaggieD]

The mantra of the Obama administration: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Infuriating. We cannot believe any of them. They're all whores.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

And the equally hypocritical mantra from the Republicans is: "Do as you say, not as Bush did."

I don't care about Bush, but I want to thank you for admitting that Obama is a hypocrite. I am in wholehearted agreement with your observation that Obama is a hypocrite.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Infuriating. We cannot believe any of them. They're all whores.

Everyone in the government is a corporate whore, just to specify.

 

[RightinNYC]

And the equally hypocritical mantra from the Republicans is: "Do as you say, not as Bush did."

I think you're missing the point.

Most republicans (at least those who are interested in politics more as a system of policy than as a competition) are actually quite pleased with Obama's foreign policy and his actions regarding our overseas wars. Glenn Greenwald says it best.

Obama has single-handedly eliminated virtually all mainstream debate over these War on Terror policies. At least during the Bush years, we had one party which steadfastly supported them but one party which claimed (albeit not very persuasively) to vehemently oppose them. At least there was a pretense of vigorous debate over their legality, morality, efficacy, and compatibility with our national values.

Those debates are no more. Even the hardest-core right-wing polemicists -- Gen. Hayden, the Heritage Foundation, Dick Cheney -- now praise Obama's actions in these areas. Opposition from national Democrats has faded away to almost complete nonexistence now that it's a Democratic President doing these things. What was once viewed as the signature of Bush/Cheney radicalism is now official, bipartisan Washington consensus: the policies equally of both parties and all Serious people. Thanks to Barack Obama, this architecture is firmly embedded in place and invulnerable to meaningful political challenge.

...

Obama's embrace of these policies has completely rehabilitated the reputations and standing of the Bush officials responsible for them.

I think that's fantastic.

At the same time, I can appreciate Obama's current stance while noting that it is far different than the one he claimed to support while he was running for office. This isn't so much a criticism of Obama as it is of the people who naively believed that he was actually going to "end the wars" or some other such bull****.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I don't care about Bush, but I want to thank you for admitting that Obama is a hypocrite. I am in wholehearted agreement with your observation that Obama is a hypocrite.

They're both hypocrites. It's a shame you don't care about Bush, because it's this kind of attitude that allows former heads of state to go unpunished for their crimes. You don't want to see Bush prosecuted because he's a right-winger like you. Obama doesn't want to see Bush prosecuted because it would set the precedent for his own prosecution after he leaves office. What it adds up to is zero accountability.

All criminals should be held accountable. How you can just ignore Bush's self-confessed crimes while you rail against Obama's is beyond me.

 

[MaggieD]

Everyone in the government is a corporate whore, just to specify.

If by corporate whore, you mean 'bought and paid for by Corporate America," I wouldn't tend to be so specific. They whore to their powerful bases, corporate or not. Unions come to mind...;-)

"On my honor I will try to do my utmost to be re-elected...whatever the cost to the American people."

 

[Morality Games]

I think you're missing the point.

Most republicans (at least those who are interested in politics more as a system of policy than as a competition) are actually quite pleased with Obama's foreign policy and his actions regarding our overseas wars. Glenn Greenwald says it best.



I think that's fantastic.

At the same time, I can appreciate Obama's current stance while noting that it is far different than the one he claimed to support while he was running for office. This isn't so much a criticism of Obama as it is of the people who naively believed that he was actually going to "end the wars" or some other such bull****.

Almost like the people who believed in weapons of master destruction or Saddam Hussein's connection to terrorism which started one of those wars to begin with.

Nobody has the moral credibility to authentically contribute to these threads.

 

[RightinNYC]

Almost like the people who believed in weapons of master destruction or Saddam Hussein's connection to terrorism which started one of those wars to begin with.

Nobody has the moral credibility to authentically contribute to these threads.

Do you really not see the difference between believing the intelligence information presented by the government and believing the campaign promises presented by a political candidate?

 

[RightinNYC]

They're both hypocrites. It's a shame you don't care about Bush, because it's this kind of attitude that allows former heads of state to go unpunished for their crimes. You don't want to see Bush prosecuted because he's a right-winger like you. Obama doesn't want to see Bush prosecuted because it would set the precedent for his own prosecution after he leaves office. What it adds up to is zero accountability.

All criminals should be held accountable. How you can just ignore Bush's self-confessed crimes while you rail against Obama's is beyond me.

Again, you're missing the point. I think most conservatives don't want Bush OR Obama to be prosecuted for what they're doing, because they think that both of them are pursuing the correct foreign policy on this front.

It used to be that conservatives and liberals fought about this - the difference now is that the conservatives won.

 

[ludahai]

And the equally hypocritical mantra from the Republicans is: "Do as you say, not as Bush did."

1. Who said I was a Republican?
2. This thread isn't about President Bush, a man whom I have criticized on numerous occasions...

thanks for playing

 

[Guy Incognito]

1. Who said I was a Republican?

Nobody did, certainly not me. Why are you implying that I did? You jump to conclusions.

I am correct, though, about the Republican mantra, even though you yourself aren't a Republican.

2. This thread isn't about President Bush, a man whom I have criticized on numerous occasions...

thanks for playing

I've already made my points about Bush. You cannot castigate Obama for following in Bush's footsteps and yet hold Bush innocent. If anything Bush should be the focus of criticism, since Obama, as sitting head of state, is immune from prosecution while in office, in accordance with international law.

Thus both of your points are mistaken.

 

[ludahai]

They're both hypocrites. It's a shame you don't care about Bush, because it's this kind of attitude that allows former heads of state to go unpunished for their crimes. You don't want to see Bush prosecuted because he's a right-winger like you. Obama doesn't want to see Bush prosecuted because it would set the precedent for his own prosecution after he leaves office. What it adds up to is zero accountability.

All criminals should be held accountable. How you can just ignore Bush's self-confessed crimes while you rail against Obama's is beyond me.

Prosecuted for WHAT exactly? What makes President George W. Bush a criminal? And if he is, why wouldn't President Barack Hussein Obamam Jr. also be one?

 

[ludahai]

I've already made my points about Bush. You cannot castigate Obama for following in Bush's footsteps and yet hold Bush innocent. If anything Bush should be the focus of criticism, since Obama, as sitting head of seat, is immune from prosecution while in office, in accordance with international law.

Thus both of your points are mistaken.

I can castigate Barack Obama for condemning Bush (as did many Democrats and some Republicans) for no-bid contracts and then go ahead and allow it to be done during his administration. THAT is what makes him a hypocrite.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I can castigate Barack Obama for condemning Bush (as did many Democrats and some Republicans) for no-bid contracts and then go ahead and allow it to be done during his administration. THAT is what makes him a hypocrite.

It is likewise hypocritical to castigate Obama for a crime yet refuse to castigate Bush for the same crime, no?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Prosecuted for WHAT exactly? What makes President George W. Bush a criminal? And if he is, why wouldn't President Barack Hussein Obamam Jr. also be one?

Actually, it goes as far back as Clinton, who was the first president to order extraordinary renditions of prisoners to countries where they were known to torture. Bush is merely the worst offender. Obama is culpable for his continuance of the abuses from the Bush years. I don't see what's so hard to understand about all that.

 

[ludahai]

Actually, it goes as far back as Clinton, who was the first president to order extraordinary renditions of prisoners to countries where they were known to torture. Bush is merely the worst offender. Obama is culpable for his continuance of the abuses from the Bush years. I don't see what's so hard to understand about all that.

I haven't even addressed renditions... I was referring to no-bid contracts, which last I knew, while potentially corrupt, was not criminal...

I don't know enough about the renditions to comment on their legality...