Tuesday, January 30

White House Laundering Funds through Afghistain for Covert Attacks on Iran?

Why is the White House doing an about face since January 2006 in upping funds to Afghanistan? Though the new influx of funds reflects its ongoing money laundering scheme at taxpayer expense, evidence suggests the increase may be to fund US troops now inside Iran.

Last week (January 26), the Associated Press reported the Bush administration would seek from the Democratically-controlled congress $10.6 billion to help the US-backed Afghani-government fight back resurgent Taliban forces.

Taliban forces, emboldened and rearmed, launched fierce attacks across the country beginning last spring, leading to Afghanistan's bloodiest year since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Crop production for illegal drugs also hit a new high in 2006, and relations worsened between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the fight against global terrorism.

But just a year earlier, the White House was downsizing Afghani funding.

Meanwhile, on January 3, [2006] The Washington Post headline announced: U.S. Cedes Duties in Rebuilding Afghanistan. The US budget will drop from $1b to $600m. The Afghanis will be expected to take on this task themselves (!). There are concerns amongst Afghan officials that America’s priorities are “shifting elsewhere.” Where is “elsewhere”?

The US also recently had to assure Gordon O'Connor, the Canadian Defense Minister, that the rumors he had heard of the Pentagon shifting more troops out of Afghanistan were unfounded.

"My hope is they won't draw any troops away from Afghanistan to reinforce Iraq. . . . That's the only thing I'd think about,"O'Connor told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation earlier this month.

But as Bush encounters resistance from Democratic congressional leadership to expanding the war fronts in the Middle East--principally in Iran but also in Iraq--could the inflated funding request for Afghanistan actually aid for American troops rumored covertly fighting in Iran since Spring 2006?

Despite numerous public reports stating that US troops are currently conducting operations within Iran, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) refused to answer repeated questions by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) about US troops in Iran, today at a House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

Kucinich, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, repeatedly questioned Ambassador Bolton on the effect that US troops operating within Iran will have on diplomatic negotiations already underway, including those at the UN.

Recently, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker magazine that US troops are already operating in Iran. Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) has made similar statements on CNN. In addition, Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the Guardian newspaper that special forces are operating within Iran identifying targets and aiding dissident groups.

After all, Afghanistan is the perfect venue for foreign aid funds to go missing. Three days after the AP reported Bush's impending funding request from Congress, the London Telegraph reported that half of Afghani aid routinely is stolen by corrupt officials.

Corrupt police and tribal leaders are stealing vast quantities of reconstruction aid that is intended to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and turn them away from the Taliban, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

In some cases, all the aid earmarked for an area has ended up in the wrong hands. Defence officials in the United States and Britain estimate that up to half of all aid in Afghanistan is failing to reach the right people.

The British paper, however, is disingenuous by overlooking the more serious problem of US contractors' unchecked theft. During his residency in the country, correspondent Stewart Nusbaumer learned most of the money disappeared through a money laundering scheme through "shabby" construction work permitted by U.S. contractors.

Where did the $12 billion that donor countries pumped into Afghanistan for reconstruction go? Where did the dough go?

"The money goes through a system that circles it back to the funding country," Fariba Nava, the Madonna of Afghanistan says in a soft, gravely voice. "If the US donates money to build a dam, it hires an American company to build it. That company takes its profits, its overhead, other expenses and then hires a subcontractor that does the same. What is left for building the dam is minimal so it's usually built below standard. Sometimes," she brushes her long blond hair away from her milky colored face, "money simply disappears, stolen or wasted on imported material."

... In her excellent investigative report, Afghanistan, Inc., Fariba Nava quotes Baz Mohammed Baz, the head of the construction for the Afghanistan education ministry, that Japanese contractors built solid classroom buildings at a cost of only $100,000 while an American contractor charged $274,000 for defective classroom buildings. She documents health clinics, schools, roads and other infrastructure projects with leaky roofs and broken plumbing, uncompleted interiors, sinking pavements. It's a litany of shabby work by American contractors and their subcontractors.

It's not like the White House's "redeployment" of the $10.6 billion for other than its publicly stated purpose would be the first Great Lie it has foisted on America.

We also should count on a substantial amount of those billions disappearing into Afghanistan's primary money laundering market--opium and heroin--a scam some critics argue provides American and British banks with regular infusions of cash.

But, hey, what's a billion or so among friends?

Additional 9/11 Deaths and Faux Denial

New York state is investigating the mounting deaths of 9/11 first responders as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, on the record saying the Bush White House had foreknowledge of 9/11 but refused to act, recants to gussy up his image for a run at the White House in 2008.

The New York Post reported Sunday (28 January) that more than 100 9/11 first responders-- police, firefighters, paramedics--are believed to have died from the toxic exposure at the World Trade Center. New York state is funding an investigation into those deaths.

According to 9/11 Blogger's Jon Gold, these deaths should be added to the 2973 officials deaths at the World Trade Center of 9/11.

According to the Post:

The state has launched the first study of deaths among World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers - a grim toll that now exceeds 100, officials told The Post.

With a $165,000 federal grant from 9/11 health czar John Howard, the state is contributing at least twice that in staff and resources to study what killed the cops, firefighters and other workers who have died after searching for survivors or helping in the cleanup.

"We want to know about every death, so we can evaluate any patterns with fatalities," said Kitty Gelber, chief epidemiologist with the state Bureau of Occupational Health. "People need to let us know who was there and who died."

Read the rest of the story here.

Politics certainly is a strange contact sport. A month before Democrats assumed control of Congress last December, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) reported his party's congressional leadership had pulled a "bait-and-switch" on the American electorate on the Iraq War. Though campaigning on a "new direction" for the Iraq War, Kucinich fingered them for reneging of that party promise.

But now the "progressive" Democrat done a switch-a-roo on 9/11 not unlike that of his leaders, according to DZ at 9/11 Blogger.

You might recall a post almost a year ago when Kucinich said:

Do we see a pattern here? 9/11? Katrina? They knew something was going to happen and they didn't act.

Interestingly enough the following article is from just 11 days ago and seems to take a different position in regards to Kucinich:

Kucinich Office says, "9/11 is over...it's past" -- Review of 9/11 Report not a priority - 911citizenswatch.org

DZ, they already are gearing up for the '08 Prez race. As a putative Democratic candidate for the White House, Denny is obligated to develop a comparable level of public amnesia and distraction as the other 43 candidates who are competing for the chance to warm their sell-out buns in Boy George's old seat.

Thursday, January 25

Vintage Darwin Awards

Honoring the devolution of U.S. (and a few other nations') human intelligence since 1994.

Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by happening upon ever new methods for removing themselves from it.

In other words, award-winners are the most intelligently-challenged among us who also sacrifice themselves--though rarely voluntarily--for the greater good, a peculiarly uncharacteristic American personality trait.

If you are at all intellectually honest, you must agree with me that it is remarkable for George W. Bush's not to appear among Americans to date so honored.

Below are some "vintage" Darwin Awards. As you read, here's a question to keep in the forefront of you mind: "What would Darwin do?".

Here's an account (titled "Sizzling Scaffolding," though Darwin reports it published it without confirmation) that appeared in a 1982 edition of the Amarillo Daily News, a paper in a Texas town that is, as they like to say in the Southern U.S., "just down the road a ways" from Bush's ranch in Waco.

(1982, Texas) At the Amarillo Fairgrounds, some buildings were in need of a coat of paint, so local contractors were hired to do the job.

Because of the slope, the wheeled painter scaffolding tended to roll downhill, so the painters removed the wheels on the scaffolding. They were in the process of moving the scaffolding, when the metal structure met a transformer. The painters were killed.

The story made the headlines. The town was abuzz with talk of the tragedy, how it had come to pass, and whether the city was liable for damages. The city officials decided they needed to conduct an investigation.

With much fanfare, they arrived at the scene of the incident, prepared to personally recreate the circumstances. Two officials grabbed the scaffolding in the exact same location as the two painters, began to move the scaffolding... and were promptly electrocuted.

The next account (titled "Where's the Chute," which Darwin did confirm) appeared in the Washington Post.

(North Carolina, 1987) Ivan, an experienced parachutist with 800 jumps under his belt, was videotaping a private lesson given by an instructor for a single trainee. He had attached the video camera to his helmet so that it would capture the entire day of instruction, and the supporting power supply and recorder were in a heavy satchel slung on his back.

The group went up in the plane, and the instructor led the enthusiastic beginner through preparations for the jump. Ivan carefully documented the lesson, which needed to be perfect for the sake of posterity.

When they reached the jump site, Ivan jumped from the back of the plane and filmed the student and instructor jumping from the front of the plane. A few heartbeats later, tape still running, Ivan realized that he had been so focused on filming the jump that he had forgotten to strap on his own parachute. An FAA spokesperson said that the video equipment strapped to his back may have been mistaken for a parachute.

In the footage salvaged from the camera and spliced together, the student and instructor are shown in freefall befire they pull their ripcords and recede rapidly from view. Then the cameraman's hands reach for his own ripcord. When Ivan realizes he has no ripcord, ergo no chute, his hands are seen to flail about wildly, then the camera pans down towards the approaching earth....

Darwin also confirmed the following story ("Mile-High Club Failure," for its 1994 awards) as true, though a complete understanding required translations of clinical euphemisms endemic to federal agencies.

(23 December 1991, Florida) This account of an aircraft accident is quoted directly from the National Transportation Safety Board report, with comments added in [brackets] for clarity.

Aircraft: PIPER PA-34-200T
Registration: N47506
Injuries: 2 Fatal.

The private pilot and a pilot rated passenger [two pilots] were going to practice simulated instrument flight. Witnesses observed the airplane's right wing fail in a dive and crash. Examination of the wreckage and bodies revealed that both occupants were partially clothed and the front right seat was in the full aft reclining position. [The pilots had converted the co-pilot seat to a bed.] Neither body showed evidence of seatbelts or shoulder harnesses being worn. [They were lying on the bed.] Examination of the individuals' clothing revealed no evidence of ripping or distress to the zippers and belts. [Their lack of clothing seemed to be voluntary.]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot in command's improper in-flight decision to divert her attention to other activities not related to the conduct of the flight. [The pilot and co-pilot were having sex, and nobody was flying the plane.] Contributing to the accident was the exceeding of the design limits of the airplane leading to a wing failure. [The lack of a pilot caused the plane to fly erratically, over-stressing the wing and leading to a crash.]

These selections only only scratch the surface of the twelve years of Darwin Awards available in the left margins of any of the stories I've excerpted here. Enjoy.

Perhaps Bush's name will appear among the 2007 batch of recipients whose self-sacrifice serves the interests of others. But that doesn't sound like anything Bush would possibly ever get around to doing.

Postscript: Though the "Dumb Criminal" captured in the surveillance video clip technically neither qualifies for a Darwin Award (the guy doesn't die) nor as "vintage," you realize he will be denied access to women of child-bearing age for a long time, which means his DNA will be indefinitely removed from the gene pool.

Wednesday, January 24

Dumb Like a Fox

No matter how cynical you are, it's never enough.--Comedienne Lily Tomlin

Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch's FOX TV announced last weekend (January 20) it is developing a new game show. The proposed show's name?

"Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" (or here; I am not making this up.)

Viewers (and contestants) demonstrating sufficient intellectual prowess to answer "yes" will be impressed they only channel surf through without watching programing fare Murdoch presents on his FOX News Network, the cable station with "fair and balanced" spin coverage of--and talking-head "critical" commentary on--their top manufactured non-stories.

What's next, Rupert? How about a reality show in which FOX-only viewers compete for college tuition funds for their children or themselves?

Now there's a TV project to fold promptly for lack of interested contestants.

Tuesday, January 23

CNN's Paul Zahn: Fascism's Kinder, Gentler Face

The fifth of the "Fourteen Points of Fascism" compiled by academic Laurence Britt in his historical analysis of fascism's common themes is "rampant sexism."
... 5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
It's legal again, to fire gov't workers for being gay
Bush calls for Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages
Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights
W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs.
The State Department7 has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.
A Boston area American Studies professor, Gail Dines on Monday wrote of some surreal gendered encounters with friendly TV fascism in the guise of CNN's Paul Zahn, the kind of gal only well-hung* fascists greet with the "Sieg heil" salute as they goose-step it out for Amerika.


CNN's “Journalism” is a Fool's Paradise
by Gail Dines
January 21, 2007

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of dozen times, and shame on me -- but also shame on what passes for journalism on television.

This truism comes to mind after my appearance on Paula Zahn Now on CNN this week to discuss the Duke rape case. I'm not naive about these kinds of shows -- which I know are not really about journalism but about ratings, most easily obtained through sensationalism and playing to the prejudices of the audience. But over the past 20 years I've gone on a number of them to discuss my work as a sociologist on issues of racism and sexism in media. Like many progressives, I do that with eyes wide open, knowing the limits but realizing it's one of the few shots we have at a mass audience.

But this time I foolishly had high hopes after a producer from Zahn's show actually conducted a thoughtful screening interview, unlike any I had spoken with in the past. Most producers typically are uninterested in my views and tend to ask banal questions in these pre-interviews over the phone. They usually don't care about my arguments, but simply want to check that I have a big mouth (which, I admit, I do) and will not freeze in fear when the cameras roll. When they recognize that I am not someone who is likely to cower in the face of adversarial arguments, that's enough for them.

But this CNN producer kept grilling me with questions that suggested that they were interested in doing a show that looked at the historical and contemporary issues of violence against black women in this society. Four phone calls later, I agreed to fly to Durham to do the show.

I was told I would be in at least two segments, possibly three. That promise was crucial; there's no sense flying halfway across the country to say a couple of sentences between the ads. So I dug in to prepare, reading and consulting colleagues (all of them busy activists and academics, including Mark Anthony Neal, Imani Perry, Robert Jensen and Jackson Katz) about the way the media has framed the story. What an utter waste of time and energy.

The first inkling that something wasn't going according to plan was on my ride from the airport to the makeshift outdoor studio at the Durham courthouse. A different producer called to tell me that although I study both race and gender, they don't want this show to be about gender. I answered that this woman was brought in as a stripper and is charging that the lacrosse team sexually abused her -- how could this not also be about gender? Yes, yes, yes, she answered, but the show is focusing on race. I know enough by now not to argue with a senior producer an hour before taping, and so I simply agreed.

The second clue was one of the people on the panel with me -- the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, an African American man who has made his name by slandering blacks for their racism against whites and their continuing "unwillingness" to climb out of poverty. For Peterson, black men have been emasculated by black women, and his project is about making black men "real men" again. The one saving grace was that the other guest on my panel was Kristal Brent Zook, an insightful journalist with Essence magazine....

Read the rest of Dines' piece here.


*In his 1995 essay titled "In Praise of Invective" ("At the end of a murderous century, let’s curse the enemies of the individual"), American poet Charles Simic argued that groups denied access to civil justice to settle their grievances against the government are permitted (and encouraged) to use profanity when referencing members of the suppressing elite.

As a Heartland American whose civil, constitutional and voting rights were "disappeared" by the Bush White House in its contrived post-9/11 police state, I will be invoking my "Simic Rights" by incorporating more phraseology like "well hung" in my writing.

Friday, January 19

Online Database to Foster Transparency, Accountability in Federal Spending

There's no better disinfectant for the crimes of the well-connected than the bright sunshine of disclosure.

The secrecy-plagued White House and its "Do Nothing" 109th Congress just couldn't get around to making up their minds if they wanted more transparency in how they doled out tax dollars to those footing the bill. So OMB Watch filled the bill for America.

Founded in 1983, the OMB Watch exists, according to its website "to increase government transparency and accountability; to ensure sound, equitable regulatory and budgetary processes and policies; and to protect and promote active citizen participation in our democracy."

FedSpending.org, the group's latest public transparency and accoutabilty project, offers those with a curious nature an online database to track government spending from 2000 through most of 2005. According to the kind folks at OMB Watch, "We hope you will explore this site. But mostly we hope you will use the data to hold our elected leaders and government agencies accountable for their actions."

Those on Capitol Hill eschewing any light shone on their activities--Dick Cheney and those of that ilk--won't appreciate having Americans afforded a resource--and a free one, at that--enabling them see who is receiving how many of our tax dollars.

I did a quick tour of the site and came up with some intriguing figures. For example:

Top 20 Recipients of Federal Contract Awards from the Dept. of Defense for FY 2005

Table sorted by dollars: re-sort using column headers
FY 2005 RankParent Company NameDollars% of total for agency
1LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP$19,699,896,9787.22%
2BOEING CO.$18,124,179,2926.64%
3NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP.$13,492,944,6394.94%
4GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.$10,434,759,5043.82%
5RAYTHEON CO.$9,160,834,8493.36%
6HALLIBURTON CO.$5,806,099,4092.13%
7UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.$4,902,797,8331.80%
8L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS$4,180,288,4381.53%
9COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP.$2,798,892,2311.03%
10CARLYLE GROUP$2,669,682,3730.98%
12BAE SYSTEMS$2,604,831,5230.95%
13ITT INDUSTRIES$2,504,129,8660.92%
14GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY$2,409,513,9200.88%
15HUMANA, INC.$2,219,715,2770.81%
18TEXTRON, INC.$1,757,695,8010.64%
19URS CORP.$1,601,930,6480.59%
20BP P.L.C.$1,522,701,9880.56%
--Total for top 20$112,243,573,67641.13%
--All others for agency (includes 81,467 other contractors)$160,642,201,06958.87%

Rather than search by federal agency, you could see how the states rank on federal contracts.

Federal Contract Awards by Contractor State

Table shows amounts in billions of dollars, and is sorted by FY 2005 dollars.
Switch to percentages or re-sort using column headers

Contractor StateFY 2000FY 2001FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2000-2005FY 2005 Rank
New York$6.7$5.7$7.8$6.7$8.9$9.6$45.48
New Jersey$4.1$4.7$5.4$5.3$6.0$7.6$33.013
New Mexico$5.5$6.9$7.1$7.3$5.7$6.4$39.016
District of Columbia$5.5$5.8$6.1$5.8$7.5$4.5$35.023
North Carolina$1.9$2.3$2.3$2.3$2.7$3.4$14.929
South Carolina$0.9$1.0$1.0$1.3$1.5$2.4$8.231
New Hampshire$0.4$0.5$0.6$0.6$0.9$1.3$4.439
West Virginia$0.2$0.2$0.3$0.3$0.4$0.6$2.044
Rhode Island$0.3$0.2$0.3$0.4$0.4$0.5$2.147
South Dakota$0.3$0.2$0.3$0.3$0.3$0.4$1.748
North Dakota$0.2$0.2$0.2$0.3$0.3$0.4$1.549
Puerto Rico$0.2$0.2$0.2$0.1$0.2$0.3$1.250
American Samoa$0.0$0.0$0.1$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.254
Virgin Islands of the U.S.$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.155
Northern Mariana Islands$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.056
Federated States of Micronesia$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.057
Marshall Islands$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.058
U.S. Minor Outlying Islands$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0$0.059
Invalid or blank$6.1$5.9$7.3$7.5$15.8$20.7$63.2--

How do federal legislators compare in getting money for constituents? Below are the top 50 for 2004-2005.

Federal Contract Awards by Place of Performance Congressional District

Table shows amounts in billions of dollars, and is sorted by FY 2005 dollars.
Switch to percentages or re-sort using column headers

Some data is unassignable by district. Click here to see it.

Place of performance Congressional districtFY 2004FY 2005FY 2004-2005FY 2005 Rank
District of Columbia non-voting (Eleanor Holmes Norton)$14.9$12.4$27.21
Alabama 5 (Robert E. (Bud) Cramer Jr.)$4.8$5.1$9.92
Virginia 10 (Frank R. Wolf)$5.9$4.0$10.03
Maryland 8 (Chris Van Hollen)$4.0$3.9$7.94
Virginia 8 (James P. Moran)$6.4$3.6$10.15
Texas 22 (Tom DeLay)$1.3$3.4$4.66
Washington 4 (Doc Hastings)$2.5$2.8$5.37
Maryland 5 (Steny H. Hoyer)$2.7$2.7$5.48
Mississippi 4 (Gene Taylor)$1.2$2.6$3.89
Connecticut 2 (Rob Simmons)$3.4$2.6$6.010
New Mexico 1 (Heather Wilson)$2.7$2.5$5.111
Alaska At Large (Don Young)$1.6$2.3$4.012
New Mexico 3 (Tom Udall)$2.0$2.3$4.313
California 36 (Jane Harman)$3.1$1.9$5.114
Utah 1 (Rob Bishop)$1.5$1.7$3.215
Massachusetts 6 (John F. Tierney)$2.3$1.6$3.916
Maine 1 (Thomas H. Allen)$1.3$1.5$2.917
Maryland 1 (Wayne T. Gilchrest)$1.3$1.5$2.818
Maryland 4 (Albert Russell Wynn)$1.6$1.5$3.219
Wisconsin 6 (Thomas E. Petri)$1.1$1.5$2.620
Indiana 2 (Chris Chocola)$1.2$1.5$2.621
California 29 (Adam B. Schiff)$2.3$1.4$3.822
Florida 15 (Dave Weldon)$1.3$1.3$2.623
Iowa 2 (James A. Leach)$1.0$1.2$2.224
Idaho 2 (Michael K. Simpson)$1.0$1.2$2.225
Kansas 4 (Todd Tiahrt)$0.9$1.1$2.026
California 14 (Anna G. Eshoo)$4.1$1.1$5.227
Tennessee 3 (Zach Wamp)$1.0$1.1$2.128
South Carolina 6 (James E. Clyburn)$0.5$1.1$1.529
Virginia 11 (Thomas M. Davis)$2.5$1.0$3.530
New Jersey 12 (Rush D. Holt)$1.0$1.0$2.031
Florida 1 (Jeff Miller)$0.8$1.0$1.832
Kansas 2 (Jim Ryun)$0.7$1.0$1.733
Colorado 5 (Joel Hefley)$1.0$1.0$2.034
Illinois 7 (Danny K. Davis)$1.1$1.0$2.135
Maryland 6 (Roscoe G. Bartlett)$0.7$0.8$1.536
Missouri 5 (Emanuel Cleaver)$1.0$0.8$1.837
Maryland 2 (C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger)$0.9$0.8$1.738
Maryland 7 (Elijah E. Cummings)$1.2$0.7$1.939
Louisiana 2 (William J. Jefferson)$0.4$0.7$1.240
Texas 13 (Mac Thornberry)$1.3$0.7$2.041
Virginia 1 (Jo Ann Davis)$0.8$0.7$1.542
Arizona 8 (Jim Kolbe)$0.7$0.7$1.443
Indiana 3 (Mark E. Souder)$0.7$0.7$1.344
Washington 2 (Rick Larsen)$0.4$0.7$1.145
California 30 (Henry A. Waxman)$0.7$0.7$1.446
Illinois 13 (Judy Biggert)$0.7$0.7$1.347
Tennessee 6 (Bart Gordon)$0.5$0.6$1.248
Virginia 4 (J. Randy Forbes)$0.5$0.6$1.149
Pennsylvania 14 (Michael F. Doyle)$1.1$0.6$1.750

In conducting searches, you are limited only by imagination.

On the "Advanced Search by Agency" page, the category of contract competition listed as "not competed" caught my eye. So I again entered the agency providing the wealthiest their most welfare--the Department of Defense--and opted for "10. Weapons" under the Product or Service Category for a list of contractors.

My, my....Among the discoveries is that the Caryle Group, the #10 contractor in my first query that just happens to be the former employer of both George Bushes, ranks among 2005 leaders in no-bid contracts: $90.5 million dollars.


I wonder if having two presidents on board would have had anything with the company obtaining those millions without having to bother going through the plebian competition process?

You can convey your appreciation for their efforts in providing his great service here.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?