I again refer to the interview I posted above:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/iraq_11-04.html

Two excerpts:

quote:

GWEN IFILL: ... I'm wondering about your thought about whether there should be greater transparency on these matters


MAJ. GEN. PATRICK KELLY [ military commander of U.S. reconstruction of Kuwait in 1991 ]:
I just do not have the same personal conflict that Mr. Lewis has, because I know about the integrity, and I know exactly how contracts are procured. And there's a contracting officer in the case of the corps of engineers who is even independent of the commander. And they are not going to select a contractor on someone's advice or someone's demand because they know they'll go to jail. That's illegal, and it's unlawful. And they won't do it.



and


quote:

CHARLES LEWIS [ executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative research organization ]:
I mean, because this is the first look at contracts in two countries and it took six months to try to get even a piece of that picture, we are not able to answer about the work being done it's too soon. As you may know the General Accounting Office is doing an investigation that's going to take at least a year to answer the question you just asked. But I'm not trying to harp on the transparency issue, but [on Iraqi reconstruction contractor ] Kellogg, Brown and Root, we are actually suing the Army Corps of Engineers, the wonderful group that we've just heard about, they released one work order out of 31 about that company, the Army Corps I'm talking about, they were unresponsive to the public about that. I have a problem. Why should the public not know how their money is being spent? It's that simple. And the fact is there has been contracting fraud over the years. We have profiles of 71 companies on our Web site of individuals that got contracts, and I would guess one or two dozen have had contracting fraud problems, and they've still gotten the contracts.

GWEN IFILL: General Kelly, you have time for a final comment.

MAJ. GEN. PATRICK KELLY: Yes. When I went into Kuwait, one of the first things I did, I made sure that we had an independent auditor agency accompanying us to Kuwait, which was the Defense Contract Audit Agency. We only had one. I understand in Iraq for most of the contracts over there they have not only the Defense Contract Audit Agency, they had the Army Audit Agency, and they have GAO [ General Accounting Office ], who is monitoring all of their contracts to ensure that there is no fraud or abuse, which is good. And that serves the public benefit.


I absolutely agree with you, on that there should be great accountability for how these massive funds for contractors are spent.

And I also agree, as you stated, and also Charles Lewis in the interview states, that these companies are very well connected and have a long history of massive contributions and lobbying funds --to BOTH political parties, so that no matter which party is elected, they will have influence on available contracts.

And while not proven, it seems very logical to any thinking person that these millions in campaign contributions would have some influence on rewarding of contracts.

So on that issue, I'm in agreement with you, Whomod, I want the maximum accountability. The question is how best to make clear that accountability.

I just once again find it suspect, that screams of foul play are occurring NOW, after all the wars that have been fought and reconstructions of various nations in the last 12 years.
And as the former Kuwait reconstruction commander states, there is more independent auditing of these contracts than existed after the first Gulf War in Kuwait. It just seems to smack of another partisan attack on Bush, with nothing exceptionally unusual to warrant the emphasis the issue is being given.

While I am not clear yet on why the accountability clause in the initial $ 87 billion provision was omitted, regarding criminal liability and a minimum of 20 years jail-time for deliberate fraud, I suspect it was not worded clearly enough how that liability would be determined, and would have just opened the door for frivolous (and partisan) allegations against the Bush administration and the contractors selected under Bush's watch.

I don't understand why the special provision was included in the initial $ 87 billion proposal. And why existing laws of contractor fraud were not adequate, that such a provision was necessary in the first place.

I agree that there should be accountability for these funds, the question is how best to do that.
I disagree that Bush or Haliburton are necessarily guilty of anything. They MAY be guilty, and it's logical that campaign contributions were given by Haliburton and other comanies with an expectation of favor regarding contracts. But as Lewis says in the interview, that is yet to be proven.

And keep in mind that allegations of corruption can be politically motivated, rather than justice-motivated.