« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Defense Bill Contains More Contracting Safeguards
Speaking of Iraq contracting fiascos, TPM friend Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense dug through the $471 billion defense bill President Bush signed last week and found some new oversight provisions included for future Iraq contracts.
The bill asks Defense Secretary Bob Gates to come up with regulations for incorporating private security contractors like Blackwater or DynCorp within the U.S. military chain of command in combat zones, a measure Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed on last month. Perhaps more significantly, the bill prohibits any government agency from issuing new contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan after New Year's deal "until a memorandum of understanding is signed between the heads of Defense, State and USAID clarifying their roles in overseeing and managing contracts.
There's a catch, though, right? Sure there is. "This can be waived by the president," Peterson adds.
There you have it: the contracting equivalent of a signing statement. FYI: TCS's big earmark database is here.
Comments (7)
Roberta wrote on November 20, 2007 4:20 PM:Have you written to your representative and senators today about the latest outrage or an ongoing one?
Until there's an election with viable candidates who will take action rather than thinking good thoughts about what should happen, we have to deal with what we've got.
Keeping on their backs is the only way I can think of (other suggestions?) to push them into action by making them believe that they've got the support they need to find and straighten their spines. Even if they don't have that support come election time (which, really, is what matters to most of them), they'll think they do.
I try to write mine about issues and upcoming votes at least twice a week, often sending a fax instead of an email. In spite of the extra paper I make them use, I know that a pile of paper makes a stronger impact than a screenful of emails. I'm going to step up my campaign, however, and try to send something at least four times a week.
I've also sent faxes to entire committees about upcoming votes, and I'm not taking credit for this, but the Judicial committee did remove telecom immunity, as I asked.
The Admin can ignore everything except the bottom line, and if Congress closes the purse, Busheney might actually have to back down. They'll only do that if they can point to the will of their constituents.
TheraP wrote on November 20, 2007 8:26 PM:Roberta, you are Outstanding!
JMOHR wrote on November 20, 2007 9:33 PM:There is no government in the United States. There is a plutocracy of corporate interests, select wealthy families and corrupt politicians. It is time that these people pay the price. Legislation, regulations and the constitution simply are pieces of paper. Once Bush declared this simple truth and did away with the moral and ethical support of our democracy, the United States ceased to exist. It will have to be taken back. The usurpers of power will need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice. I am afraid that a violent political process will be the only way to destroy these animals.
TheraP wrote on November 20, 2007 10:08 PM:A violent process is not in keeping with the Rule of Law. I therefore strongly disagree with your suggestion, JMOHR.
Al in Austex wrote on November 21, 2007 5:17 AM:JMHOR,
moondancer wrote on November 21, 2007 9:25 AM:Myself & others on this thread can recall Nixon -and Cointerpol-and the agent provacatures that infiltrated the antiwar movement in those days. JMHOR kindly refrain from espousing violent revolution here -otherwise - we might think you are working for BushCO .
I can also loosely paraphrase Tolstoy here - " The difference between right wing violence & left wing violence is the differnce between cat sh--t & dog sh--t !"
JMHOR
I appreciate your sentiments. Remember the old adage: The one that gets the dynamite and guns is the FBI agent.
Bert wrote on November 25, 2007 2:06 PM:Impeach.
http://www.impeachbush.org