Royce Engler wrote: > Nice try. That was when the contract was renewed. First contract was done > in the mid 90s, and was done on Clinton's watch. Not that that makes a > whole lot of difference, except that it seems that the libs wanted to make a > big deal out of the fact that it was "no bid" and somehow smear Dick Cheney > with it.
That's because when a company with close ties to the administration gets a sweetheart deal, it's hard to get it to pass the smell test. I'm not saying that anything untoward happened...it's just that the way they handled it looked mighty fishy. I think it's interesting that the same people who insisted on investigating a failed, 20-year-old land deal in Arkansas figured there was nothing worth looking at here. Incidentally, the existence of "cost plus" contracts in general amazes me. That sounds like a hell of a deal. No matter how inefficient you are, you're guaranteed a profit. Wish the company I work for could get a piece of that. If we screw up and under-bid, we lose money! Guess it's all about who you know, huh?
