I'll do this one time.

---

IRAQ
Corporations Gone Wild
Using the deteriorating security situation in Iraq as cover, the Bush Administration today announced it was extending Halliburton's $2 billion no-bid contract - while indefinitely postponing two competitively bid contracts. The Administration also shockingly claimed that rebuilding "will cost twice as much as the government has anticipated." The move highlights just how much of a feeding frenzy Iraq has become for private corporations with close ties to the White House. The latest Harper's magazine writes that, although "as much as one third of the rapidly expanding cost of the Iraq war is going into private U.S. bank accounts," there is virtually no accountability or oversight. Newsweek calls Iraq the "$87 Billion Money Pit" and reports the U.S. government gave these private corporations contracts on a "limited-bid or no-bid basis. It bypassed the Iraqis and didn't worry much about accountability to Congress." (Click HERE for American Progress fellow Gayle Smith's analysis of transparency issues in Iraq).

There isn't even coordination between the corporations, as efforts devolve into
a moebius strip of ineffectuality. Power stations, like those controlled by Bechtel, need gas and oil to run. The fuel refineries, run by Halliburton, need that power to run in order to supply that fuel, yet, Newsweek reports, there is little coordination between the corporations. One of the few things that can be detected is price gouging. As Reuters reports the U.S. government is paying Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm Halliburton "enormous sums'' - $2.65 a gallon - for gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, according to Reps. Henry Waxman and John Dingell. The "gross overpayment" was made worse by the fact that the "U.S. government was turning around and reselling the gasoline in Iraq for four to 15 cents a gallon."

NEW REPORT - 'THE WINDFALLS OF WAR': The Center for Public Integrity releases a new report today showing that "more than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years." Those companies "donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush—a little over $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years." For example, "Kellogg, Brown & Root, the subsidiary of Halliburton—which Vice President Dick Cheney led prior to being chosen as Bush's running mate in August 2000—was the top recipient of federal contracts for the two countries, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to the company. Bechtel Group, a major government contractor with similarly high-ranking ties, was second at around $1.03 billion."

HAZARD PAY FOR CORPORATE CONTRACTORS, NOT FOR U.S. TROOPS: Why are the price tags for outside contractors so outrageously expensive? This week's Newsweek magazine reports, "One reason U.S. taxpayers are forking over top dollar to have [private U.S. contractors in Iraq]...Much of what companies are charging is for hazardous duty (at major engineering companies, that means 45% extra, taking engineers up to nearly $900 for a 10-hour day)." While private contractors soak up tax dollars in hazard pay, however, the White House has tried to cut hazard pay for American soldiers actually in harm's way, fighting the war. The Army Times wrote in June that, "The Bush administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones." (For more on the Administration's mistreatment of U.S. troops, click HERE .

IRAQ SPENDING BILL GETS CLOSER TO PASSAGE: Congress is about to approve President Bush's $87 billion package, even though criticism over lack of
transparency and hesitation over the use of the money still swirls. AP reports, "Lawmakers have been increasingly uneasy about the rising human toll and financial costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq. They have questioned whether the Bush administration has done enough to win international assistance and how long U.S. troops will have to remain there."
Republicans defeated a Democratic proposal to require "confirmation for Bush's
civilian administrator in Iraq, the position held by L. Paul Bremer," which
would have required the Administration to become more accountable in Iraq. And while the House approved legislation yesterday authorizing an increase in the paltry, Vietnam-era $6,000 death benefit for families of servicemen killed in action, there is no funding to make it a reality in the spending bill.

THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING: The WSJ's Al Hunt writes, "the Bush administration's mistakes and misrepresentations since May 1 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html) are continuing unabated. There's the pretense the war is over, that the press is hiding all the good stuff, and the region and the world are safer and more secure. The president's rare Tuesday news conference was embarrassing. Administration insiders privately talk about a downward 'glide' of U.S. forces in Iraq next year, but when asked if there will be lower troop levels next year Mr. Bush declared that's 'a trick question.' More troops now, given the increasing violence? That's Gen. Abizaid's task, not mine."