Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
January 22, 2013
Iraq demands U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil abide by constitution
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, January 21, 2013 9:52 EST
Iraq’s premier Monday called on ExxonMobil to respect the country’s constitution in rare talks with the US firm’s chief, an apparent reference to a deal with the Kurdish region Baghdad says is illegal.
Nuri al-Maliki also appeared to once again rule out production-sharing deals that Exxon has signed with Kurdistan, arguing that Iraq’s substantial oil reserves “belong to all Iraqis,” an oft-cited phrase in Iraq’s constitution that central government officials see as justifying per-barrel service fees.
The meeting was the first between Maliki and Exxon chief Rex Tillerson since the firm signed an agreement in October 2011 for oil exploration with Kurdistan, angering the central government in Baghdad, which regards deals signed without the expressed approval of the federal oil ministry as illegal.
“Iraqis are partners in the oil that is discovered in any part of Iraq, they can not be partners in Basra and not partners in other areas”, Maliki said, according to a statement from his office, referring to Iraq’s southern oil-rich province.
unhappycamper comment: It appears we are finally in the end game for Operation Iraqi Liberation.
Iraq demands U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil abide by constitution
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/21/iraq-demands-u-s-energy-giant-exxonmobil-abide-by-constitution/Iraq demands U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil abide by constitution
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, January 21, 2013 9:52 EST
Iraq’s premier Monday called on ExxonMobil to respect the country’s constitution in rare talks with the US firm’s chief, an apparent reference to a deal with the Kurdish region Baghdad says is illegal.
Nuri al-Maliki also appeared to once again rule out production-sharing deals that Exxon has signed with Kurdistan, arguing that Iraq’s substantial oil reserves “belong to all Iraqis,” an oft-cited phrase in Iraq’s constitution that central government officials see as justifying per-barrel service fees.
The meeting was the first between Maliki and Exxon chief Rex Tillerson since the firm signed an agreement in October 2011 for oil exploration with Kurdistan, angering the central government in Baghdad, which regards deals signed without the expressed approval of the federal oil ministry as illegal.
“Iraqis are partners in the oil that is discovered in any part of Iraq, they can not be partners in Basra and not partners in other areas”, Maliki said, according to a statement from his office, referring to Iraq’s southern oil-rich province.
unhappycamper comment: It appears we are finally in the end game for Operation Iraqi Liberation.
January 21, 2013
What Went Wrong at Boeing: My Two Cents
Eamonn Fingleton
1/21/2013 @ 6:01AM
My colleague Steve Denning’s commentary today on Boeing’s 787 problems is on the money in identifying a key managerial wrong turning a decade ago. Boeing decided at the outset to rely on outsourcing for 70 percent of the plane’s manufactured content. As Steve shows at length, this greatly increased the managerial complexity of the project and almost certainly helps explain why the project ended up three years late (with consequent damage not only to Boeing’s reputation but, thanks to contractual penalties, to its immediate bottom line).
Even more troubling, however, has been the long-term cost in weakening Boeing’s competitiveness. This is something I identified in “Boeing, Boeing….Gone,” a cover story for The American Conservative, as far back as 2005. The point is that among the things Boeing has outsourced has been the wings and the wing-box. These are by far the most technologically advanced elements of an airframe and they were outsourced to a Japanese consortium led by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Part of the deal was that much of Boeing’s secret wing-building know-how had to be transferred to Japan. The decision was highly controversial with Boeing workers who saw it as a direct threat to their jobs. Outraged at the prone position they were asked to adopt towards their information-gathering Japanese counterparts, they were quoted by author Karl Sabbagh as vulgarly referring to Boeing’s technology-transfer deal as the “open kimono” policy.
Of course, you might think that what was outsourced yesterday can be insourced today. Actually this rarely happens in the real world, at least not where seriously technologically advanced manufacturing is concerned. In this case a key problem is that the 787?s are made of carbon fiber. The learning curve in putting this tricky new material to work has been climbed by Tokyo-based Toray and Mitsubishi, not by Boeing. Unfortunately Boeing seems to have negotiated no effective access to the industrial secrets the Japanese have acquired. In effect Boeing has been left behind by its suppliers and cannot catch up without major costs that, given the relentless pressure for short-term profits in corporate America, will never seem to be worth incurring.
As a practical matter, the Airbus subsidiary of Netherlands-based EADS, will use Japanese-made carbon-fiber for the wings of its next major plane. The net effect is that the Japanese have suddenly bootstrapped themselves to leadership in the jetliner industry. (It should be noted that Japan’s aggregate contribution to the 787 comes to 30 percent, the same as that of the United States.) All this is the more piquant because Mitsubishi seems to be planning in the long run to enter the fray as a direct competitor to Boeing and Airbus in building full-size commercial jetliners. Already Mitsubishi is working with Toyota Motor to launch a 90-seat regional jetliner in 2017.
What Went Wrong at Boeing: My Two Cents
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/01/21/what-went-wrong-at-boeing-my-two-cents/What Went Wrong at Boeing: My Two Cents
Eamonn Fingleton
1/21/2013 @ 6:01AM
My colleague Steve Denning’s commentary today on Boeing’s 787 problems is on the money in identifying a key managerial wrong turning a decade ago. Boeing decided at the outset to rely on outsourcing for 70 percent of the plane’s manufactured content. As Steve shows at length, this greatly increased the managerial complexity of the project and almost certainly helps explain why the project ended up three years late (with consequent damage not only to Boeing’s reputation but, thanks to contractual penalties, to its immediate bottom line).
Even more troubling, however, has been the long-term cost in weakening Boeing’s competitiveness. This is something I identified in “Boeing, Boeing….Gone,” a cover story for The American Conservative, as far back as 2005. The point is that among the things Boeing has outsourced has been the wings and the wing-box. These are by far the most technologically advanced elements of an airframe and they were outsourced to a Japanese consortium led by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Part of the deal was that much of Boeing’s secret wing-building know-how had to be transferred to Japan. The decision was highly controversial with Boeing workers who saw it as a direct threat to their jobs. Outraged at the prone position they were asked to adopt towards their information-gathering Japanese counterparts, they were quoted by author Karl Sabbagh as vulgarly referring to Boeing’s technology-transfer deal as the “open kimono” policy.
Of course, you might think that what was outsourced yesterday can be insourced today. Actually this rarely happens in the real world, at least not where seriously technologically advanced manufacturing is concerned. In this case a key problem is that the 787?s are made of carbon fiber. The learning curve in putting this tricky new material to work has been climbed by Tokyo-based Toray and Mitsubishi, not by Boeing. Unfortunately Boeing seems to have negotiated no effective access to the industrial secrets the Japanese have acquired. In effect Boeing has been left behind by its suppliers and cannot catch up without major costs that, given the relentless pressure for short-term profits in corporate America, will never seem to be worth incurring.
As a practical matter, the Airbus subsidiary of Netherlands-based EADS, will use Japanese-made carbon-fiber for the wings of its next major plane. The net effect is that the Japanese have suddenly bootstrapped themselves to leadership in the jetliner industry. (It should be noted that Japan’s aggregate contribution to the 787 comes to 30 percent, the same as that of the United States.) All this is the more piquant because Mitsubishi seems to be planning in the long run to enter the fray as a direct competitor to Boeing and Airbus in building full-size commercial jetliners. Already Mitsubishi is working with Toyota Motor to launch a 90-seat regional jetliner in 2017.
January 21, 2013
Smoke billows from the Kabul traffic police headquarters during an attack by insurgents, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. Taliban insurgents wearing suicide vests attacked the Kabul traffic police headquarters before dawn Monday, police said, and eyewitnesses heard numerous explosions while a gun battle was still raging nearly four hours later.
Taliban attack on Kabul police HQ kills 3 officers
AMIR SHAH and RAHIM FAIEZ - Associated Press (AP)
Posted January 20, 2013 at 10:08 p.m., updated January 21, 2013 at 7:04 a.m.
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Two Taliban suicide bombers blew themselves up at the gates of the Kabul traffic police headquarters early Monday before another group of militants stormed the compound, battling security forces for nine hours in an attack that left three policemen and all five attackers dead, authorities said.
The coordinated assault was the second brazen raid in the heart of the Afghan capital in less than a week, a sign that the insurgency is determined to keep carrying out such spectacular attacks even as the U.S. and Afghan governments try to coax the Taliban into holding peace talks.
Nine hours after Monday's insurgent attack began with two of the five attackers blowing themselves up, police commandos killed the last two insurgents holed up in the police headquarters, Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said. He added that four traffic policemen and 10 civilians were also been wounded in the fighting.
Kabul Police chief Mohammad Ayub Salangi said two Taliban suicide bombers died at the gate when their vests exploded, another blew himself up inside the building and two more were killed by security forces before they managed to detonate their explosive vests.
--
Here's the stripes.com take on this attack: http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/nine-hour-battle-grips-kabul-1.204702
Taliban attack on Kabul police HQ kills 3 officers
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jan/20/insurgents-hit-police-facility-in-afghan-capital/Smoke billows from the Kabul traffic police headquarters during an attack by insurgents, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013. Taliban insurgents wearing suicide vests attacked the Kabul traffic police headquarters before dawn Monday, police said, and eyewitnesses heard numerous explosions while a gun battle was still raging nearly four hours later.
Taliban attack on Kabul police HQ kills 3 officers
AMIR SHAH and RAHIM FAIEZ - Associated Press (AP)
Posted January 20, 2013 at 10:08 p.m., updated January 21, 2013 at 7:04 a.m.
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Two Taliban suicide bombers blew themselves up at the gates of the Kabul traffic police headquarters early Monday before another group of militants stormed the compound, battling security forces for nine hours in an attack that left three policemen and all five attackers dead, authorities said.
The coordinated assault was the second brazen raid in the heart of the Afghan capital in less than a week, a sign that the insurgency is determined to keep carrying out such spectacular attacks even as the U.S. and Afghan governments try to coax the Taliban into holding peace talks.
Nine hours after Monday's insurgent attack began with two of the five attackers blowing themselves up, police commandos killed the last two insurgents holed up in the police headquarters, Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said. He added that four traffic policemen and 10 civilians were also been wounded in the fighting.
Kabul Police chief Mohammad Ayub Salangi said two Taliban suicide bombers died at the gate when their vests exploded, another blew himself up inside the building and two more were killed by security forces before they managed to detonate their explosive vests.
--
Here's the stripes.com take on this attack: http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/nine-hour-battle-grips-kabul-1.204702
January 20, 2013
Marine Corps F-35B Flights Suspended After a Part Fails
By Tony Capaccio - 2013-01-19T05:00:02Z
The Pentagon suspended flights of the F-35B, the Marine Corps model of its Joint Strike Fighter, after the failure of a propulsion-system part caused a pilot to abort a takeoff.
“We are assessing potential causes and evaluating actions to return” the Marine Corps version to flight, Pentagon spokesman Joe DellaVedova said yesterday in an e-mail.
The Marine Corps model, designed for short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious-warfare vessels, is the most complex of three models being built in the Pentagon’s costliest program.
The failure was in the jet’s propulsion system, made by the Pratt & Whitney unit of Hartford, Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp. (UTX) The incident occurred before takeoff on Jan. 16 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
--
A 1/12/2013 report said:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-12/business/36312239_1_cracks-f-35-annual-report
F-35 Marine model stress-testing halted after cracks discovered
By Tony Capaccio,January 12, 2013
Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Durability testing on the most complicated version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 was halted last month after “multiple” cracks were discovered in the fighter jet, according to the Pentagon’s testing office.
The previously undisclosed halt in high-stress ground testing involves the F-35B, the Marine Corp’s version that must withstand short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious warfare vessels, according to an annual report on the F-35 that Defense Department testing chief Michael Gilmore sent to Congress yesterday. Flight testing wasn’t affected.
Development of the F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system, has been marked by delays and cost increases. The Pentagon estimates the total cost for development and production of 2,443 F-35s will be $395.7 billion, a 70 percent increase since the initial contract with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin was signed in 2001.
Durability testing is intended to stress an airframe, assessing its capability to achieve a projected aircraft lifetime of 8,000 “equivalent flight hours.”
Marine Corps F-35B Flights Suspended After a Part Fails
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/marine-corps-f-35b-flights-suspended-after-a-part-fails.htmlMarine Corps F-35B Flights Suspended After a Part Fails
By Tony Capaccio - 2013-01-19T05:00:02Z
The Pentagon suspended flights of the F-35B, the Marine Corps model of its Joint Strike Fighter, after the failure of a propulsion-system part caused a pilot to abort a takeoff.
“We are assessing potential causes and evaluating actions to return” the Marine Corps version to flight, Pentagon spokesman Joe DellaVedova said yesterday in an e-mail.
The Marine Corps model, designed for short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious-warfare vessels, is the most complex of three models being built in the Pentagon’s costliest program.
The failure was in the jet’s propulsion system, made by the Pratt & Whitney unit of Hartford, Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp. (UTX) The incident occurred before takeoff on Jan. 16 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
--
A 1/12/2013 report said:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-12/business/36312239_1_cracks-f-35-annual-report
F-35 Marine model stress-testing halted after cracks discovered
By Tony Capaccio,January 12, 2013
Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Durability testing on the most complicated version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 was halted last month after “multiple” cracks were discovered in the fighter jet, according to the Pentagon’s testing office.
The previously undisclosed halt in high-stress ground testing involves the F-35B, the Marine Corp’s version that must withstand short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious warfare vessels, according to an annual report on the F-35 that Defense Department testing chief Michael Gilmore sent to Congress yesterday. Flight testing wasn’t affected.
Development of the F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system, has been marked by delays and cost increases. The Pentagon estimates the total cost for development and production of 2,443 F-35s will be $395.7 billion, a 70 percent increase since the initial contract with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin was signed in 2001.
Durability testing is intended to stress an airframe, assessing its capability to achieve a projected aircraft lifetime of 8,000 “equivalent flight hours.”
January 19, 2013
The Iraq War 'Surge' Myth Returns
by Robert Parry | January 18, 2013 - 8:58am
At confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel, Official Washington will reprise one of its favorite myths, the story of the “successful surge” in Iraq. Politicians and pundits have made clear that the Senate Armed Services Committee should hector Hagel over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s 2007 “surge” of 30,000 troops into that failed war.
These “surge” lovers, who insist that Hagel be taken to task for his supposedly bad judgment over the “surge,” include MSNBC’s favorite neocon, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, and conservative columnist George F. Will, who said Hagel should be asked, “If the surge had not happened, what would have happened in Iraq?”
Most likely, former Sen. Hagel, R-Nebraska, will judge that discretion is the better part of valor and admit his “mistake” – rather than challenge such a deeply entrenched Washington myth. However, an honest answer to Will’s question would be that the “surge” sacrificed nearly 1,000 additional U.S. military dead (and killed countless innocent Iraqis) while contributing very little to the war’s outcome.
Any serious analysis of what happened in Iraq in 2007-08 would trace the decline in Iraqi sectarian violence mostly to strategies that predated the “surge” and were implemented by the U.S. commanding generals in 2006, George Casey and John Abizaid, who wanted as small a U.S. “footprint” as possible to tamp down Iraqi nationalism.
The Iraq War 'Surge' Myth Returns
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/47653/the-iraq-war-surge-myth-returnsThe Iraq War 'Surge' Myth Returns
by Robert Parry | January 18, 2013 - 8:58am
At confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel, Official Washington will reprise one of its favorite myths, the story of the “successful surge” in Iraq. Politicians and pundits have made clear that the Senate Armed Services Committee should hector Hagel over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s 2007 “surge” of 30,000 troops into that failed war.
These “surge” lovers, who insist that Hagel be taken to task for his supposedly bad judgment over the “surge,” include MSNBC’s favorite neocon, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, and conservative columnist George F. Will, who said Hagel should be asked, “If the surge had not happened, what would have happened in Iraq?”
Most likely, former Sen. Hagel, R-Nebraska, will judge that discretion is the better part of valor and admit his “mistake” – rather than challenge such a deeply entrenched Washington myth. However, an honest answer to Will’s question would be that the “surge” sacrificed nearly 1,000 additional U.S. military dead (and killed countless innocent Iraqis) while contributing very little to the war’s outcome.
Any serious analysis of what happened in Iraq in 2007-08 would trace the decline in Iraqi sectarian violence mostly to strategies that predated the “surge” and were implemented by the U.S. commanding generals in 2006, George Casey and John Abizaid, who wanted as small a U.S. “footprint” as possible to tamp down Iraqi nationalism.
January 19, 2013
Torture is trivial
by Robert Jensen | January 18, 2013 - 10:00am
The great American torture debate has been rekindled by the nationwide release of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the hot new movie about the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden.
~snip~
Let me be clear: I don’t support torture. I think torture is immoral. I think government officials who ordered or condoned torture should be held accountable. Torture crosses a line that should not be crossed.
But when I look at the decade since 9/11, torture is hardly the greatest crime of the U.S. war machine. Since 9/11, the United States has helped destroy two countries with, at best, sketchy moral and legal justification. The invasion of Afghanistan was connected to the crimes of 9/11, at least at first, but quickly devolved into a nonsensical occupation. The invasion of Iraq, which was clearly illegal, was a scandal of unprecedented scale, even by the standards of past U.S. invasions and covert operations.
While the Iraq war is over (sort of) and the Afghanistan war is coming to an end (sort of) the United States is also at war in Pakistan and Iran. The U.S. routinely unleashes murderous drone strikes in Pakistani territory, and we can assume that covert operations against Iran, such as the cyber-attack with a powerful computer virus, continue even though Iran poses no serious threat to the United States.
Torture is trivial
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-jensen/47659/torture-is-trivialTorture is trivial
by Robert Jensen | January 18, 2013 - 10:00am
The great American torture debate has been rekindled by the nationwide release of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the hot new movie about the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden.
~snip~
Let me be clear: I don’t support torture. I think torture is immoral. I think government officials who ordered or condoned torture should be held accountable. Torture crosses a line that should not be crossed.
But when I look at the decade since 9/11, torture is hardly the greatest crime of the U.S. war machine. Since 9/11, the United States has helped destroy two countries with, at best, sketchy moral and legal justification. The invasion of Afghanistan was connected to the crimes of 9/11, at least at first, but quickly devolved into a nonsensical occupation. The invasion of Iraq, which was clearly illegal, was a scandal of unprecedented scale, even by the standards of past U.S. invasions and covert operations.
While the Iraq war is over (sort of) and the Afghanistan war is coming to an end (sort of) the United States is also at war in Pakistan and Iran. The U.S. routinely unleashes murderous drone strikes in Pakistani territory, and we can assume that covert operations against Iran, such as the cyber-attack with a powerful computer virus, continue even though Iran poses no serious threat to the United States.
January 19, 2013
Scientists find Camp Lejeune water contamination went back to 1953
By Franco Ordonez | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013
WASHINGTON — Federal health officials have determined that water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune exceeded safe levels as far back as August 1953, four years earlier than previous findings.
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also found that water had been contaminated at two additional water distribution systems on the base.
“This a big deal,” said Jerry Ensminger, a retired Marine master sergeant who was stationed at Lejeune and whose daughter died of a rare form of leukemia in 1985 at age 9. “You’re talking tens of thousands of more people being exposed.”
~snip~
President Barack Obama signed the Camp Lejeune law in August. It provides health care for people who lived or worked at the base from 1957 to 1987 and have a condition listed within the bill that is linked to exposure to dangerous chemicals. Now, those who lived or worked on the base starting in 1953 should also be eligible.
Scientists find Camp Lejeune water contamination went back to 1953
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/18/180388/scientists-find-camp-lejeune-water.htmlScientists find Camp Lejeune water contamination went back to 1953
By Franco Ordonez | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013
WASHINGTON — Federal health officials have determined that water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune exceeded safe levels as far back as August 1953, four years earlier than previous findings.
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also found that water had been contaminated at two additional water distribution systems on the base.
“This a big deal,” said Jerry Ensminger, a retired Marine master sergeant who was stationed at Lejeune and whose daughter died of a rare form of leukemia in 1985 at age 9. “You’re talking tens of thousands of more people being exposed.”
~snip~
President Barack Obama signed the Camp Lejeune law in August. It provides health care for people who lived or worked at the base from 1957 to 1987 and have a condition listed within the bill that is linked to exposure to dangerous chemicals. Now, those who lived or worked on the base starting in 1953 should also be eligible.
January 19, 2013
Sen. Claire McCaskill leaps hurdles to overhauling wartime contracting
By Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — When Claire McCaskill set out to crack down on waste and fraud in wartime contracting six years ago, the newbie senator from Missouri figured that finding ways to save taxpayer dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a no-brainer project, even in the highly partisan halls of Congress.
“Like most who come to Washington for the first time, I assumed that this would not be a heavy lift,” McCaskill said in a recent interview with McClatchy. “I assumed that cleaning up war contracting and profiteering would be a consensus item that would fly through the process, and I learned quickly that that was very naive.”
This month – after half a dozen years of hearings, reports, overseas fact-finding trips, painful compromises and some last-minute, round-the-clock negotiating – the first substantial overhaul of the federal government’s wartime contracting practices since World War II finally became law, with McCaskill as its chief architect. The president signed it Jan. 2 as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the day before McCaskill, a Democrat, was sworn in for her second Senate term.
In the end, McCaskill didn’t get everything she wanted. Some of her proposals were dropped or scaled back, and she acknowledges that one consequence of the new law will be additional paperwork for the federal bureaucracy – without any additional funding. But she said the bill was among the most satisfying accomplishments of her Senate career.
Sen. Claire McCaskill leaps hurdles to overhauling wartime contracting
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/19/180202/sen-claire-mccaskill-leaps-hurdles.htmlSen. Claire McCaskill leaps hurdles to overhauling wartime contracting
By Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — When Claire McCaskill set out to crack down on waste and fraud in wartime contracting six years ago, the newbie senator from Missouri figured that finding ways to save taxpayer dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a no-brainer project, even in the highly partisan halls of Congress.
“Like most who come to Washington for the first time, I assumed that this would not be a heavy lift,” McCaskill said in a recent interview with McClatchy. “I assumed that cleaning up war contracting and profiteering would be a consensus item that would fly through the process, and I learned quickly that that was very naive.”
This month – after half a dozen years of hearings, reports, overseas fact-finding trips, painful compromises and some last-minute, round-the-clock negotiating – the first substantial overhaul of the federal government’s wartime contracting practices since World War II finally became law, with McCaskill as its chief architect. The president signed it Jan. 2 as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the day before McCaskill, a Democrat, was sworn in for her second Senate term.
In the end, McCaskill didn’t get everything she wanted. Some of her proposals were dropped or scaled back, and she acknowledges that one consequence of the new law will be additional paperwork for the federal bureaucracy – without any additional funding. But she said the bill was among the most satisfying accomplishments of her Senate career.
January 19, 2013
A half finished police watchtower looms over Sharhi Buzurg, Afghanistan on Oct. 23, 2010
Kansas’ Black & Veatch, with history of problems in Afghanistan, now has another
By Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — An American contractor that came under fire several years ago for cost overruns and delays during the construction of a major U.S.-funded power plant in Afghanistan faces renewed criticism on another, much smaller project.
Engineering firm Black & Veatch of Overland Park, Kan., had blamed a subcontractor, Symbion Power, for holdups a few years back in construction of the Tarakhil power plant near Kabul, a $300 million project plagued by so many problems that critics nicknamed it “The White Elephant of Kabul.”
Symbion denied it was responsible for delays. The subcontractor was cleared of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation last year through arbitration, which awarded Symbion $7.3 million plus interest in damages and fees from Black & Veatch.
Black & Veatch’s latest trouble in Afghanistan comes with a federal audit, published in December, that determined that the company failed to provide an installation plan for millions of dollars in electrical equipment that sat unused for months in a warehouse near the city of Kandahar.
Kansas’ Black & Veatch, with history of problems in Afghanistan, now has another
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/01/19/180201/kansas-black-veatch-with-history.htmlA half finished police watchtower looms over Sharhi Buzurg, Afghanistan on Oct. 23, 2010
Kansas’ Black & Veatch, with history of problems in Afghanistan, now has another
By Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — An American contractor that came under fire several years ago for cost overruns and delays during the construction of a major U.S.-funded power plant in Afghanistan faces renewed criticism on another, much smaller project.
Engineering firm Black & Veatch of Overland Park, Kan., had blamed a subcontractor, Symbion Power, for holdups a few years back in construction of the Tarakhil power plant near Kabul, a $300 million project plagued by so many problems that critics nicknamed it “The White Elephant of Kabul.”
Symbion denied it was responsible for delays. The subcontractor was cleared of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation last year through arbitration, which awarded Symbion $7.3 million plus interest in damages and fees from Black & Veatch.
Black & Veatch’s latest trouble in Afghanistan comes with a federal audit, published in December, that determined that the company failed to provide an installation plan for millions of dollars in electrical equipment that sat unused for months in a warehouse near the city of Kandahar.
January 19, 2013
GAO Cannot Audit Federal Government, Cites Department Of Defense Problems
Luke Johnson
Ryan Grim
Posted: 01/18/2013 6:30 pm EST | Updated: 01/18/2013 7:55 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that it could not complete an audit of the federal government, pointing to serious problems with the Department of Defense.
Along with the Pentagon, the GAO cited the Department of Homeland Security as having problems so significant that it was impossible for investigators to audit it. The DHS got a qualified audit for fiscal year 2012, and is seeking an unqualified audit for 2013.
The report released by the GAO on Friday indicates serious accounting problems at two of the largest government agencies: the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense has a net cost of $799.1 billion to the federal budget, while the Department of Homeland Security has a net cost of $48.7 billion.
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations," the agency said. "As was the case in 2011, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable. The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies. The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements."
GAO Cannot Audit Federal Government, Cites Department Of Defense Problems
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/gao-audit-federal-government-defense_n_2507097.htmlGAO Cannot Audit Federal Government, Cites Department Of Defense Problems
Luke Johnson
Ryan Grim
Posted: 01/18/2013 6:30 pm EST | Updated: 01/18/2013 7:55 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that it could not complete an audit of the federal government, pointing to serious problems with the Department of Defense.
Along with the Pentagon, the GAO cited the Department of Homeland Security as having problems so significant that it was impossible for investigators to audit it. The DHS got a qualified audit for fiscal year 2012, and is seeking an unqualified audit for 2013.
The report released by the GAO on Friday indicates serious accounting problems at two of the largest government agencies: the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense has a net cost of $799.1 billion to the federal budget, while the Department of Homeland Security has a net cost of $48.7 billion.
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2012 consolidated financial statements of the federal government because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations," the agency said. "As was the case in 2011, the main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable. The federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies. The federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements."
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
