Many people, by now, have heard about the perfidy of Richard B. Cheney who went from soliciting government contracts at Halliburton to awarding government contracts to Halliburton.

Well, I had fervently wanted to believe that this sort of thing wasn't true, that Americans were better than that, and that we wouldn't just go and beat the stuffing out of some country merely to give a services company in Texas something to do. Call it me being subject to needing a 'moral cause' to fight for, something that Richard Nixon outlined as being quintessentially American.¹

At any rate, I continued to hope that the ravings of the anti-corporatist Left weren't true. Lo and behold, David Brooks delivereth me from concern and returneth me to my prior heights of scorn, mockery, and sneering. In his latest broadcast from behind enemy lines (i.e. the occupied city of New York), Mr. Brooks has the following to say:

The problem with the story is that it's almost entirely untrue. As Daniel Drezner recently established in Slate, there is no statistically significant correlation between the companies that made big campaign contributions and the companies that have won reconstruction contracts.

The most persuasive rebuttals have come from people who actually know something about the government procurement process.

...

The fact is that unlike the Congressional pork barrel machine, the federal procurement system is a highly structured process, which is largely insulated from crass political pressures. The idea that a Bush political appointee can parachute down and persuade a large group of civil servants to risk their careers by steering business to a big donor is the stuff of fantasy novels, not reality.

...

But answering these questions would mean coming up with a positive vision of how to better proceed with our reconstruction efforts. Instead the Democratic presidential candidates are content simply to repeat demagogic and misleading applause lines.

The lesson of this Halliburton business is that some parts of our government really do make their decisions on the merits. And just because a story makes you popular doesn't make it true.

A few comments:
1. Neener neener, Dennis Kucininch; the Child Mayor of Cincinnati gets it wrong. Again. This is a recurring theme here.
2. Maybe the Left thinks the civil service bureaucracy is rife with Republican subversion, but I'd be more willing to bet that the progeny of the Great Society and the Clinton Administration are ready, willing, and able to throw a monkey wrench in any such scheme. It's difficult to imagine that someone wouldn't get the word out to somebody "on the outside", namely Henry Waxman, or a member of the Fourth Estate, who would gladly skewer the Bush Administration if there were any factual basis. And no, Paul Krugman doesn't count. I said 'factual basis' for a reason, you know. (Perhaps you should have said 'rooted in reality, give or take a few dimensions. It is Krugman that you're talking about. -Ed.)
3. Mr. Brooks continues to be useful in his op-ed position, and perhaps he'll pull Safire back to his old roots. Like the slow replication of Smith, soon the New York Times will be ours! (Cue the evil laughter.)

Therefore, all is good and well in the Republic, at least until Dennis Kucininch needs another applause line. Is it just me, or does he look like the guy who was chronically getting his lunch money taken from him in elementary school?

1 Not to imply that I'm not capable of supporting military action solely out of a cold-blooded calculation of the national interest, mind you. I just like having something to toss out to the audience that doesn't make me sound like Fail-Safe's Professor Groeteschele; call it 'HAL-9000 with a human face'. I can't hide behind a wickedly sinister accent like Doctor Kissinger, so verbal comedy has to suffice. HAK, you lucky devil.

Click-of-the-tongue-and-point-of-the-finger to Kevin Patrick at Blogs for Bush for pointing this article out.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds provides his usual level of service and sets me on the road to a more complete entry. Check his post here to view his post, which set me on the road to finding the following:

The Daniel Drezner Slate piece Mr. Brooks references can be found here. Mr. Drezner has further commentary upon the issue at his personal blog. Click here for further details. Boy, is it fun to drive a series of nails into the coffin of that particular meme., and with a pneumatically-powered nail gun. (Shades of Lethal Weapon 2 or the original Quake by id Software!)

At any rate, even if there is some smoke here, any potential concerns ought to be swept away. It's only normal that friends of any Administration get a wee little preferential boost when compared to a company that, being otherwise equal, didn't write a check to the campaign. If that sort of thing offends one's moral conscience, I can't help that. It is the very nature of politics. Duh. Deal. I've got a personally-acceptable level of favoritism, and what I seem to understand from Messrs. Drezner & Brooks as fact doesn't approach that level.

"This isn't the corruption you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along..."

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 6 kb.