« Value for the Money? The Defense Budget Blackhole | Main | Pandemic Flu Still Poses Major Threat »

May 07, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef00e5522d0d4a8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Internal Draft Document Reveals Bloch-Headedness:

Comments

Harry Hippie

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. I applaud this media outlet for getting at the truth of the matter. Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this thing. Go to donsiegelman.com for the rest of the story.

senorthrill

Whistleblower Protection means protection for miscreant federal personnel. Google "FedGovCrooks" for further information.

anonomous in Iraq

I can't tell you how happy I was to hear that the FBI finally went in and nabbed Bloch and his associates.

Thanks to to people at POGO for assisting in that effort. GREAT JOB

KSBR I

To "Ms/Mr Anonymous" on May 7 re settlements labeled by POGO as instances of wrong-doing.

Lawyers tend to be literalists. Words matter. They use that operating style--not a bad one actually, unless you want to spin or be spun or believe in spinning, a la, "that depends on what the meaning of is is"--for their own purposes. Legal counsel in the government do it, K street lawyers do it. Surely, with such expert advice, settlements mean something.

Settlements mean some form of agreeing to disagree, and the matter is closed. The formality of outstanding allegations goes away. The "evidence" put forward--which could have been found to be true and compelling--or not--in a trial does not go away. You are free to re-use it, at your own risk, I suppose. For example, you can still tag a company -- or a government official-- for misbehavior with that very same set of purported facts, but the fact remains that all they are is allegations, unproven, however inviting they may be to believe.

A straight, conservative KO or SSA would not be using such information if s/he takes the FAR and his/her warrant or appointment seriously. On the other hand, a trial verdict, a fine paid, a criminal conviction, a contract termination for cause, or a conviction for mooning in the public square--all that could be used, for example, to find a potential awardee not responsible, or to disqualify some of its proposed examples of pertinent past performance.

Supermarket tabloids, cable news pundits, and their ilk misapply allegations all the time. If you want to engage in that, fine. You'll be in the same category as Rush, Billo, and Hillary Clinton.

But you might want to engage in a little caution when you smear a corporation or individuals with a settlement with things you haven't been proven or which are not "clear on their face." There are the things you want contracting officers and source evaluation panels to judge up or down. You could be wrong, you could be unfair, you could be sued. But most of all, you'd be really sleazy. If that's your style, have at it.

Does this make any sense to you?

KSBR I,

Your reference to POGO's "catalog"and staff is misplaced and silly. Are we to assume that every settlement made between the government and a contractor is baseless and shouldn't be public because the contractor fails to admit wrongdoing? I don't think so! POGO's catalog might have some flaws, but even the GAO (GAO-05-479) and Paul Denett (M-06-26) think that government officials should share administrative agreements. I'll assume that they mean all administrative agreements, and not just those in which the contractor admits wrongdoing. Are they biased and lack facts too? Is POGO really that far off here?

KSBR intergalactic

To CtheC,

Working for POGO may not be a good enough resume item, in the view of the NYT, because of possible inference of bias and lack of respect for the facts, for example, producing the catalog of contractor wrongdoing that includes settlements with no proof or admission of wrongdoing authored by Scott Amey. Outside of that, even if she had nothing to do with the catalog, she might make a swell reporter.

Whaddya think?

Connie the Contractor

Another coup by Beverley. Why is she not working at the New York Times?

The comments to this entry are closed.