And while we're on the subject, kids!

Can you hear Paul Lynde singing that tune in "Bye Bye Birdie"? No? Okay, never mind, because this isn't about kids.

It's about business as usual.

Profits to be made in Iraq now that we've gotten that evil Hussein out of the way....

The former law partner of the Defense Department's architect of Iraq's post-war planning has teamed up with the nephew of Ahmed Chalabi, a Pentagon-anointed leader in the country, to profit from the multibillion-dollar rebuilding of the war-ravaged nation.

L. Marc Zell, a Jerusalem-based attorney, is the former partner of Douglas Feith, the Pentagon undersecretary who was a major force behind the push for war.

Chalabi's nephew, Salem Chalabi, has set up a law firm in Baghdad and has boasted of daily contact with his uncle, who has emerged as a powerful figure in the new Iraqi interim government. Chalabi is a favorite of Pentagon hawks, including Feith, who pushed for Hussein's overthrow.

In an interview, Zell said Salem Chalabi owns the Baghdad law firm, while Zell helped create the idea and is marketing the firm to U.S. and other clients. Zell said his previous 15-year partnership with Feith, and Salem Chalabi's family ties, are separate from the work the pair is doing in Iraq.

Of course they are, hon.

The Zell-Salem Chalabi venture is just one of several firms with ties to the Bush administration and influential Iraqis hoping to profit from Iraq's reconstruction, a years-long project that World Bank and other estimates say will cost at least $56 billion.

Critics say the Zell-Chalabi effort in particular crosses an ethical line by appearing to play on family connections in Iraq to give clients a leg up in getting business. Coupled with no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected firms like Bechtel and Halliburton, critics say, these firms give credence to doubts expressed by skeptical allies and Iraqis over the Bush administration's true motives.

"The appearance of all this is terrible," said Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, a Washington-based government watchdog group. "It continues to harm our reputation at a time when we're trying to justify the appropriateness of going to war, when a lot of people are asking, 'Was this about making money for the United States?' "

Gee, Toto, do you think?

The multibillion-dollar reconstruction effort has unleashed what one Iraqi adviser called a "gold-rush mentality" among U.S. firms to get in first and fast. Those involved talk of seemingly limitless possibilities in rebuilding an economy left in shambles by Hussein's quarter-century rule and wars with the United States and Iran.

Baghdad has "not one single recognizable brand name, not one single oasis of quality, no brass, glass and steel office building, or a retail store you're familiar with - nothing," said a partner in a Washington firm called New Bridge Strategies. "One well-stocked 7-Eleven would put 30 Iraqi shops out of business." ["...a Wal-Mart could take over the country."]

New Bridge Strategies was created by a group of influential Republicans with close ties to the Bush family - including President George W. Bush's campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh - to tap into business in Iraq.

The firm's Web site notes that its partners have served in the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations, making them "particularly well-suited" to deal with the White House, Pentagon and Congress.

Oh, particularly well, I agree.

Of course, the dogpile that's happening to divvy up profits in Iraq has me wondering....who's gonna clean up the DU? Or aren't these companies concerned about doing business in a toxic wasteland? For some reason, the picture that comes to my mind is a swarm of flies collecting on a mound of dung.

Well, let's don't think about that right now, 'kay?

Let's ask these questions instead....

Last month the Iraqi Governing Council questioned why the American occupation authority had issued a $20 million contract to buy new revolvers and Kalashnikov rifles for the Iraqi police when the United States military was confiscating tens of thousands of weapons every month from Saddam Hussein's abandoned arsenals.

Wednesday the Iraqi council, in a testy exchange with the occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, challenged an American decision to spend $1.2 billion to train 35,000 Iraqi police officers in Jordan when such training could be done in Iraq for a fraction of the cost. Germany and France have offered to provide such training free.

These decisions are being questioned by Iraqi officials as Congress is also seeking to examine how the American occupation authority and the military are spending billions of dollars here. Iraqi officials and businessmen charge that millions of dollars in contracts are being awarded without competitive bidding, some of them to former cronies of Mr. Hussein's government.

"There is no transparency," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Governing Council, "and something has to be done about it.

"There is mismanagement right and left, and I think we have to sit with Congress face to face to discuss this. A lot of American money is being wasted, I think. We are victims and the American taxpayers are victims."

A number of businessmen say they believe it is necessary to pay kickbacks to win contracts.

Kickbacks. A tried and true business tactic if there ever was one.

As is hiring cheap labor - damn the locals! (Six in Ten Iraqis Unemployed, but U. S. Subcontractors Hire Cheap Migrant Laborers)

I wonder just how profitable all this business in Iraq is.

Profits earned by U.S. companies engaged in the multibillion-dollar reconstruction of Iraq are being kept secret from taxpayers and Congress.

Dozens of U.S. corporations working in Iraq are being paid under "cost-plus" contracts that reimburse them for their expenses while also awarding fees and bonuses.... While the contracts themselves are public records, many details are kept secret under federal acquisition regulations designed to protect trade secrets, U.S. officials said.

... "The [$87 billion] legislation will specify the amounts of money, but Congress won't have a clue how it is spent"...

Contractors insist their fees are modest and profit margins slim.

Of course they are, hon.

Critics say cost-plus contracts provide little incentive to economize, since profits grow as costs rise. A cost-plus contract encourages such practices as importing expensive building materials when local products could be used.

Didn't we just read that the Iraqi Governing Council had those very complaints?

"The failure of the (Bush) administration to respond to congressional requests has made it impossible for members of Congress to have a full understanding of how the administration is spending taxpayer dollars in Iraq."

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

No, I guess not.

How is a contractor's award used? We don't get to know - not even members of Congress get to know - although what they might do with the information other than use it for political ammunition in an election year, I can't imagine. All contractor data on "estimated costs, salaries and wages, fringe benefits for employees, overhead, fixed fees and bonuses" are considered "trade secrets", which if made public could "cause competitive harm".

Despite all the possible ugliness, in reality, it's working out well, isn't it?

In northern Iraq...U.S. Army commanders seeking to rebuild a local cement plant were told by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, working with American contractors, that the job would cost $15.1 million. Instead, the Army commanders turned to local Iraqis, who got the job done for $80,000, Waxman said.

More often, however, the work goes to U.S. contractors and sub-contractors.

A USAID report promised a "transparent monitoring and evaluation system to ensure that contractors are meeting their goals and staying on schedule."

But USAID has hired yet another contractor for $15 million to monitor other contractors' work.

I am definitely in the wrong business.

All this ugly business about business in Iraq is just depressing. But let it not be said that I am anti-business - before I retire for the night (I have to go watch that program on Dr. Butler), I shall recognize the plight of Coca Cola. There's profits to be made if those damned employees will keep their traps shut....

October 8, 2003

Coca-Cola has agreed to pay $540,000 to a former employee who claimed the company inflated its profits and knowingly sold contaminated drinks. The company agreed to the out of court settlement with former finance manager Matthew Whitley, who sued Coca-Cola for unfair dismissal.

Mr Whitley lost his job one month after making his whistleblowing allegations.

...Mr Whitley's allegations led the US Department of Justice to launch a criminal probe into the affair, which is still ongoing.

The former finance manager claimed Coke had inflated its earnings and that managers knew that frozen drinks machines led to metal residue entering some of its products.

Some of Mr Whitley's claims, including an accusation of a conspiracy to cheat shareholders, had already been thrown out of a US court in Georgia.

But Coke did confess to one of the allegations, admitting that its employees had rigged a marketing test in order to increase sales at Burger King.

Coke apologised to Burger King for faking the research and agreed to pay $21m (12m) in compensation.

Oops.

Personally, I don't drink much soda, but I always liked Pepsi better.

....you drink what you want....you will anyway....