No relation between politics and no-bid contracts? Help me out here!

[JHB]

From today's NYTimes Op-Ed:

Cynics Without a Cause
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 11, 2003
The riff was laid down by Dennis Kucinich, but now all the candidates are playing along. Howard Dean says the Halliburton contracts show that the Bush administration "has sold this country down the river." John Kerry says the administration has broken faith with the American people with its no-bid contracts with Halliburton. In the parade of Democratic bogeymen, the word "Halliburton" elicits almost as many hisses as the chart-topping "Ashcroft."

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.
--more--
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/opinion/11BROO.html

Gee, if there's no relation, how do well-connected politicos end up in the top reaches of their corporate structures, not just hard-workn' guys who know their business?

Does anyone at DU have the proper facts in hand to properly debunk this "move along, nothing to see here" spin of the day?

[mikehiggins]

1. almost entirely untrue

Another NYT hedge, along with "no statistically significant correlation".

Sort of like saying 1000 helicopters crashed in 2003; "no statistically significant correlation" of the claim US aircraft under attack in Iraq.

Was this the same op-ed piece that claimed the "process" of government contract letting prevented any collusion? Some guy who used to be a contract officer wrote that one.

Do we see another Rove initiative here, or is there no statistically significant correlation to the number of articles appearing that attempt to deny any profiteering going on?

More administration lies.

George Bush: if his lips are moving, he's lying.

[JHB]

2. Not the same, but still sort of is...

Was this the same op-ed piece that claimed the "process" of government contract letting prevented any collusion? Some guy who used to be a contract officer wrote that one.

Not the same one, but Brooks parrots two recent ones (in Slate and the WashPost), assuming they actually say what he says they do (not a given).

Do we see another Rove initiative here, or is there no statistically significant correlation to the number of articles appearing that attempt to deny any profiteering going on?

Nothing to see here! Your wise and divinely-chosen President is correct in all things, and always has been. Move along and keep consuming. </sarcasm>