What happened while I was gone?

Back from Berkeley. I had to get into a cab to race to campus to teach a class. Just sitting down now and catching my breath for the first time. So, a very belated thanks to David Brooks for citing my recent Slate essay in today’s column. I first heard about it via my brother, for those who care [You mean Brooks didn’t give you a heads-up?–ed. It’s funny, people who’ve congratulated me on this are assuming I know Brooks. I’d like to, but as of now we’ve never communicated.] For those New York Times op-ed readers expecting to find more on the subject here, go to this post, which was the genesis of the Slate article. Then click over to this post, which elaborates on a few points that got cut from the Slate essay, and deals with the inevitable statistical contretemps that such essays produce. Finally, click here for a further discussion of Halliburton and Bechtel — there’s some stuff there that Brooks did not mention in his able op-ed today that nevertheless bolsters his case. [You know that David Adesnik already did this for you–ed. D’oh! Advantage: Adesnik!] UPDATE: Via Tom Maguire, I find this letter to the editor of the Washington Post from Bill Allison, the “managing editor [?] at the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, responding to the Steven Kelman op-ed. A similar statement has now been placed at the bottom of my Slate piece. Among the key tidbits:

While we did not argue that there is a quid pro quo relationship between contributions and contracts, the public has a right to know who is trying to influence the government…. No one has a clear picture of what’s going on with the awarding of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some in the government have admitted as much. “Now the whole contracting procedure is confusing,” John Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international security, told a London conference in mid-October, when he announced a new office under the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq that is supposed to bring order to the process. “This new procedure we hope is going to bring greater accountability and transparency.”

If CPI’s story is now that there needs to be more transparency in the bidding process, that’s fine with me — I say, here, here. However, while I will flatly concede that they never use the words “clear quid pro quo,” that’s what they’re implying. Stating that, “There is a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan” sounds like a completely different kind of accusation from one of a lack of transparency. The first charge implies disorganization and inefficiency. The second charge implies malfeasance and, well, quid pro quo corruption. The first graf of the CPI report reads:

More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush—a little over $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.

The link between campaign contributions and contracts was also the lead of all of the initial media coverage of the report. I’d say it was pretty damn clear that CPI was implying a quid pro quo.