Halliburton pulled from Iraqi oil contract

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Oil
Democrats who want to oust Bush. There is only weak evidence of collusion, but it is there, and it is damning. If it is not true, then our government is incompetent. You choose.Originally posted by Zero Well, I dealt with it before...the deal was set up, Halliburton cheated like crazy, they are still handling other contracts BTW...and their behavior and the lack of oversight until after the fact, is either evidence of government incompetence, or government collusion. There is nothing that says busting Halliburton after the info got leaked to the public can count as a positive sign for anyone...except the Democrats who want to oust Bush. There is only weak evidence of collusion, but
  • #1
member 5645
http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickab.../30/sprj.nitop.halliburton.ap/&partnerID=2004


WASHINGTON (AP) --The Defense Department is removing the Army Corps of Engineers from overseeing oil imports into Iraq, acting just weeks after Pentagon auditors said Halliburton -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm -- may have overcharged taxpayers under the Corps' supervision.

The Defense Energy Support Center, which buys fuel for the military throughout the world, will supervise the replacement of Halliburton and the award of a new contract for the imports, the center said Tuesday.

"We're taking over the mission," said the center's spokeswoman, Lynette Ebberts. She would not comment on whether the audit prompted the change, which was ordered December. 23.

Democratic lawmakers have been highly critical of the prices charged the U.S. government by Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, which has been importing refined petroleum products into Iraq under a mission awarded without competitive bids. Cheney headed Halliburton before running for vice president.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department's auditing agency supported the Democrats' allegations, finding the company may have charged up to $61 million too much for delivering gasoline to Iraqi citizens.

President Bush tried to calm the controversy, saying Halliburton should repay the government if it overcharged for fuel, which was imported from Iraq's neighboring countries.

Halliburton has said it expected to be cleared by the Defense Department. The company said its pricing resulted from a contract with a Kuwaiti firm, the only company approved as a supplier by the Corps.

Halliburton got its contract to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry as an outgrowth of a contract with the Army to provide emergency logistical help for situations such as the Iraq war. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the oil rebuilding process to competitive bidding earlier this year and was preparing to award up to $2 billion in replacement contracts.

Richard J. Connelly, director of the support center, said the existing contract would remain in place for now, so that fuel deliveries will not be interrupted.

Corps spokesman Robert Faletti said, "I don't believe the report had anything to do with the transfer."

The support center said it would award contracts under competitive bidding, a process that could take two to three months, but would consider a short-term contract until the bids are awarded.


Question - does this mean that the Iraq war wasn't really there just so Cheney could feed a lot of money to Halliburton??
I mean, between Halliburton being out of the bidding for the largest contract in Iraq, and now this, what evidence is there left that this alleged conflict of interest exists?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by phatmonky
http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickab.../30/sprj.nitop.halliburton.ap/&partnerID=2004





Question - does this mean that the Iraq war wasn't really there just so Cheney could feed a lot of money to Halliburton??
I mean, between Halliburton being out of the bidding for the largest contract in Iraq, and now this, what evidence is there left that this alleged conflict of interest exists?
Your question doesn't make sense...Halliburton was busted for war profiteering, which in your eyes disproves that there was a conflict of interest? You may seriously want to run that past someone you trust, and see what they think about your logic.
 
  • #3


Originally posted by Zero
Your question doesn't make sense...Halliburton was busted for war profiteering, which in your eyes disproves that there was a conflict of interest? You may seriously want to run that past someone you trust, and see what they think about your logic.
Nothing like jumping to a conclusion, asking a question, and answering it yourself, is there? :)



War Profiteering? You mean the alleged 61 million that hasn't been proven? They haven't been busted at all, simply removed while investigated. I haven't seen anything paid back, or proof that they were - simply an investigation.

I'll be happy to get on Halliburton's ass if they were overcharging, but $3.00/gal when there was only one authorized source, to deliver gasoline in the middle of warzone isn't ringing my bell yet.

The logic goes as follows:

Supposedly the Iraq war was all about money, and Cheney's oil cronies just couldn't wait to sink their teeth.
Initially Halliburton lost the largest contract offered in Iraq (actually dropped out, didn't get outbid!), now they are taken off this lucrative contract, and being investigated. Show me how Cheney is covering Halliburton's ass, and how Halliburton is doign so well from Iraq? They are being taken off contracts, and under a publicized DOD investigation. I don't see favoritism here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Seems to me like you want your idea to be true, but the evidence is either neutral, or supports the OPPOSITE of your position. In no way would it support your position, as far as I can see.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Zero
Seems to me like you want your idea to be true, but the evidence is either neutral, or supports the OPPOSITE of your position. In no way would it support your position, as far as I can see.

You could try expanding on this.

The only evidence that Halliburton might get favoritism is because CHeney is the ex CEO, and both Cheney and Bush have been in the oil industry.

I would say the actions I have previously stated are sufficent to say that there's some signs of NO favoritism, but you don't even specifically respond to them. You are simply saying "no."
 
  • #6
Originally posted by phatmonky
You could try expanding on this.

The only evidence that Halliburton might get favoritism is because CHeney is the ex CEO, and both Cheney and Bush have been in the oil industry.

I would say the actions I have previously stated are sufficent to say that there's some signs of NO favoritism, but you don't even specifically respond to them. You are simply saying "no."
Well, I dealt with it before...the deal was set up, Halliburton cheated like crazy, they are still handling other contracts BTW...and their behavior and the lack of oversight until after the fact, is either evidence of government incompetence, or government collusion. There is nothing that says busting Halliburton after the info got leaked to the public can count as a positive sign for anyone involved.
 
  • #7
Well said Zero...

Isn't it funny that if nothing had come to light about Halliburtons'
profiteering- it would still be going on! [b(] Cheney is pretty quiet lately, likely because media investigators found out he was still on the Halliburton payroll(so to speak). If there are American companies as good as Halliburton in the areas of service the Pentagon hired them for... why or how is it that coincidental to its award of a lucrative no-bid contract in a postion to influence the awarding Cheney(defered CEO and (one of its)chief stock holder)was pumping the war with Iraq with false oand/or misleading disinformation to the public at large.
 
  • #8


Originally posted by amp
If there are American companies as good as Halliburton in the areas of service the Pentagon hired them for...

There are a lot of assumptions in your post, with this being the largest of them. Halliburton IS good at what they do. I have worked in the gas/oil industry, in Houston no less (middle of it all), and Halliburton has a rep for quality, despite the constant negativity about them from the left :)
 
  • #9
That is not what I pointed out... although more opinionated than assumed

I know Halliburton is good at what they do, what my questioned asked was are there others at least equally competent? Is Halliburton the only such company?
...likely because media investigators found out he was still on the Halliburton payroll(so to speak).
This has been in newspapaers around the country and is old news more than once. Wasn't Cheney suppossed to cut all relevant connections to Halliburton when he became VP? Didn't he say he did? Didn't the media discover later he mislead them and in fact hadn't truly cut ties of conflicted interest? Question, is he still Halliburtons man on the inside?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Anyone know what exactly is his current connection to Haliburton?
 
  • #11
The problem is impropriety and the resulting profiteering.

1) Halliburton did not even need to bid for the contract.

2) Cheney was CEO. Whether he has shares still, I do not know. However, I would bet that his close associates are in there. Hie pockets won't be going empty.

3) Halliburton has been busted for its crappy practices.
 
  • #12
So anyone want to show me where the current investigation came to an end, and halliburton was found guilty?
 
  • #13
Well, duh. Investigations are under way.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by phatmonky
So anyone want to show me where the current investigation came to an end, and halliburton was found guilty?
That is pretty much besides the point, isn't it?
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Zero
That is pretty much besides the point, isn't it?

Considering that just about every response to this thread is based on assumptive guilt of halliburton, I'm going to say no.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by phatmonky
Considering that just about every response to this thread is based on assumptive guilt of halliburton, I'm going to say no.
You would...the point is that it was very obvious to anyone who was looking that the Halliburton deal was shady from the start, since Cheney's connection to them has always been a bit under the table(He still works for them, and profits from their success).
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Zero
1>You would...


2>the point is that it was very obvious to anyone who was looking that the Halliburton deal was shady from the start, since Cheney's connection to them has always been a bit under the table(He still works for them, and profits from their success).

1>I see our lovely mentor is not above making snied remarks...


2>shady? a but under the table? Is this the sort of 'proof' that halliburton is up against in their investigation right now? If so, I guess there is nothing to worry about.


I own Halliburton stock - I profit from their success too!
 
  • #18
Originally posted by phatmonky
Considering that just about every response to this thread is based on assumptive guilt of halliburton, I'm going to say no.

Like the bit about Halliburton being given the contract without bidding? Or the bit about them using vastly inflated prices? or the bit about Cheney's involvement in the company?
 
  • #19
Originally posted by phatmonky
1>I see our lovely mentor is not above making snied remarks...


2>shady? a but under the table? Is this the sort of 'proof' that halliburton is up against in their investigation right now? If so, I guess there is nothing to worry about.


I own Halliburton stock - I profit from their success too!
So does Cheney...which gives the distinct impression of impropriety and corruption. And of course, you know the saying "where there's smoke, there's fire".
 
  • #20
Actually, the truth may be worse than simple stealing money from our pockets...the government may have suggested that Halliburton buy the more expensive oil, screwing taxpayers out of the cash for cheap political posturing. Go figure, huh?
 
  • #21
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/01/07/rtr1202085.html [Broken]

But I guess this is realyl just a government cover up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Originally posted by Zero
the government may have suggested that Halliburton buy the more expensive oil, screwing taxpayers out of the cash for cheap political posturing. Go figure, huh?

The company said its pricing resulted from a contract with a Kuwaiti firm, the only company approved as a supplier by the Corps.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by phatmonky
The company said its pricing resulted from a contract with a Kuwaiti firm, the only company approved as a supplier by the Corps.

Which is idiotic, since Turkey was willing to accept the contract at a lower price...somebody is acting against the interests of the American people here...
 
  • #24
There seems to be some problems with some of the assumptions that are being made here by some people. But first a few questions..

1. Several people have made claims that Cheney still profits from Halliburtion. I have yet to see anyone show how he is still profiting...and yet the claim is continued to be made. So for those of you who've made this claim...Where's the proof??

2. What connection did Clinton and his V.P(jeeez, I forget what was the V.P.s name? ) have with Halliburtion when during the Clinton administration they issued a temporary no-bid contract to KBR (the same Halliburtion subsidary we are using now) to continue its work in the Balkans?

and
3. Any of you familiar with the manner in which "logcap" works in the world of government procurement?
 
  • #25
Originally posted by kat
There seems to be some problems with some of the assumptions that are being made here by some people. But first a few questions..

1. Several people have made claims that Cheney still profits from Halliburtion. I have yet to see anyone show how he is still profiting...and yet the claim is continued to be made. So for those of you who've made this claim...Where's the proof??

2. What connection did Clinton and his V.P(jeeez, I forget what was the V.P.s name? ) have with Halliburtion when during the Clinton administration they issued a temporary no-bid contract to KBR (the same Halliburtion subsidary we are using now) to continue its work in the Balkans?

and
3. Any of you familiar with the manner in which "logcap" works in the world of government procurement?

1) They still pay him about a million a year, and he has millions invested in a mutual fund that is one of Halliburton's biggest investors.

2)I don't know, and I really don't care...and it is a logical fallacy to mention Clinton, and leads me to believe that you may have no interest in or capacity for a logical discussion.

3)No, would you care to explain it to us?
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Zero
1) They still pay him about a million a year, and he has millions invested in a mutual fund that is one of Halliburton's biggest investors.

2)I don't know, and I really don't care...and it is a logical fallacy to mention Clinton, and leads me to believe that you may have no interest in or capacity for a logical discussion.

3)No, would you care to explain it to us?

1. Thanks for the link. I'll study it later.

2. You know..you've had to eat your words more then once when you've jumped to the conclusion that my interest was in reducing the guilt of one administration by pointing out the errors of the Clinton administration. You're about to have to do that again. I am suggesting that the same reasons that they were chosen for a no-bid contract by the Clinton Admin for Balkans(if not due to personal connections) are probably just as valid in regards to another admin giving them a no-bid contract for work in Iraq today. It's a bit more logical then ignoring the possibly viable reasons of one administrations in order to condemn another.

3. I'm not really sure, but I intend to find out more as it seems to be connected with much of the work done by Halliburtion and it's subsidiaries. It's the manner in which the government bids out work but instead of specific jobs it covers certain applications and the bid is for a period of time, inclusive of all of that type of application for the period of time. Evidently Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, won an open bid competition for this contract that is called the "Logcap", and is awarded every few years. KBR won the competition in 1992. It lost to DynCorp in 1997, and won it again in 2001. I"m not sure of any specifics other then this but I'm curious.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Zero
1) They still pay him about a million a year...
I'd like to see that substantiated - its the most important part of the question. All I see from that link is that he MAY receive deferred payment sometime in the future as part of his golden parachute.

The mutual fund thing is kinda rediculous. Millions of Americans own mutual funds (don't you?). Vanguard is one of the biggest.

kat - seems like a new tactic from you: 'put up or shut up' (your "sailor mongering" post was a true gem). We should be doing more of that because we scored some big hits this week. I tend to let wild accusations go because (like with science vs pseudoscience) I generally consider them beneath me. But when we let them go, people keep saying them, and eventually people start thinking they are true since no one is saying they are false (or at least asking for the proof).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Originally posted by russ_watters
I'd like to see that substantiated - its the most important part of the question. All I see from that link is that he MAY receive deferred payment sometime in the future as part of his golden parachute.

The mutual fund thing is kinda rediculous. Millions of Americans own mutual funds (don't you?). Vanguard is one of the biggest.

kat - seems like a new tactic from you: 'put up or shut up' (your "sailor mongering" post was a true gem). We should be doing more of that because we scored some big hits this week. I tend to let wild accusations go because (like with science vs pseudoscience) I generally consider them beneath me. But when we let them go, people keep saying them, and eventually people start thinking they are true since no one is saying they are false (or at least asking for the proof).
You didn't score any "hits". If your intent is to "score hits", you can stop posting here, ok?
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Zero
You didn't score any "hits". If your intent is to "score hits", you can stop posting here, ok?
What, you don't try to win arguements? Sure.

But call it - 'flagging BS' if you want to call it something different. Either way, its fun when you back out of an debate when you get pressed and cornered. I like watching you squirm.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by russ_watters
What, you don't try to win arguements? Sure.

But call it - 'flagging BS' if you want to call it something different. Either way, its fun when you back out of an debate when you get pressed and cornered. I like watching you squirm.
You've never seen me squirm..I've watched you lie a lot though, and seen kat plagerize a time or two...bugger off, chum.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
80
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top