1
   

Haliburton rips us off!!!

 
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 11:03 pm
Re: Since you brought that up
I'm not aware of any Halliburton no-bid contracts under Clinton.

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 11:28 pm
The problem seems to be that Halliburton has frequently overcharged in the past. My outrage (er regt mich auf, if you will) is due to Halliburton remaining on tthe DOD's list of approved contractors with that reputation for fraud. They should have been removed during Bush I.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2003 01:17 am
Re: Since you brought that up
CerealKiller wrote:
Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?'evil' regime. The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I. Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)

And now they're being rewarded for this?

CerealKiller wrote:
In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.

I was aware of this but it was a continuation of work that was already in progress.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2003 01:32 am
Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. Odd, isn't it. The same people who are screaming about Halliburton right now had absolutely nothing .. nada .. nunca .. not one thing to say about Halliburton when it was the Clinton Administration that was handing out contracts .. with no bidding, by the way. You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton. Gore's reinventing government panel had some very complimentary things to say about Halliburton and the services it provides to the U.S. government.

In 2001 it becomes time for bidding on the LOGCAP contract again. Halliburton is right in there, and wins the bid. This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government. They were the go-to company. So, along comes the U.S. Army with a fat contract for Halliburton to put out oil-well fires in Iraq and all hell breaks loose. To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2003 01:33 am
Even if and when the Bush regime is booted out in November, I will be very surprised if any of its members end up charged with anything. The connections to sitting members of the legislative branch that the big coroporations have will likely prevent anything being done.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:53 am
The rest of the story...

New details are emerging that suggest the energy giant Halliburton did not overcharge the Defense Department for fuel in Iraq ?- contrary to the claims of critics in Congress and in the field of Democratic presidential candidates.

The Pentagon is investigating allegations that Halliburton overcharged it by $61 million for gasoline and other fuels delivered to Iraq. Halliburton delivered gasoline to Iraq from Kuwait at a price of $2.27 per gallon, while it delivered gas from Turkey for $1.18 per gallon.

The obvious question raised by the discrepancy was: Why would Halliburton deliver high-priced fuel from Kuwait when it could be obtained at a much lower price from Turkey?

The company says it did so because the Army demanded that it deliver fuel from Kuwait. "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said to find a fuel source in Kuwait," Halliburton said in a press release yesterday. "[Halliburton] sought and received bids from four suppliers in Kuwait. One met the Corps' specification, and that is the one the Corps approved."

But why did the Corps specify that fuel be delivered from Kuwait? The answer appears to lie with the nature of fuel shortages that swept Iraq in the late spring. After the war, the country's oil refineries were operating far below capacity. Both gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas, which millions of Iraqis use for cooking, were in very short supply.

American officials feared that the shortages might spark civil unrest. Of particular concern was Basra, the city in southern Iraq that had seen increasingly violent expressions of popular anger against coalition forces. According to a source in the Corps of Engineers, in May, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, leader of American forces in Iraq, demanded that fuel be supplied to Basra ?- fast.

"The initial import of fuel was in response to a request from General Sanchez to do this because there was an uprising in Basra over the lack of gas and cooking fuel," says the Corps source. "Basra is near the Kuwaiti border. The fastest way to get it there is Kuwait. So we directed them [Halliburton] to do that."

"Basra was a flash point; we were close to civil unrest," the source continues. "Probably at the time we didn't care what it cost, because we were trying to stop a riot. Cost was probably not an issue."

But the rest of Iraq was suffering from fuel shortages as well. On May 8, in an article headlined, "Angry Iraqis Blame U.S. for Fuel Shortage," the Washington Post reported on a "ubiquitous scene" in Iraq: "lines that stretch toward dusty horizons as people wait for gasoline, a problem that confronts U.S. authorities with both a complex engineering challenge and a continuing threat to their prestige."

Soon the U.S. military was ordering fuel shipments to the rest of Iraq as well. While the Kuwaiti source is relatively close to Basra, it is a great distance from northern Iraq, which made for very long shipping lines. And the violent insurgency then beginning inside Iraq made the work not only expensive but also dangerous for the crews hired by Halliburton to deliver the fuel.

"Not many people want to drive eight to fifteen days through a war zone with a truck full of flammable materials," the company says. "Three drivers have been killed and many others injured while performing this mission, and 60 vehicles have been damaged."

As a result, Halliburton officials say they came up with the idea of arranging for another fuel source in Turkey. "[Halliburton] initiated the idea to source fuel from Turkey," the company says. [Halliburton] presented this idea to its customer, and because of this, saved taxpayers well over $100 million."

Since that time, fuel has come into Iraq from both sources. According to both the Corps and Halliburton, neither country can, on its own, provide the amount of fuel needed inside Iraq.

So far, Halliburton says, about two-thirds of the fuel delivered to Iraq has come from Turkey, at the lower price, and about one-third has come from Kuwait, at the higher price. Given those proportions, Halliburton says the average fuel cost from both Turkey and Kuwait has been $1.60 per gallon, "well within what auditors think it should be."

Although Halliburton's actions have been intensely criticized by the administration's opponents, the Pentagon says it has not found any wrongdoing. Said Defense Department comptroller Dov Zakheim on Tuesday, "From what I've seen so far...I have no basis whatsoever to see anything nefarious."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 11:56:27