Reply
Thu 7 Oct, 2004 08:36 am
I don't have any real info on Haliburton other than what I hear. What I hear is that Haliburton basically performs functions which the US military used to perform for itself but is no longer able to due to the massive cuts which occurred during the Clinton administration, and that nobody else on the planet is able to perform those kinds of functions. I'd appreciate it if anybody else could elucidate this topic or provide any other information which wouldn't compromise anything and was publically available.
Assuming what I hear is true, then Bush and Cheney have missed two opportunities to say something about Haliburton in the debates, i.e. 1 that the present necessity for using Haliburton is due to actions of the Clinton administration and 2 that Haliburton employees have died in the effort to rebuild Iraq, and are sharing the dangers which our soldiers face.
Halliburton is a red herring.
They are under investigation because they once had Cheney as their CEO and they have, like many cost resimburseable contractors, overbilled the government in some instances and are accused of bribing foreign officials to get contracts (whoever heard of having to bribe a foreign official where the practice is customary and regular if you want to do business with or in their countries?)
Halliburton is not the only such business around, but they are preferred by the administration, and have provided such contract services to the government since the first Gulf War more than a decade ago. The "down-sizing" of the military is generally attributed, wrongly, to the Clinton administration. It is not that the military was not reduced in size during the Clinton admininstration, it is that such a statement misleads--one of Rumsfeld's priorities was to create a "leaner, more efficient" military. So Bush's administration reduced the size of the military as well. The functions which Halliburton receives payment for are often subcontracted by that organization, and are functions which armies traditionally have provided for themselves. It is not at all certain that any of this saves the taxpayers any money, either.
About 45 of their empoyees have been killed in Iraq.
Not to mention the deals done with Iran and Libya.
Say what you want about this being a 'red herring,' but the fact remains that Haliburton does tons of business with major supporters of terrorism.
Cycloptichorn
the clinton reference is partisan bullshit.....haliburton is a bush good buddy bed partner...they were involved in 41's big iraqi adventure before clinton
Yes, Larry. Hence the investigation.
Business done with supporters of terrorism is.
According to Bush, if you support terrorism, then you are with the terrorists. Haliburton does about 45 million dollars of business with Iran, who is widely regarded to be the largest state sponsor of terror, per year.
They should either a: respect US sanctions (they use an offshore company to get around this, oh, and also to not pay any taxes), or b: be treated like the terrorist supporters and sympathizers they are.
Cycloptichorn
sorry set...repeated you.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Business done with supporters of terrorism is.
According to Bush, if you support terrorism, then you are with the terrorists. Haliburton does about 45 million dollars of business with Iran, who is widely regarded to be the largest state sponsor of terror, per year.
They should either a: respect US sanctions (they use an offshore company to get around this, oh, and also to not pay any taxes), or b: be treated like the terrorist supporters and sympathizers they are.
Cycloptichorn
bush supporter trumps terrorist sympathizer.
They are also investigating Halliburton's overcharging the government. They've had to give some money back.
And I think they've been fined for doing business with Libya and Iran.
FreeDuck wrote:They are also investigating Halliburton's overcharging the government. They've had to give some money back.
True. But on cost reimburseable contracts that is not at all unusual. Such overcharges are often due to differences in understanding of contract terms and, also quite frequently, due to constructive changes by a COR (Contracting Officer's Representative) who directs work outside the scope of the contract....such as the direction to purchase fuel in Kuwait at higher prices than it could be obtained in Iraq.
How about the gross abuse known as overreporting time spent/hours worked?
There is evidence that this is going on constantly in Iraq right now per American contractors.
Not to mention the moral obligation that American companies should show to not work with terrorist supporters. How do they justify this?
Cycloptichorn
Let's face it; Cheney is a bold-faced liar. Why should ANYONE believe ANYTHING this man says anymore?
http://www.democrats.org/
Check out the video "Cheney vs. Reality."
It's amusing watching Larry434 try and defend this company from the raping of taxpayer dollars and doing illegal business with terrorist nations.
Dookiestix wrote:Let's face it; Cheney is a bold-faced liar. Why should ANYONE believe ANYTHING this man says anymore?
http://www.democrats.org/
Check out the video "Cheney vs. Reality."
It's amusing watching Larry434 try and defend this company from the raping of taxpayer dollars and doing illegal business with terrorist nations.
Just pointing out that investigations do not always result in a finding of wrongdoing. And that I disdain lyinchings without due process.
Glad you find that "amusing".
Care to respond to the question of moral obligations to not work with Terroists, Larry?
Cycloptichorn
I dunno, why do liberals continue to believe what Saddam says? I guess we conservatives just choose to believe American leaders instead of foriegn leaders.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace