Halliburton Handed No-Bid Iraqi Oil Firefighting Contract

That's old news. Or is this an attempt to start a flame war?

Nice choice of flame pics. Sideus awarded 5 points.

The date on the article says the 25th. Sorry if this has been posted/discussed before.

It has been. And perhaps commondreams.org isn't the most "open-minded" source you could get.

I have no problem with people getting news from "indy" sources, but there are some on the left and some on the right.

If you want to convince people of a point, I think it would be more effective to find a Bush Admin bashing article on a centrist to right site. Finding such an article on commondreams or indymedia would be like finding Clinton bashing on NewsMax.

lol

Just curious, but how come if Colin Powell drew a few connections (weak, but still connections) between terrorism and Iraq, people say, "No, that's not EVIDENCE..." The'd practically need to see Saddam and Bin Laden in bed together...literally.

But Cheney/Haliburton, all it takes is Haliburton doing what it does - getting contracts to do work - and it's a CONSPIRACY!!

I WOULD be suspiscious if Haliburton was paid by the US government for doing NOTHING. But they are going to do a job.

Sheesh.

OK, present your evidence of a Saddam/AQ connection. I don't need to see them in bed together.

just wanted to comment that even though this is "not about oil", you have this awarded contract, you have the "food for oil" program, you have Franks stating his objective is the "prize of protecting the northern oil fields" in the same way he has secured the southern oil fields.

I know, I know, all the pro-war people say this is not all about oil...but I keep scratching my head: why is this a PRIORITY well and above any other objective?
I could be reading this wrong, but I don't think so.

Oh Lerk, it isn't as though it is complicated. Oil = the Iraqi economy.

In any invasion, a key objective is always securing major economic infrastructure. Think of the importance the Allies attached to capturing the Ruhr, for example.

Not only does capturing the oil fields put pressure on the current Iraqi regime, a key objective in and of itself. But more importantly, they also will be the key to Iraq's future once the new regime is in place. That doesn't mean the purpose of the war is about capturing the oil fields, but once the war starts, their existance can't be ignored just to avoid the prattling of the "no blood for oil" crowd.

That's the way it works in Leftworld(TM).

Actually, Halliburton has now been taken out of the running for that contract, precisely to avoid conflicts of interest.

Sorry, conspiracy theorists.

Shucks.

sorry, you didnt read far enough into the article:

Aha! Leftworld, there is hope!

ah rightworld, you can continue to stick your head in the sand and pretend there are no agendas in Iraq.



btw: I have a brooklyn bridge to sell you, you gullible fellas.

And I have some swampy land in Louisiana ( I really do! - deep in the ArkLaTex).

Wanna make an offer?

Looks like you've already been had

Naah, the error was a few generations ago. Stupid Dutch ancestors with nostalgia for being below sea level, I guess.

So, are you still saying that the only way that Halliburton could have gotten a contract is through it's contacts with Cheney?

If their connection is so powerful, they would have gotten the contract. Now, subcontracts are usually awarded by the company that got the contract. So, the Administration would have to have pull with whoever wins the contract.

I guess Halliburton should just go out of business. It's the only FAIR thing to do.

Poor Haliburton, shut out of that $600 million project. They'll just have to make do with their current $7 billion one.
Source is that notorious left-wing bunch, the AP.

Envy is a terrible thing.

This thread, posted back in march, talked about people's concerns about Halliburton. Concerns which only took 8 months to be realized.

Why, exactly did you quote me when you said this?

I usually pick a representative post, interesting to me personally either because of its spot on predictive content or how situations have changed since the thread started.
When the thread started, you among other people, did not think the cronyism would come to pass as it has.
There's no criticism of you in particular, since none of us (except maybe me ) had crystal balls at the time. I just find it interesting how the threads were back then, and how those conversations relate to what we have learned since then.

I didn't mean anything untoward, if that came across for some reason, I apologize.

Was just curious...

However, is it possible in your worldview that Halliburton or Bechtel are ever QUALIFIED to get work, or is it all a function of cronyism?

For example, when Halliburton was given contracts in Bosnia, when Clinton was President, was that cronyism?

When Al Gore cited Halliburton as an exmaple of "reinventing Government" - was that cronyism?

Halliburton contracts for rebuilding go back to the Kennedy years...maybe further.

Point being that not everything is because of Cheney and the evil neo-cons. Sometimes, a company such as Halliburton is the most qualified. It's actually quite frequently the case. Does it help to know poeple in high places? Sure. But it's not the ONLY reason for getting work. It's not like they aren't qualified.

I agree, but you are wasting your time.

I just "celebrated" my 3000th post today. I've been wasting lots of time.

you can be qualified, and still be a crony. The two are not mutually exclusive. What points to cronyism is not the relative qualification, but the exclusivity in the way the bids are awarded.

For example, if you have a local mayor, and the city hall needs to be refurbished. There are three companies in town that do that, and One of them is owned by the mayor's best friend.
the job is given to the mayor's best friend, without opening up the bid to the other two companies.
Could his friend's company be the best choice? yes. Now, is this cronyism? yes. But not because of the relative qualifications of the friend's company, but because of the way the contract was exclusively awarded.
If his friend was truly the most qualified, open bids would arrive at the same conclusion. But because bids were not open, we'll never know, will we?

exactly why corporations should not donate money to campaigns/political parties. if their product is so damn good, let it stand up to the test.

Lerk, if you actually read my post, you'd know that was exactly my point.

Congrats. You know what I mean -- some folks will never let go of the cronyism charges, no matter what you bring in the way of facts.

Pentagon finds that Halliburton reamed them.

Let's see, there's that, and that thread a while ago that discussed how an American company charged millions for what an Iraqi engineer estimated it would take far less to do (tens or hundreds of thousands, IIRC).

Then, when you add in the fact that Dick Cheyney still has a monetary stake in Halliburton, you end up with a lot of evidence.

Means, motive, and opportunity are all in place, and there's some pretty damning circumstantial evidence to add to that.

This, ladies and germs, is a substantiated conspiracy theory.

BlackGriffen

Pentagon Finds Halliburton Overcharged on Iraq Contracts

So Dick can wrangle contracts for Halliburton, but can't censor things like this... wow, that's selective conspiracy...



I didn't see that thread. But could there have been reasons for the discrepancy? Quality issues? Labor costs issues?



I believe that the VP still has some stock options (~500,000) in Halliburton. That does represent a financial interest. (This are options, not actual stock.)

However, he was also blasted for SELLING his shares before the 2000 election. So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.




Means, motive, opportunity, but what you lack is any evidence that the VP made any phone calls, pulled any strings or had anything to do with the negotiations.

Provide that and it won't be a theory. Until then, it's nothing but politicial opponents waving their arms.

That's the problem with conspiracies - you eventually get a traitor who can bring the whole thing down. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein, it outlines some of the problems conspiracies face and how they're dealt with.


Here's the thread. If there were labor cost issues, they should have gone with the Iraqis. Their economy is in the $hitter after all, and stuff like this would help them a lot. I seriously doubt that quality is a genuine issue of concern here. I can understand not wanting to leave behind a crappy infrastructure, but I think that local contractors should receive preference whenever possible. Especially if the price disparity is that large.


Like I said, circumstantial evidence abounds. If a man's wife has a ton of life insurance, and the otherwise healthy woman dies with no other suspects in sight, then only a fool doesn't suspect the husband.

BlackGriffen

Tell me that if Halliburton had hired Iraqis at low wages that people wouldn't have made THAT into a conspiracy. "Dick Cheney's old company is paying slave wages to poor Iraqis!!"




Yet, the woman may have just died in a car accident and the husband may be totally innocent. Hence, we have trials and the husband is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Already happening - when cheaper sub-contractors from south Asia are not available, of course.
BTW, the conspiracy theory stuff is getting really tiring.

I understand why *I* make the points against Halliburton, Bechtel, and etc.
I don't understand why others automatically defend them. I also don't understand why anyone would defend exclusive bids being awarded in this manner.
All things being equal, I wouldn't think profiteering would be a good practice, nor even a defensible one. All things being equal, I wouldn't think cronyism would be a good practice, nor a defensible one.

In the long run, it means less can be accomplished with the same amount of billions being sent over there...in other words, it actually hampers whatever efforts are being made....everyone should be against that, regardless of party.

Since when is quid pro quo a "conspiracy"? I thought everyone had figured out that is how Congress often works. Not to mention the Pentagon.

People pointing out cronyism and good old fashioned Pork aren't spouting conspiracy theories. They are pointing out the obvious corruption inherent to our system.

Its high time that taxpayers of all parties put aside their partisanship and started showing some solidarity on punishing this kind of thing.