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.