That Halliburton scam


December 30, 2003, 10:15 AM
check this summation of the case from that right-wing organ, the New York Times:

An examination of what has grown into a multi-billion dollar contract to restore Iraq's infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company, but it does demonstrate the struggle between price controls and the uncertainties of war, with price controls frequently losing.

So far this year, Halliburton's profits from Iraq have been minimal. The Company's latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission shows $1.3 billion in revenues from work in Iraq and $46 million in profits for the first nine months of 2003.


That's, what, 3.5% profit? On a job where your people get shot and bombed? What a racket indeed.

If you enjoyed reading about "That Halliburton scam" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 30, 2003, 10:42 AM
Summary of the whole bit with Halliburton supplying fuel in Iraq: Army Corps of Engineers tells Halliburton, who has the contract to do such things, that they need fuel. ACE also gives specifications for said fuel. Halliburton sends out to several subcontractors asking if they can supply fuel. Only one can supply fuel that meets the ACE specs, and that's at a price that is higher than what the ACE projected. Thus comes the cry of"overcharging."

Guess what? If you need something, and there's only one person out there who has it, you have to pay what they want.

AJ Dual
December 30, 2003, 11:04 AM

The expensive fuel, when averaged in with cheaper imports from other countries that Haliburton was also supplying, is right in line with the other suppliers.

In fact, wasn't the overal average around $1.30 a gallon? I'd love to pay that here in the states. :)

December 30, 2003, 01:27 PM
Everyone knows that the New York Times will say anything to defend a GOP Administration!:D

December 30, 2003, 02:07 PM
I have worked with quite a few individuals from Haliburton over the years. This is a company that can do things when most can't or refuse. The only reason they get any criticism is because the V.P., Dick Cheney, once was CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton was around quite some time before Cheney and will be around long after he is gone.

I suppose the Democrats that critisize Haliburton this would rather the contracts went to the French company Schlumberger. They would have charged much more but the Socialists in the Dem party wouldn't have complained. Some have suggested Bechtel. A fine company but I think the Iraq thing is a bit over their heads at this point.

Notice you never hear about Cheney or Haliburton without the other being mentioned. And they say the press doesn't have a liberal bias.

December 30, 2003, 02:33 PM
A question for the liberal bush-haters: if not halliburton, who?

I read a description of their company and services that someone posted and it basically described them as being a company that rebuilds infrastructure, whole cities and countries, etc.

You can't exactly run to the drug store or Home Depot and pick up a kit to do that yourself. :rolleyes:

There aren't exactly dozens of companies that are capable of doing what Halliburton does. If there are more than 3 or 4 companies like them in the world, I'd be surprised.

December 30, 2003, 02:36 PM
if not halliburton, who?Why not open up bidding (among corporations run and employed, mostly, by Americans, IMHO) for the contracts and find out who? The Haliburton government contract was a no-bid/no-competition contract.

December 30, 2003, 02:44 PM
Why not open up bidding Give me a froggin' break! Do you remember the caterwauling in March and April that we weren't doing things fast enough? How far do you think the competitive bidding and selection process would have gotten even now? :fire:

TFL Survivor

December 30, 2003, 02:44 PM
no other company is as qualified as guess who? thats right halliburton.

ask yourself this. would you knowingly drive a fuel truck in a war zone unarmored. that is what people are doing in iraq. last place anyone would want to be in a war zone is sitting their fat or skinny ??? in a tanker with hundreds-thousands of gallons of flammable fuel that with a good spark or heat source will blow up. then ask yourself how much do you want to get paid for doing that work.

their is no scam. it was a an accounting error which the pentagon announced and it has been cleared up. why it did not reach mass media I have no idea maybe it was not juicy enough or served theyre interest enough.

Malone LaVeigh
December 30, 2003, 02:57 PM
Also, remember Cheny was one of the more vociferous and deceptive of the proponents for the war. While just happening to be intimately involved with a corp that was bound to get big govt contracts. No conflict of interest there.

BTW, the NY Times was also a strong proponent of the war. Led by the fear-mongering and lies reported by one Judith Miller. ( the only thing I find telling is that the usual suspects around here choose to accept this kind of reporting from that commie rag. :rolleyes:

December 30, 2003, 03:33 PM
Guns? Civil Liberties?



If you enjoyed reading about "That Halliburton scam" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!