It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BUSINESS: Over $10 Billion In Iraq Contracts for Halliburton

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Halliburton Co. has been awarded over $10 billion in contracts for providing Army troop support services and rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. The Army's $8.3 billion worth of meals, housing, laundry, and other services accounts for most of the total. Despite allegations of corruption and overcharging, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said that the company is doing a good job serving troops and helping to rebuild Iraq.
 



ap.tbo.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - The largest U.S. contractor in Iraq, Halliburton Co., has passed the $10 billion mark in work orders from the Army for services supporting troops and rebuilding the country's oil industry.

The Army has ordered $8.3 billion worth of work from Halliburton under a contract to support soldiers with meals, housing, laundry and other services. Halliburton got $2.5 billion more in work from the Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil well fires and shore up Iraq's dilapidated oil infrastructure.

Allegations of financial misdeeds, including corruption and overcharging, have led to criminal, congressional and Pentagon investigations of Halliburton's work in Iraq.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Has the war effort been successful for the stockowners in Halliburton? At over $10 billion, it would be hard to argue that it has not. Particularly when you consider who some of the stockowners of the company are. Much in the same way that the Diebold CEO is also oversees voting in Ohio, the Cheney situation with Halliburton is another case of a serious conflict of interest problem. Legislation needs to be passed of some kind that would either limit or possibly eliminate officials holding high offices in government from also having these "overt" conflicts of interests with the companies that they are invested in bidding on government contracts.

Related News Links:
www.google.c om
www.halliburton.com
news.yahoo.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
POLITICS: FBI Investigating Halliburton Contracts
WAR: US Agrees to Halliburton Inquiry
POLITICS: FBI Investigating Halliburton Contracts




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

[snip]

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

Nice Read:

www.factcheck.org...

[edit on 10-12-2004 by SourGrapes]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Well let me point out, SG, that I never said he was going to make money off the situation, and I appreciate you clearing that up. Nonetheless, my point still stands. We need to pass laws concering the matter of conflict of interest when it comes to holding high public office. And it's not just high public office, either. This happens on a smaller scale in state and city governments as well. I think if there was a way to increase the salaries of pertinent government office postions, in a way that would provide a decent living for the holder of those positions, it would provide much less of an alterior motive.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well let me point out, SG, that I never said he was going to make money off the situation, and I appreciate you clearing that up. Nonetheless, my point still stands. We need to pass laws concering the matter of conflict of interest when it comes to holding high public office. And it's not just high public office, either. This happens on a smaller scale in state and city governments as well. I think if there was a way to increase the salaries of pertinent government office postions, in a way that would provide a decent living for the holder of those positions, it would provide much less of an alterior motive.


I completely agree! However, what's to stop it? At least now it is out in the open. If we create 'Laws' to stop it (or control it), it will then go 'underground'. Humans are selfish, we like to take care of our 'own' and be taken care of. I think that the more laws we have, the harder it is for us to keep our eye on the 'real' criminals. The higher ups will always find a way to 'cheat' the system. (IMHO)



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:19 AM
link   
SG, like many other problems in our country, this is particularly complex, for obvious reasons. Some of my ideas on the situation would be to:

1) Establish a government organization that specifically deals with this issue (unless there already is one that I am not aware of- and if there is, they damn sure aren't doing their job).

2) Before becoming a candidate for a certain public office, put this new agency as a buffer zone between the candidate wannabe and the public office being sought. The agency would review the office being sought, determine the most relevant contracts issued by that office, check the background and financial interests of the wannabe, and then either clear or deny the wannabe for candidacy based upon the likelihood of conflict of interest. If we just did this for all pertinent public offices, don't you think we'd improve the system a bit and avoid more corruption?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
SG, like many other problems in our country, this is particularly complex, for obvious reasons. Some of my ideas on the situation would be to:

1) Establish a government organization that specifically deals with this issue (unless there already is one that I am not aware of- and if there is, they damn sure aren't doing their job).

2) Before becoming a candidate for a certain public office, put this new agency as a buffer zone between the candidate wannabe and the public office being sought. The agency would review the office being sought, determine the most relevant contracts issued by that office, check the background and financial interests of the wannabe, and then either clear or deny the wannabe for candidacy based upon the likelihood of conflict of interest. If we just did this for all pertinent public offices, don't you think we'd improve the system a bit and avoid more corruption?


That definately make sense. I guess I never gave it much thought. What happens when those 'go betweens' become corrupt?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
lol....ok...how bout:

We get Arnold, since he is a foreigner, to quit his job as governor of CA and take over this new office....SURELY schwartzy wouldn't screw us over eh?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol....ok...how bout:

We get Arnold, since he is a foreigner, to quit his job as governor of CA and take over this new office....SURELY schwartzy wouldn't screw us over eh?


Well, he did pass that bill that makes it illegal to 'copulate' with corpses!


[edit on 10-12-2004 by SourGrapes]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Well, he did pass that bill that makes it illegal to 'copulate' with corpses!



ROTF. yes yes he did... "Hey Arny, sorry we won't ammend the constitution for ya to be president, but we'll be glad to let you check and uncertify yourself next time ."



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Gee, speak of the Devil:

Security Post Would Put Kerik Atop Field That Enriched Him

From the article:
New York Times- WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Just five years ago, Bernard B. Kerik was facing lawsuits from a condominium association and bank over delinquent payments owed on a modest New Jersey condo he owned. Today, he is a multimillionaire as a result of a lucrative partnership with former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and an even more profitable relationship with a stun-gun manufacturer.

If he is confirmed to the post of homeland security secretary, to which President Bush nominated him last week, he will oversee an enormous department that does business with some of the companies that helped make him wealthy.

www.nytimes.com...

Uh oh, time to call Arny...

[edit on 10-12-2004 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.


Wrong! To this day, Cheney is receiving deferred payments from Halliburton, so the more the company makes, the richer he will be (I guess you can never be TOO rich). Not only that, his wife, Lynn Cheney is on the board of directors of Lougheed(sp) Martin, a post she should have immediately given up when he took office as it is a major conflict of interest as LM provides tanks etc. to the military. She basically said she wouldn't and anyone who didn't like it could "go to hell."

CBC television's well respected investigative journalism program The Fifth Estate, took a look at Cheney's career this past falll. Cheney is probably more dangerous than his boss! Check out the website info: www.cbc.ca...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   


Legislation needs to be passed of some kind that would either limit or possibly eliminate officials holding high offices in government from also having these "overt" conflicts of interests with the companies that they are invested in bidding on government contracts.


Do that and nothing would get done



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
SG, like many other problems in our country, this is particularly complex, for obvious reasons. Some of my ideas on the situation would be to:

1) Establish a government organization that specifically deals with this issue (unless there already is one that I am not aware of- and if there is, they damn sure aren't doing their job).

2) Before becoming a candidate for a certain public office, put this new agency as a buffer zone between the candidate wannabe and the public office being sought. The agency would review the office being sought, determine the most relevant contracts issued by that office, check the background and financial interests of the wannabe, and then either clear or deny the wannabe for candidacy based upon the likelihood of conflict of interest. If we just did this for all pertinent public offices, don't you think we'd improve the system a bit and avoid more corruption?


No this would actually make things much more corrupt. Lets seeone agency that approves / denies candidates. I estimate theyd stay uncorrupted for about 10 min. Then every special interest / politician would make sure their guys got management or oversight positions within the organization.

Instead of having to just endure public scrutiny to run for office youd now be beholden to a government entity run by one or two political organizations. Talk about fox in the henhouse!



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Mr Nice, I disagree. Whether it was a government organization or private organization, things could be done to insure their neutrality. Like the mandatory public release of their findings for every candidate, for starters. Yes, obviously the potential for corruption in that office would be high. But so is the potential for the same in many public offices. The difference is, that this one would be carefully scrutinized constantly from the public, and I do believe over time it could have beneficial results. In my mind it is certainly better than nothing.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
What a very profitable war this is. $$$$$

More proof here.
Cheney continues to get rich.
And he most certainly is still reaping benefits from Halliburton

[edit on 7-1-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
What a very profitable was this is. $$$$$


dg, you know I luv ya, but jeez. You gotta find a better way to say that. It makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Type-o Darling True.

You still love me?


I fixed it. My nails are getting in the way.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
...war this is... oh, now I see.


And of course I still do dg, you're the best!

I'll write a letter to Cheney and ask him to send you $50 of that Halliburton money to get you a nice nail job. Or, err, manicure.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join