Ohh the fear of Halliburton....BS
Some backround on Halliburton,
www.halliburton.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
http...://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2004/article_101004.jsp
Hallibruton has been supporting the millitary for over 60 years....
We began providing support to the U.S. military during World War II -- building warships -- and continued that support in the Korean and Vietnam wars,
when we built port facilities and airports. We helped provide humanitarian assistance in famine-stricken Somalia and logistical support in the
Balkans. We also provide military support in Uzbekistan, Georgia, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey.
Lets look deeper shall we?
www.halliburton.com...
from the horses mouth.
Senator John Kerry has suggested, though never explicitly stated, that the Bush administration has an improper relationship with Halliburton, the
company where Dick Cheney was chief executive from 1995 until he left in 2000 to run for vice president.
Hmm notice the word SUGGESTED, instead of other more concrete allegations of this, gee I wonder why? Perhaps because he couldnt actually
substantiate most of this?
Mr. Cheney's critics concede that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton's behalf.
Hmm, sounds like an admission that they cant substantiate their claims.
On the question of Mr. Cheney's income from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Mr. Cheney
bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would
not depend on the company's fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his
stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.
Not unusual for corp execs that enter government eh? THEN WHATS THE BEEF HERE? Im certain we could dig up similar linkages between democrats
too...big whoop.
To avoid conflict of interest, the service (gao) said, any official with a continuing interest in a company should include the relationship in public
financial disclosure statements, a step Mr. Cheney has taken.
Nuff said, he disclosed...again big whoop, like the rich players dont know and do business with other rich players....how many players of this
caliber do you think tha avg country has around in government or the private sector anyway?
Who gets contracts....
at the time the war was starting
www.opensecrets.org...
Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According
to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million
government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
Hmm that would be 6 different companies here, not one.
Now indeed, the president DID restrict the bidding to only companies in countries that aided the war effort, which is the right thing to do as the
other countries werent willing to put their lives on the line to deserve a chance at the profits potential of rebuilding. Too bad France.
This site also lists contracts awarded so far at that time, which company, how much they donate to whom (Rep/Dem), and what the contract was for....a
reminder, this is just the start of the war effort and the contracts at that point....many more have come down the pipe since then. I wont take up
space posting what my link will allow you to read yourself, but notice that out of 9 contracts listed at that point 5 went to Rep sponsors and 4 went
to Dem sponsors (where the companies support went)
But oh yeah...ONLY EVIL BUSH BUDDIES GET CONTRACTS RIGHT?
On the NO BID ISSUE
there are frequent references to our "no-bid" contract to support the U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The fact is that after a fully competitive and open bid
process we were awarded a contract in 2001, well before the war in Iraq, to provide logistical support for U.S. soldiers wherever they might be
deployed.
As shown above there have been and are others bidding and getting contracts. BUT ITS OK TO PUT THE ANTI-BUSH BLINDERS ON!!
Hmm imagine that, COMPETITIVE OPEN BID CONTRACTS....
ok but what about the no-bids,
KBR did receive, at the outbreak of the war, a sole-source contract issued under urgent conditions to quickly restore the flow of Iraqi oil. But what
you will not often read is that the independent General Accounting Office has since reviewed the contract and reported that it was "properly awarded
... to the only contractor [the Defense Department] had determined was in a position to provide the services within the required time frame given
classified prewar planning requirements." And you will almost never read that profit margins on these contracts are extremely low and that the oil
contract was replaced early this year by one that was competitively bid.
So the GAO determined after an investigation that the contract was properly awarded to the company that capasity to deliver what was being
called for.
Did you also read the part where they were competitivly out bid (replaced) for the contract later on?
MORE you ask about the no bid contract?
In March 2003, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton's construction and engineering subsidiary, received from the Pentagon what is called a sole-source
contract, meaning it was awarded without bidding, to restore and operate Iraqi oil wells. The contract, which was classified when it was awarded just
before the invasion of Iraq, could be worth as much as $7 billion.
Hmm a CLASSIFIED contract...now why would they do that?
Halliburton contracts awarded in the last six months have been won in competitive bidding. But the administration has said it would have been
impractical to have open bidding on the oil wells contract since Halliburton already had an established position in Iraq and since making the contract
public before the invasion would have compromised this country's war plans.
Hmm so Halliburton was alleady in position to deliver service in Iraq...thats quite a jump on the competition which would require time and
effort just to catch up.
ALSO
Revealing these plans would have COMPROMISED the invasion if revealde BEFORE the conflict...NO DUH!!!! Watching the companies that do business with
the GOV or the MILLITARY can reveal alot about what they could be up to.
Ohh but they are bad for doing this...are they?
The nonpartisan investigative Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, agreed with the administration's assessment.
It reported in June that the Halliburton subsidiary had been the only company ''in a position to provide the services within the required time.''
David M. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the G.A.O., told a House committee that the no-bid contract was justified ''given the war in
Iraq and the urgent need for reconstruction efforts.''
Again they seemed to be the only company with the capasity to deliver....yet you bash them for being a world leader AMERICAN company that
leads in its field?
BOO HOO.