It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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, sounds like an admission that they cant substantiate their claims.
Mr. Cheney's critics concede that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton's behalf.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hmm that would be 6 different companies here, not one.
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.
As shown above there have been and are others bidding and getting contracts. BUT ITS OK TO PUT THE ANTI-BUSH BLINDERS ON!!
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.
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.
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.
Hmm a CLASSIFIED contract...now why would they do that?
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 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.
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.
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?
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.''
Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Halliburton should have become a major embarrassment but has not. Not only is it more of the same it appears that Halliburton has become emboldened. Countless Halliburton rip-off stories have floated for years yet the company grabs more and more with no apparent ill effects. Even Nixon wasn't this arrogant.
soficrow said: The missing and unaccounted for funds remain a scandal.
Originally posted by Valhall
No one has dismissed the audit. I think anytime there is any discrepancy it needs to be rectified.
But RANT - are you double jointed? How do you get yourself in the position to twist the current review of EXISTING BILLING RECORDS with the intent to see if there were overcharges to be some connection to missing funds in Iraq?
soficrow said: The missing and unaccounted for funds remain a scandal.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I've been saying this repeatedly. Iraq was not for oil. Americans aren't stealing from Iraq. A bunch of rich old farts from PNAC are stealing from America!
This was is a raid on the US treasury, plain and simple. They are taking tax dollars that would have built roads or repaid the money stolen from our Social Security fund, and they're giving it to Halliburton instead. I can't even imagine what the PNAC crew needs with tens of billions of dollars though. I'm afraid to wonder.
The really really fringe paranoid freakish conspiracy theorist voice in my head is saying that they're diverting government funds to build a second non-national government, including military forces. I can't prove that of course. I'm just being paranoid.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
It's amazing how this news is swept under the rug, and to think this was made public a long time before the investigation was under way. Where's the outcry?