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.

 

NEWS: Lawmakers Criticize Pentagon on Disputed Billing By Halliburton

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Shots is a Bushblogger? Jeez.. they let anyone in here nowdays..


Obviously it's not about whether Halliburton had govt. contracts prior to 2003, it's about how big a slice of the pie they've taken since then.

And you're 3 Billion dollars off anyway Shots.




Halliburton Contracts Balloon
Despite being under an investigative cloud, company gets $4.3 billion in 2003


By André Verlöy and Daniel Politi

WASHINGTON, August 18, 2004 — The oil services company Halliburton, largely through its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, has received more revenue from government contracts in the last year than from 1998 through 2002. In 2003, when the company had record revenue of $16.3 billion, Halliburton received contracts from the Department of Defense worth $4.3 billion, while in the previous five years it obtained less than $2.5 billion from the military, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.
www.publicintegrity.org...


Do the math, this is about $330,000 per soldier, per year. How much do the men and women in our military earn? You know, the ones being killed for their country? According to salary.com the median salary for a private, first class is $18,516 per yer.

Nice huh?




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   



And you're 3 Billion dollars off anyway Shots.

quote:
Halliburton Contracts Balloon
Despite being under an investigative cloud, company gets $4.3 billion in 2003



How can I be 3 billion away when the figures I used were for 2004 and the figures you used were for 2003?


And allow me to add that that cloud has since been removed those alegations were proven false.
Halliburton Cleared



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Shots-

The story you linked to referred to an entirely different story, namely the accusation that Halliburton was gouging by selling over priced fuel to the military. It in no way addresses the charges brought by the congessional subcommittee regarding bilking the US and it's citizens of billions of dollars. And I also find it interesting that aside from the Guardian in the UK your story is not getting much play either.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
quote: Do not give be that kind of BS Marg. Do you know how much Haliburton made last year?

Halliburton made something like $48 million on $1.3 billion in Iraq contracts in 2004 according to the New York Times That's a 3.5% before tax profit; tax mind you, that's gross not net.

Now if you know anything at all about business, then you know that is the kind of performance that would have most shareholders forming a lynch mob outside the boardroom. I also hope you realize they could have made more money by investing in a good savings CD

But do not let that be known it will show the world what a fool some people are for being ignorant when it comes to company profits.

quote: Posted by: Matt at January 11, 2004 01:29 AM
Halliburton made something like $48 million on $1.3 billion in Iraq contracts last year according to the NYTimes (I don't have the exact figures right here but look it up that is essentially correct). That's a 3.5% before tax profit. Before tax mind you, that's gross.

If you know anything at all about business then you know that's the kind of performance that has shareholders forming lynch mobs outside the boardroom. They could have made more money on their investment with a passbook savings account - with no risk at all.


www.blogsforbush.com...

either you've been spewing the same dribble, almost word for word, for over a year...or you're an intellectual thief. so, which is it?


no comment, shots?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
enomus

shots reply: *crickets*

I love it when people get found out!

Fred T

I voted. Sorry for the delay.

Peace



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

And I also find it interesting that aside from the Guardian in the UK your story is not getting much play either.



At the time there were many reports on it. I can only assume most of the orginals are now dead links to the actual stories but I found a few that supported the fact they were cleared. Here is just few, threre are tons more if you look. Use KW Halliburton, Cleared; presto you get 500,000+ posts containing either the actual articles or portions of them from that time frame.




webreprints.djreprints.com...


www.solomonia.com...


www.balloon-juice.com...


www.theabsurdreport.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Shots-

The stories you are talking about happened before the current thread topic.

The hearings reported on in the NYT article happened this week and addressed allegations that happened in 2004 so how is a story about a different Halliburton allegation that happened almost 2 years ago relevent to this thread?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
How can I be 3 billion away when the figures I used were for 2004 and the figures you used were for 2003?


I stand corrected Matt.

I guess they had to lay low in 2004, after cooking up that fuel bidding memo and the eyebrows that raised.


Are you on a contract with Bushco like the other bloggers? Do they pay you per article or do you get a retainer? Do you have like multiple logons here so you can vote down all the negative stories, or is there a bunch of you guys on shifts?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Shots-

The stories you are talking about happened before the current thread topic.

The hearings reported on in the NYT article happened this week and addressed allegations that happened in 2004 so how is a story about a different Halliburton allegation that happened almost 2 years ago relevent to this thread?


I realize that and the only reason I posted the info was to point out that in the past they have been cleared of any wrong doing. Who is to say they will not be cleared in this one? I no I sure won't not with out the facts. Also note in that case it took them almost a year before they came to that conclusion. What are you going to say if them clear them on this one. Sorry shots I was wrong? I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Lets see the connection here,

Mr Bush senior = Carlyle group

Mr Bush junior = big corporation interest, and the President.

Mr Cheney and Wife = Haliburton and Lockheed Martin both each worked for the companies mention = annual earnings.

Carlyle group + defense budget = contracts in favor of "bingo" Lockheed Martin and Haliburton.


Keep it all in the family and close family allies.
What a way to do business and get away with any wrong doings.



[edit on 23-6-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
How can I be 3 billion away when the figures I used were for 2004 and the figures you used were for 2003?

I stand corrected Matt.




I guess they had to lay low in 2004, after cooking up that fuel bidding memo and the eyebrows that raised.

Are you on a contract with Bushco like the other bloggers? Do they pay you per article or do you get a retainer?


I contract with no one but my wife



Do you have like multiple logons here so you can vote down all the negative stories, or is there a bunch of you guys on shifts?


Now there is a thought, but sorry that is not my bag of tea, I only use my one vote, although I suspect since you brought it up that perhaps they may be some around here who do just that.

In my case I only have one IP address so I know darn well if I did try to do what you suggest is being done; the mods could catch me in a heart beat, again sorry that is not my bag of tea. You only got one vote from me.

As I stated early on in the thread, if other News wires were carrying the story it would have been a whole new issue; however in this case I saw it as nothing but a witch hunt out to get the current administration. Sorry but I call them as I see them and I am sure you do as well. Have a nice day


[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Lets see the connection here,


[edit on 23-6-2005 by marg6043]


Marg Just in case you are not aware of it you could also make connections with democrats and corporate America, that is who funds most of the campaign donations. You are fooling no one but yourself, so open your eyes this is not as one sided as you think it is.

Just wait until a Democrat gets back in office. I am sure you will find a lot of Replublicans picking on the firms they back/backed, or worked for; just as you and your cronies are bashing Republicans




[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well shots I read the Cheney business success stories with haliburton and I can tell you Cheney been the vice president of our nation is the best thing to Haliburtion since Apple pie became the best thing for Americans.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well shots I read the Cheney business success stories with haliburton and I can tell you Cheney been the vice president of our nation is the best thing to Haliburtion since Apple pie became the best thing for Americans.


That may very well be, but you seem to miss the point that Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been doing business under contract since WWII when he was not even connected with the company.

The point I am trying to make here is that no one complained about them when democrats were in office. I hope you realize why that is, but I will explain. You see this is a witch hunt by a newspaper that supports the democrats. Now if they supported replublicans you can bet your biffy they would not be saying a word.

This is all pure speculation by the times and some politicians, that being the case are you going to come back and say I am sorry, I was wrong if Halliburton gets cleared on this as they have on others? I doubt it!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The point I am trying to make here is that no one complained about them when democrats were in office. I hope you realize why that is, but I will explain. You see this is a witch hunt by a newspaper that supports the democrats. Now if they supported republicans you can bet your biffy they would not be saying a word.


Has any other Secretary of Defense left office to work for a company, and then give that company no-bid contracts when he became VP? Some even believe the United States and the corporatists that run it invaded and continue to occupy Iraq, just to make money.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
enomus

shots reply: *crickets*

I love it when people get found out!

Fred T

I voted. Sorry for the delay.

Peace


this is the answer to my question shots sent me via PM. sorry to blow your spot, shots...but i have no sympathy for plagiarizers.


I did reply but deleted the post since it would have been of topic for the discussion.

I researched the material I wanted and reworded it as best I could. Had I written it in my own words it would have lost its context. How many ways can one say Halliburton made 48 million profit?

If my guess is right you have done the very same at one time or another when doing an essay or book report in school everyone does it. Now if I had used the very same exact terms of the original post you would have a point.

Enough said.


maybe you're not familiar with the definition of the term plagiarize?


Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source - www.m-w.com...


trying to explain your actions as a trivial matter and something i might have done as well is very republican of you...but no, i've never plagiarized anything in my life. granted this is just an online forum, i still think you at least owe the people in this thread an apology.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
enomus
trying to explain your actions as a trivial matter and something i might have done as well is very republican of you...but no, i've never plagiarized anything in my life. granted this is just an online forum, i still think you at least owe the people in this thread an apology.


Ok I have to admit last night I was strapped for time and I did not have time to rewrite it in my own words.

I do applogize.


I also doubt you have never used the very same words used by others in something you wrote.
[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]

[edit on 6/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme


Has any other Secretary of Defense left office to work for a company, and then give that company no-bid contracts when he became VP?


I really do not know the answer to that, but I do know that many retired generals that once worked at the DOD that retired and started to work for private companies have gotten contracts. I am not sure if they were no bid or not to be honest.

From what I can determine on the subject it would appear that Halliburton was the only company that had the resources available for the contract on such short notice. At least that is what Army officials have stated.

I am not saying Halliburton might not be wrong here. What I am saying is that these allegations have not been proven at this time.

As an example; How many times I have you heard members of the house or senate say their project will cost X amount of dollars when in reality they are wrong? It happens all the time both in the private sector and government.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join