home

More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:56:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Once again, Halliburton is accused of overcharging the government for its work in Iraq. TalkLeft's previous coverage of the Vice President's former employer is collected here.

Leading U.S. defense contractor Halliburton may have overcharged the U.S. government by more than $100 million under a no-bid oil deal in Iraq, said a military audit released by a Democratic lawmaker on Monday. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit, parts of which were released by California Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman on his Web site www.democrats.reform.house.gov/, questioned $108 million in costs by Texas-based Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root for delivery of fuel to civilians in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

Waxman and Rep. John Dingell wrote to the president, pointing out that "the administration has withheld these audits from Congress for months and Halliburton has repaid nothing under this contract."

They complained to the president that the administration had ignored more than a dozen requests for copies of KBR oil contract audits.

< Defense Estimates of Availability of Iraqi Police and Soldiers Criticized | Improper Opening Forces Mistrial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges | 46 comments (46 topical)
    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    I am sure glad I'm not being held responsible for what a company I haven't worked for almost 5 years has been accused of.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#2)
    by Darryl Pearce on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:07:56 PM EST
    ...worse than Whitewater, though! And we know what that led to. So, Jim, are you okay with their war profiteering?

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mike on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    Jim, You're also not in charge of whether or not a company you previously worked for receives a massive contract or not, as well as the terms of that contract. For instance, if you were in purchasing at a company and continually bought products only from a company you previously worked for, and bought them far and above average market value, wouldn't you be questioned?

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    Big article on Halliburton-- http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050307roco02

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    jim., it doesn't matter that cheney hasn't worked for them in 5 years, he got them the no-bid contract. plus, they have not had to pay back anything they overcharged on.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jay on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    What do you expect from the most corrupt administration since Tricky Dick. These guys can get away anything because there are no checks and balances anymore. They will continue to rape the taxpayers. What a pathetic bunch of greedy bastards.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    Mike - Catch a clue. Neither is Cheney. Dearest No Name - The contract came during the Clinton aministration.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    PPJim, the contract discussed in the ABC News story that was linked was for "delivery of fuel to civilians in Iraq in 2003 and 2004." I can't see any reference to any connection to the Clinton administration. Could you clarify your claim please? A second question ... I seem to recall that a year or two ago Halliburton was still paying Cheney. Does anyone happen to know whether he's still receiving "deferred compensation" from them?

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    When people mention mis-deeds at Stanford, do they call it "Secretary of State Rice's former school, Stanford..."? -C

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:25:23 AM EST
    Cliff - If they could get away with it.... yes they would. Ghost - The contract was awarded during the Clinton administgration and extended to 2001 due to lack of time to go through the federal bid process. as detailed here in the Los Angeles times. The time line and other info was published in the WSJ about two years ago, I linked to it in this blog, but have neither the time nor inclination to dig it out. If you try Google, "Halliburton" brings up 1,850,000 hits. If we discount 50% as non oil compnay... that still is an amazing number. What busiy little writers the Left has been.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:41:36 AM EST
    jim, you ignorant slut. to say it was clinton who hired haliburton to rebuild iraq, before anyone knew bush was going to attack iraq, shows that you spread lies as often as you spread your butt cheeks for every guy around

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:12:25 AM EST
    Jim, Cliff...you guys sure do defend strange company. Regardless of how connected to the company Cheney still is, Halliburton is stealing from all of us, which deserves every taxpayers condemnation.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:12:55 AM EST
    Posted by PPJ (aka Jim) at March 14, 2005 04:45 PM I am sure glad I'm not being held responsible for what a company I haven't worked for almost 5 years has been accused of. I'd bet that you're also very glad that no one is being held responsible for this and many other fraudulent transactions engaged in by this company. Gee, I wonder why Halliburton is allowed to get away with ripping off the American taxpayer for billions of dollars? It wouldn't have anything to do with their ex-CEO influencing what gets investigated by the government with regards to Halliburton... I'm sure that Cheney has nothing at all to do with any decisions about Halliburton by the United States government. Just as sure as I am that the Easter bunny is going to sprinkle magical fairy dust all over the world and stop everyone from hating each other. While Jeebus returns to earth and publicly admits the Chimperor is his little brother.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:17:10 AM EST
    Corpoarate trolls. Unbelievable. Jim, Still getting paid by your company? Apples and oranges.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:01:42 AM EST
    PPJ's link is right next to worthless. (Yes, surprising, I know.) First of all it doesn't lead to any relevent contemporaneous news reporting, as you might expect. No, it leads to an editorial by Max Boot of CFR, hardly an unbiased source. (The hack even has the gall to speak of our supposed 'gold-plated approach to providing aid [sic] to Iraq.') Secondly, the op-ed doesn't even say what Jim implies -- that this contract was awarded under the Clinton administration. It merely alleges that Halliburton originally got into Iraq under Clinton, hardly the same thing. Absolutely nothing is "detailed" in this stale, year-old apologia, notwithstanding Jim's hopeful attempt at wishing it so. Finally, the whole thing is a red herring, as the important point is not the origin of Halliburton/Kellog Brown and Root's no-bid contracts. What's significant is the apparent stonewalling of investigation of war profiteering: They complained to the president that the administration had ignored more than a dozen requests for copies of KBR oil contract audits. A little thing, that.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:29:07 AM EST
    ricky1756 at March 15, 2005 06:41 AM nice dig! advisory: PPJ: notorious for googling and linking to first entry, no indebt knowledge or understanding of linked material, just makes him (in his mind) relevant.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    I guess being robbed by a large corporation is a ok to some. As for me...I'd rather get mugged than sit by and watch Halliburton steal millions. The mugger probably needs it more than me, I can't say the same for Halliburton.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    ppj, you're not that naive, are you? cheney is a de-facto lobbyist for halliburton. that's what these guys do; go back and forth between the public and private sector and exploit that access for personal gain. and cheney's long record of lying about things political, most recently about iraq, leads me to doubt him at almost every turn. cheney aside, however, this is a company excessively stuffing its corporate wallet in a time of war, which last time i looked was called war profiteering and was treasonous. peace, dude.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    Why do you think Halliburton hired Cheney in the first place? (Hint: it wasn't his looks, or his excellence on the job -- it was political connections.)

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    Why do you think Halliburton hired Cheney in the first place?
    yeah, like Bush I going to work/creating the The Carlyle Group, i'm sure there activities are all above board, legal, and Bush I was included because of his outstanding job performance and knowledge of international investing. what president in modern (>1900)history prior to Bush I, ever took a job in the private sector after leaving office? none jump immediately to mind.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter went to work Habitat for Humanity, does that count?

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    ok, Jimmy C., humanitarian organization, volunteer position, don't think he was paid? ok lets exclude the lecture circuit too. clarifying private sector = commercial, business, revenue concerned, compensated position, etc.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    That was tongue-in-cheek outside, I knew what you meant. I wanted to illustrate that some former presidents don't run to the cash register to sell their influence after leaving office.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    dr. ace, the union line = the highest compensation and employment levels we can possible acheive for our members. if every union were as comprehensively corrupt as the right claims, one can only imagine the slavery their members toil in. as opposed to the higher wages and better benefits the private sector provides its non-union employees. yeah, and if you believe that...

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    lets see..didn't Bush-1 go to work for the Carlyle Group; to reap his $Millions payoff as a Lobbist?

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    Ace - Recycled Rush-spew. Unions have traditionally lobbied dems and reps - the Teamsters supported St.Ron - now sitting on the right hand of the father - as I remember. But,youre not against lobbyists,just union lobbyists. Afterall unionization and collective bargining are commie ideas. Why? Cuz you say so.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    ricky1756 - Your potty mouth demonstrates again your ignorance and reading inability. The contract wasn't to rebuild Iraq, but to provide certain services at unspecified loations. Dummy. Keep this up and the guys down at the gym will stop playing drop the soap with you. Che - Did you get into the drug locker? I didn't say I was being paid by anyone. Too Kind ... So the link is worthless? It is also THE ONLY LINK. The rest of you are just ranting. Makes you look really, really bad. BTW - Kind of what? Out - Nothing to say, just the old "pile on" trick. Hey, that pretty well illustrates your abilities. BTW - The link was not make to bolster the claim. Sorry I had to explain that to you. dadler - And what lies has Cheney told? Do you have a link to them? No? Thought so. I am not naive, nor do I believe you are. First, the "help" you refer to is not easy to give in the world of large ticket sales and contracts. Cheney cannot whisper in someone’s ear, and then have it cascade six levels down. The process is multi-layered and requires multi-sign offs and recommendations. In essence, you suggest that a number of people, several who may not even like Halliburton and/or Cheney, or be Republicans, would all conspire with a wink and a nod to do something that will get them the chance to lose their jobs and, perhaps, some quality prison time. (12/14/03)

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    jim, you're so full of crap, you make ann coulter seem logical. the post is about overcharging to rebuild iraq. after clinton was gone.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    ricky, Please learn better forms of expression. Your puerile rants do not convey much weight nor forethought in them.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:26:29 PM EST
    ok, is this better-EAT ME

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    ricky1756 - And along with that is the assertion that they got the contract because of Cheney. I mean, if Cheney wasn't there, the Left would have to invent him. Surely you can figure that out. Maybe not. Maybe you should eat more beans.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    even the brother's grimm couldn't invent cheney-he's too evil

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#34)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    "What's significant is the apparent stonewalling of investigation of war profiteering: They complained to the president that the administration had ignored more than a dozen requests for copies of KBR oil contract audits." And "America Held Hostage: Jim Pretends Not To Notice The Real Issue" stretches into day 2.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    kdog - First of all, I'm not sure they are. Secondly, if I could read anything about Halliburton that didn't begin.... VP Cheney's old company..... Then I might be willing to listen closer. I just see BHAW.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    PPJim, I read through your Max Boot editorial (is that honestly the guy's name, does anyone know? I remember reading him in the UC Berkeley student paper years ago and I was never sure at the time if he OR the name could be for real ... guess he is, though). I didn't see the convincing factual stuff you apparently saw, and for a lot of reasons I don't trust Boot (or "Boot," whichever) on just his own say-so. I hope you're not offended, but I don't think Halliburton's supposed war profiteering has anything to do with the Clinton administration -- and isn't it time that the Bush administration (a) started stepping up to stuff it should properly own, and (b) releasing information under FOIA as properly requested by members of Congress? Do you really not think that behavior ("b" above) is at least a little odd? It smells off to me -- but I'm just a Dog; what do I know? Also, did anyone come up with more recent information about whether Halliburton is still paying Dick Cheney, by the way? I didn't find much, yea or nay... Woof, all ...

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:17:02 PM EST
    Sorry -- scratch "under FOIA" (it's late here and Dogs shouldn't drink espresso after 9:00 p.m. anyway)...

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    Ghost - My point was that the inital contract was awarded under the Clinton Administration. It was then extended under the Bush Admonistration because they didn't have the time and resources to do new specs, etc., Halliburton then won the bid. As Boot notes, there were also some sole souerce bids, probably, as Boot notes, because no one else could demonstrate they could meet the specs. That is an important point, and should be kept in mind. You just don't walk up and get a Request for Quotation (RFQ), or a Request for Proposal (RFP) without first demonstrating that, if you win, you can actually do the work. In many cases this is done by a Request for Information (RFI). From the RFI a short list of companies is developed, and they get to go to the next step. If the short list is "one," the government can either start over, or go sole source. The contracts people hate sole source, because everything is looked at twice, and can cause career problems down the road, when actually they were as straight as an arrow. But, when time is of the essence, and they need the "product," they will go sole source. In this case there are very few companies that do what Halliburton does. Think of it like this. You decide you need a pickup truck by April 10. You write down size, engine, etc, and visit the dealers. You find three dealers. That is the RFI. You then write down the exact requirements and give them to the dealers. That is the RFQ. You take the dealers responses and buy the cheapest. Now let's say all response are unacceptable. But of the three, two are very bad. The third is close. By now you don't have time to start over, so you work out the best deal you can - sole source - that allows you to meet the April 10 date. I don't know Max Boot, I just thought he provided some accurate info. As to "war profits," 1-2% is not very much, although the number looks big because the total is huge.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#40)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    if Cheney wasn't there, the Left would have to invent him. Hardly. There are plenty to choose from. But I suppose Ken Lay is off the short list these days.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:47:19 AM EST
    Che - Good heavens. Lay was in private industry, and if he had so much influence, why didn't the Repubs swoop in and save him with a big contract? I mean according to the Left, all a Pres or VP has to do us pick up the telephone and tell the procurement people what to do. You know, I don't care if Halliburton gets beat up. But when it is done from a total lack of understanding of how the process works, bad guys are likely to walk away.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#42)
    by soccerdad on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:01:41 AM EST
    Good heavens. Lay was in private industry, and if he had so much influence, why didn't the Repubs swoop in and save him with a big contract?
    Obvious strawman. Lay was very influential in developing energy policy early on [remember the commission we can't get records about], but he was not in the inner circle like Cheney was. As soon as Enron started to collapse the WH's response was Lay who?
    I mean according to the Left, all a Pres or VP has to do us pick up the telephone and tell the procurement people what to do
    another obvious strawman

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#43)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:34:41 AM EST
    Jim, I mean according to the Left, all a Pres or VP has to do us pick up the telephone and tell the procurement people what to do Basically, yeah. Oh, I'm sure there's a couple of layers of insulating phone calls. Nevertheless you summed it up pretty well. This is a common tactic of yours and the right (I know, you're a moderate blah blah blah). Create this illusion of some insurmountable bureaucracy that even The CEO cannot circumvent. But when you need extra propane quickly from some other megacorporation, it magically appears. At 330 times the cost of the gas. The Daily show had on an author of some book about BS versus lying. I thought of you.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    jim, cheney is the second most powerful man in the nation. maybe the most. if he wants to get something done like this, it will get done. he's not some mid-range lackey. he's running this war. come on, give me a break. no bid is no bid. no strings to pull when you have them in your pocket. insider dealings are insider dealings. and in this specific situation (not some generalized theoretical about how business works), i have no doubt that's how it played out. no choir to preach to hear, my man.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    SD - So? Any big contributor gets attention. Both sides do it. Both sides need the money. Remember Friends of Bill? FOBs. White House over nighters? Public finiancing of elections would go along way to stop it. Strawman? Evidently you don't read the threads. See Che's comment. Che - If it was that easy do you think Clinton would have put up with all the stuff he had to? Just a call and everything is fixed, right? Same for Nixon. One call and the problem disappears. Of course it works that way in Cuba, and soon will in Venezula. Your problem is you are judging the US by Cuba and other communists countries. Question. Are you a US citizen? As for 330 times.. Times what? The price at the pump? You ever think that maybe there were some other costs involved? Get smart. Both sides will lie to you. Get all the info. Look for the BS factorm such as "330 times..."

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    dadler - See my comment to Che. And you are very naive if you think it is that easy. Che - BTW - Hope they were nice thoughts, and if you watch less TV you'll have more time for studying the BS factor.

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#47)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    Jim, More diversions. CLINTON! WE GOT CLINTON HERE! Can I get a bite block for this man? My figures are from this (one of your favorites). What KBR charged was about 330 times the cost of the propane. The facts show that KBR delivered fuel crucial to the Iraqi people when failure was not an option," But the VP can't just pick up the phone? What a s***load!

    Re: More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    jim, utterly disagree. sorry, bud, there are some things cheney CAN get done as expediently as he pleases. peace, bro.

    More Evidence of Halliburton Overcharges | 46 comments (46 topical)