KBR Bribery Network Inflates Iraq War Costs

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Text

By JAMES GLANZ

Federal investigators have uncovered what they describe as a sweeping network of kickbacks, bribes and fraud involving at least eight employees and subcontractors of KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary, in a scheme to inflate charges for flying freight into Iraq in support of the war, according to court papers unsealed yesterday.

The latest conviction in the cases related to the scheme came yesterday, when a former Houston-based executive for an air-freight carrier hired by KBR pleaded guilty in federal district court to dispensing bribes and then lying to federal investigators. The executive, Kevin Andre Smoot, 43, of The Woodlands, Tex., served as a managing director for Eagle Global Logistics Incorporated, a carrier that received a subcontract from KBR to ship the freight.

The guilty plea by Mr. Smoot is the second by an Eagle executive in the case. But the papers describing his plea indicate that investigators believe at least one more Eagle employee and five KBR employees, all so far unnamed, were also involved. Mr. Smoot alone admitted to delivering bribes, called gratuities in the legalistic language of the court papers, to the employees of KBR on some 90 occasions between 2002 and 2005.

At the core of the case is a contract that KBR, previously known as Kellogg, Brown & Root, won before the war to supply the American military with food, fuel, housing and other necessities. The value of the contract soared with the Iraq invasion, and has so far paid KBR some $20 billion.

The company hired Eagle in a subcontract to fulfill part of that mission, carrying military goods from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to Baghdad. But the scheme by the Eagle executives began in November 2003 when a plane operated by a rival carrier, DHL, was struck by a missile and landed in Baghdad with its left wing in flames. The Eagle executives used that incident to charge a fraudulent ?war-risk surcharge? of 50 cents for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of freight on its own flights, the papers say.

Between November 2003 and July 2004, Eagle made 379 flights as part of the subcontract, charging some $13.3 million ? an amount that included $1.1 million in overcharges. It is not clear whether KBR knew of the overcharging scheme, but the papers say that Mr. Smoot and an Eagle subordinate delivered nearly $34,000 in gratuities to KBR employees ?to obtain or reward favorable treatment? in connection with the contract.

According to the papers, the gratuities included ?meals, drinks, golf outings, tickets to rodeo events, baseball and football games and other entertainment items.?

A spokeswoman for KBR, Heather L. Browne, said in a statement yesterday that the company ?in no way condones this behavior.?

?We are fully cooperating with the government?s investigation of this matter and will continue to do so,? Ms. Browne said.

The guilty plea by Mr. Smoot was announced yesterday by Rodger A. Heaton, the United States attorney for the Central District of Illinois, where the Army Field Support Command, which administers the logistics contract, is based in Rock Island.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's "global war on terror" struck fear into the hearts of Americans, and dollar-signs in the eyes of military contractors. By declaring war on something so vague, and using a blunt instrument like the army to carry it out, Bush created a perpetual state of war that could never be won. Boogey-men like Osama and Zawahri will keep the spigot of war dollars flowing, regardless of how sidetracked and misguided our mission becomes. We've sunk $500 billion into the military/industrial complex so far, with all estimates putting the grand total at $1 trillion when all is said and done.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
That's been the purpose of this war all along: Greed. Greed for more power. Greed for more control. Greed for more money. This is what will undue all the hard work of the great men that built this nation.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Kellogg, Brown &Root have been in the political corruption business for a very long time---and they were the hidden hand and money man bankrolling LBJ from the time before he ran for his very first elective office. Naturally they were a perfect fit for Halliburton and the synergies can be levered.

But every once in a blue moon a greedy employee like MR. Smoot gets caught---but omerta will see Mr. Smoot taken care of after he pays the forfeit for being caught. Omera keeps the Mafia and Halliburton in business.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: Narmer
That's been the purpose of this war all along: Greed. Greed for more power. Greed for more control. Greed for more money. This is what will undue all the hard work of the great men that built this nation.
Just like many wars over the years: men seeking power. Now they're just doing it with a capitalist twist, by making money first in order to gain power. Horray for progress.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,056
6,370
136
rest assured this incident only exposes the tip of a very large, formidable and thoroughly corrupted iceberg that the military industrial complex represents.

in the fog of war there are a wealth of opportunities for making our tax dollars simply disappear into thin air. opportunites of which can't be had any other way. it's the reality of it all, and the present CINC and his #2 are the two guys that is causing and allowing all of it to happen. add to that the huge amounts of corporate welfare being doled out by these two guys and the picture becomes crystal clear.

imho, the reason those guys got caught and prosecuted is that they must've burned the wrong guys somewhere along the hand-out line and got tapped for it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,701
6,829
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.

The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,701
6,829
136
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.

Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.

Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?

Ahh, revisionist history once again. Do people ever tire of spouting this? Again, the for dummies version: authorizing the president to use our military might as an option != voted for a war, nor do I really think we can still blame Clinton for all this.

The thing is I don't believe you honestly think otherwise. Wonders what your motivation is to blow this sunshine up our asses?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.
Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?
Wrong. It has been shown over and over that the Bush administration actively shaped intel to support their fear-mongering. They even went so far as to create their own intel agency when the CIA intel wasn't sufficiently frightful, then ignored the caveats and exaggerated the already-inflated findings. That is a fact, no matter how deeply the remaining Bush faithful still want to bury their heads.

This is irrelevant in any case. Even if Iraq had WMD capabilities as BushCo claimed, it still posed no significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Iraq was effectively contained and had trivial ties to terrorism compared to most states in the region. The neo-cons wanted a war, Bush was their tool, and Iraq was merely the most convenient target.

Finally, no matter how much you want to blame Anyone-But-Bush, this phony "war" is not Clinton and Kerry's war. They either bought BushCo's bogus claims, or perhaps more likely, lacked the political courage to stand up to a duped public, spooked by incessant BushCo war-mongering and the spectre of another 9/11. Either way, while I consider their support shameful, that doesn't make it their war. That distinction lies squarely with George W. Bush, his administration and handlers, and those who blindly support him.


Edit: and as umbrella39 suggests, the Authorization vote was predicated on Bush's assurance force would be used only as a last resort, after all other means were exhausted. Yet another BushCo lie; they were fools for believing it.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.
Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?
Wrong. It has been shown over and over that the Bush administration actively shaped intel to support their fear-mongering. They even went so far as to create their own intel agency when the CIA intel wasn't sufficiently frightful, then ignored the caveats and exaggerated the already-inflated findings. That is a fact, no matter how deeply the remaining Bush faithful still want to bury their heads.

This is irrelevant in any case. Even if Iraq had WMD capabilities as BushCo claimed, it still posed no significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Iraq was effectively contained and had trivial ties to terrorism compared to most states in the region. The neo-cons wanted a war, Bush was their tool, and Iraq was merely the most convenient target.

Finally, no matter how much you want to blame Anyone-But-Bush, this phony "war" is not Clinton and Kerry's war. They either bought BushCo's bogus claims, or perhaps more likely, lacked the political courage to stand up to a duped public, spooked by incessant BushCo war-mongering and the spectre of another 9/11. Either way, while I consider their support shameful, that doesn't make it their war. That distinction lies squarely with George W. Bush, his administration and handlers, and those who blindly support him.


Edit: and as umbrella39 suggests, the Authorization vote was predicated on Bush's assurance force would be used only as a last resort, after all other means were exhausted. Yet another BushCo lie; they were fools for believing it.

They had to speed things along before the truth broke. Can you say Valerie Plame?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,701
6,829
136
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.

Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?

Ahh, revisionist history once again. Do people ever tire of spouting this?

For telling the truth in that Bush was not alone? No, I do not tire of reality.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.

Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?

Ahh, revisionist history once again. Do people ever tire of spouting this?

For telling the truth in that Bush was not alone? No, I do not tire of reality.

Bush was indeed alone. Thankfully revisionist history does not replace the reality based on facts. As stated and as you can continue to ignore, authorizing force still and always will != carte blanche to invade Iraq. But keep on running with this please, don't let me or the facts stop you :thumbsup:
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.
The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".
No, the alternative was to stay out of this phony "war" in the first place. Iraq never posed any significant threat to the U.S. or our allies. Bush's invasion was all about money and power.

Or our f'ing horrible intelligence which has yet to be cleaned up. This is also Clinton and Kerry's war along with everyone in Congress who voted for it, or are you driven by political motivation?

Lol. I guess ignorant right wingers never learn!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Don't blame me. Don't flame me. I didn't do the crimes. I just wrote a song about those who did. :music:

Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Verse 3:

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
80
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
Don't blame me. Don't flame me. I didn't do the crimes. I just wrote a song about those who did. :music:

Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Verse 3:

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?

:cookie:
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Kellogg, Brown & Root have been in the political corruption business for a very long time---and they were the hidden hand and money man bankrolling LBJ from the time before he ran for his very first elective office. Naturally they were a perfect fit for Halliburton and the synergies can be levered.

But every once in a blue moon a greedy employee like MR. Smoot gets caught---but Omerta will see Mr. Smoot taken care of after he pays the forfeit for being caught. Omerta keeps the Mafia and Halliburton in business.

Way back, like in Aught 66, while I was was camping out in the botanical environment of Southeast Asia. there was this little RMK-BRJ company
which was a financial holding of Lady Bird Johnson.
It built a whole lotta stuff, with the assistance of 'Triple Nickel' the 555 Core of Engineers
and provided many a home to a military man or woman during their tours there.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
Send in only a quater of the needed troops, the war lasts 10 times longer, and is ten times more expensive.

The alternative to our current forces is a draft, not "less profit".

Ok, so they tell us the truth, up front, that 500K troops would be needed to do the job right, and that would call for a draft. That would have prevented us from ever setting foot in Iraq.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY