Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Seems to me that hurting one's country by profiteering on a war is a serious offense. It is probably not technically treason, but it is certainly cut from the same cloth. If nothing else, it's indicative of a company that is ethically bankrupt and completely unsuitable for public contracts.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM
IF they are overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.
Originally posted by: Strk
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Huh? I'm confused. Do you mean besides this: "Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day."?Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
It was discussed in considerable depth here. Lots of links, etc.Originally posted by: miguel
Seems very partisan to me. This is news to me that Halliburton had previous contracts under the previous administration. It's somehow never really mentioned by anyone is it?
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Huh? I'm confused. Do you mean besides this: "Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day."?Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Strk
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Seems very partisan to me. This is news to me that Halliburton had previous contracts under the previous administration. It's somehow never really mentioned by anyone is it?
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Strk
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Seems very partisan to me. This is news to me that Halliburton had previous contracts under the previous administration. It's somehow never really mentioned by anyone is it?
Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Strk
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Seems very partisan to me. This is news to me that Halliburton had previous contracts under the previous administration. It's somehow never really mentioned by anyone is it?
Haliburton is a GIANT corporation.. but the fact that Cheney left Haliburton to become Vice President AND AND the fact that Haliburton did NOT have to even bid on their current contract in IRAQ MAKES THIS AN ISSUE.. duh!
George Bush was business partners with a few of the bin laden family members too.... possibly one of the reasons they were allowed to lfy their private jets out of the country on 9/11-9/12 while all public flights were grounded?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: miguel
From the link:
Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day.
You mean they won contracts to support the military in the Balkans??!?? Wasn't that under Clinton's watch?!??!? I was under the impression that Halliburton came into the gov't light when Cheney became Vice President! Oh, wait! You mean I was misled by partisans? My goodness...
Yup, they got multi-billion dollar contracts in the balkins. Somehow it was never a problem then.
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck me, just because the Previous Administration didn't do their job that excuses Halliburton? What is this deal with "Well Clinton did this and did that" makes the fsck ups of this current Administration accecptable? Didn't Bush get elected becasue he wasn't Clinton or was it because he too could be a tool just like Clinton!
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: dahunan
George Bush was business partners with a few of the bin laden family members too.... possibly one of the reasons they were allowed to lfy their private jets out of the country on 9/11-9/12 while all public flights were grounded?
OK, that's news for me too. Give me a link for that, would ya?
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Strk
It was just as much of a problem then as it is now, except now the former CEO is the VP, which makes it newsworthy.(yes, it's lame, but that is how the news works)
Seems very partisan to me. This is news to me that Halliburton had previous contracts under the previous administration. It's somehow never really mentioned by anyone is it?
Haliburton is a GIANT corporation.. but the fact that Cheney left Haliburton to become Vice President AND AND the fact that Haliburton did NOT have to even bid on their current contract in IRAQ MAKES THIS AN ISSUE.. duh!
Wasn't there contracts under Clinton that Halliburton didn't have to bid on either for the Balkans? Somebody throw me a link here!
George Bush was business partners with a few of the bin laden family members too.... possibly one of the reasons they were allowed to lfy their private jets out of the country on 9/11-9/12 while all public flights were grounded?
OK, that's news for me too. Give me a link for that, would ya?
I don't know if that is true or not, but it I don't think it is terribly relevant. The federal government has a long history of continuing to do business with companies that screw us over. There are too many conflicting interests due to pork, pet projects, and personal ties to contractors. Halliburton is not unique in this regard.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Huh? I'm confused. Do you mean besides this: "Congress' General Accounting Office found in 1997 and 2000 that KBR had billed the Army for questionable expenses on its support contracts for operations in the Balkans. Those reviews cited instances such as charging $85.98 per sheet of plywood which cost $14.06 and billing the Army for cleaning some offices up to four times per day."?Originally posted by: charrison
I dont think there was a single complaint about their contracts under previous admins.
Well there were no problems with them getting large contracts from the goverment. The left was not complaining about them getting large contracts.
I think the difference is the appearance of a conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. Unfair though it may seem, either Halliburton should have been barred from federal contracts as long as Cheney was in office, or Cheney should have never accepted the VP position. That is one of the sacrifices people of integrity make when they choose to enter public service.Originally posted by: charrison
You missed my point. There is nothing different happening with goverment contracting now than there was 10 years ago. This is a purely partisan issue.
Oops, forgot the perp walk. These executives should do the perp walk over and over on the nightly news.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Seems to me that hurting one's country by profiteering on a war is a serious offense. It is probably not technically treason, but it is certainly cut from the same cloth. If nothing else, it's indicative of a company that is ethically bankrupt and completely unsuitable for public contracts.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM
IF they are overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.
In addition to fines, IF the charges are true, I suggest imprisioning a few of their executives and barring the company from any federal contracts for ten years or so. Send a strong message to the rest of the robber barons that violating the public trust carries serious consequences*.
(*Note: by "serious consequences" I do NOT mean conquering Halliburton. Just didn't want to leave that open for wishful interpretation.)