Pentagon Investigation Found Halliburton Overcharging for Fuel and other Services/Items

[tnitsuj]

from ABCNEWS.COM

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM

IF they are overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

 

[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...

 

[Strk]

This part made me laugh quite a bit.

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

 

[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.

 

[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)

 

[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.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM

IF they are overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

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.

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.)

 

[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?

 

[miguel]

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.

Uh, read the article. Or did you mean complaints by media and policital parties?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

And actually Gore praised them! :Q
And infact I think the gov't extended their contract or made up a new one when they lost the bid in '97 or '98. I'll have to dig up the info but it's quite funny to see people sitting here trashing a company who has been working for the gov't for years.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

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."?

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

It was discussed in considerable depth here. Lots of links, etc.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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."?

Well there were no problems with them getting large contracts from the goverment. The left was not complaining about them getting large contracts.

 

[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?

 

[Strk]

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?

It sure would be nice if the media covered what's important when it happens not just when it makes for a better story wouldn't it?

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

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!

 

[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?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

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.

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!

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.

 

[miguel]

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!

Relax Red, I think what we're trying to get to (I know I am at least) is why is Halliburton in the news now and not before. Apparantly, they've been doing this kind of thing for a while now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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?

none of them has a flight of Saudis leaving the U.S. while the ban on regular air travel was still in effect.

1 down

CkG

 

[dahunan]

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?

1. Cheney wasnt't the vice president under the Clinton admin.. so there wasn't the conflict ... Haliburton is SO Huge that I do not think anyone can do the same jobs they can...

2. Links to Bush
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+business+partners+bin+laden


This may not be the best article on the subject
In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians ? including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden ? who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
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."?

Well there were no problems with them getting large contracts from the goverment. The left was not complaining about them getting large contracts.

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.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

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.

Sadly, integrity has become an old-fashioned concept rarely applied in government these days. (No, I don't mean just Bush, nor do I mean just Republicans.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from ABCNEWS.COM

IF they are overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.

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.

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.)

Oops, forgot the perp walk. These executives should do the perp walk over and over on the nightly news.