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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Did you miss my first post?

If they overcharging, lets get a rebate and fine them.
Did you miss mine? That hardly seems harsh enough for hurting this country through war profiteering.

Do you want to go beyond a fine execute the executives?
No, what I said was:
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.)
Plus the perp walk. They have to do the perp walk on the national news over and over and over.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: 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.)

So who besides Haliburton can do the job if you exclude them?

CkG
I personally don't know, but there were other bidders.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: chess9
Miguel:

I'm glad he resigned from Halliburton, but why did he have to mess with our government by becoming the Supreme Court's nominee for V.P.?

-Robert

That is such a weak argument, you ought to be embarrased.
Almost as embarrassed as supporting him now?

Red, what are you talking about? Me supporting Cheney? Give me a break. I'm just trying to get a straight story.
Oops, sorry!

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: miguel
My God. This thread is filled with so much partisanship, I can't believe it. No wonder it's so hard to get to the bottom of things. Can we agree on a couple of basic things here?

* Halliburton has been doing business with the Gov't for many years, even before Bush.
* Halliburton had problems with overcharging in the past, as well as now.
* Halliburton has won no-bid contracts in the past, even before Bush.
* Halliburton won contracts in Iraq because they were the only ones who could do certain jobs.
* Cheney was VP of Halliburton before he became VP of US.
* Cheney quit Halliburton when he became VP.

Personally, and believe me I'm not a Bushie, what's the problem? He resigned already. What more can we ask of them to do? Exclude Halliburton from bidding on contracts?
Well if it was found that other Companies had cheated the Governement wouldn't excluding them from bidding on jobs seem prudent?

Ofcourse there is still that little question about who.

Just a hint. There are about 3 IIRC. One is French...so they are out(plus they are supposedly somehow owned by Halliburtion. The other is a US firm who lost the bid contract - ie wanted too much money.
Just because Cheney was part of Halliburton doesn't exclude them from being a gov't contractor especially since they already were.

CkG
So you don't believe in Conflict of Interest or are you just too partisan to give a damn.

Cad, I give you the benefit of the doubt but you are undoubtedly partisan so I have to ask!

rolleye.gif
No - it's called he stepped down and removed the conflicts. If there is a direct conflict then yes it should be addressed but we've been over this finacial stuff about Cheney and Haliburton before and it seems that he has indeed addressed those concerns about financial conflicts of interest.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I think the U.S. should award every single reconstruction contract to Iraqi companies. And if there isn't an Iraqi company that exists to handle a particular job, let's create one. Let's get those people back to work dammit. :)

PS - Cheney has "financial ties" to Halliburton, the GAO says so.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think the U.S. should award every single reconstruction contract to Iraqi companies. And if there isn't an Iraqi company that exists to handle a particular job, let's create one. Let's get those people back to work dammit. :)

PS - Cheney has "financial ties" to Halliburton, the GAO says so.

You are aware iraqi subcontractors are getting a pretty big chunk of the work?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
On CNN, or was it MSNBC, they said that Halliburton has claimed they were forced by the pentagon to buy their fuel from Kuwait, instead of Turkey which would be much cheaper. Anyways, I think they said that Halliburton has until the 17th to officially respond to the complaint. They also said that Halliburton has posted a partial explanation on their website.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
On CNN, or was it MSNBC, they said that Halliburton has claimed they were forced by the pentagon to buy their fuel from Kuwait, instead of Turkey which would be much cheaper. Anyways, I think they said that Halliburton has until the 17th to officially respond to the complaint. They also said that Halliburton has posted a partial explanation on their website.

Than info - if true - most certainly would be an interesting twist in this whole overblown Haliburton saga.(that isn't to say the oil/gas thing isn't news worthy;))

Halliburton says...

DAVE LESAR says...

CkG
 

kandarp

Platinum Member
May 19, 2003
2,852
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: kandarp
from what i have heard on the news (HARDBALL) good ol dick get a fixed amount.

From? and because?

CkG

cheney gets fixed amount from hally...still doesnt completely invalidate the quid pro quo argument just thought i would mention that.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: kandarp
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: kandarp
from what i have heard on the news (HARDBALL) good ol dick get a fixed amount.

From? and because?

CkG

cheney gets fixed amount from hally...still doesnt completely invalidate the quid pro quo argument just thought i would mention that.

Do you have a link? Is that from a pension perhaps?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: kandarp
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: kandarp
from what i have heard on the news (HARDBALL) good ol dick get a fixed amount.

From? and because?

CkG

cheney gets fixed amount from hally...still doesnt completely invalidate the quid pro quo argument just thought i would mention that.

Do you have a link? Is that from a pension perhaps?

link

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Problem with Dick "Big Time" Cheney is that he gets a guaranteed deferred payment from Halliburton to the tune of $180,000 a year, even while in office. Dick goes around telling the American people that he has no financial ties to Halliburton whatsoever. Completely severed all ties with the company when he resigned to take the VP job.

So in the end, I suppose it depends on what your definition of "financial ties" is. Or what the definition of "is" is. ;)

EDIT: Just because Cheney gets this guaranteed payment from Halliburton. doesn't mean he's necessarily done anything wrong. For me, the issue is his denial of financial ties - meaning he's misrepresenting the reality of his arrangement. Even though a guaranteed payment comes in no matter what the financial health of Halliburton, the payment still qualifies as financial ties. The GAO even said so after investigating Cheney.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Problem with Dick "Big Time" Cheney is that he gets a guaranteed deferred payment from Halliburton to the tune of $180,000 a year, even while in office. Dick goes around telling the American people that he has no financial ties to Halliburton whatsoever. Completely severed all ties with the company when he resigned to take the VP job.

So in the end, I suppose it depends on what your definition of "financial ties" is. Or what the definition of "is" is. ;)

EDIT: Just because Cheney gets this guaranteed payment from Halliburton. doesn't mean he's necessarily done anything wrong. For me, the issue is his denial of financial ties - meaning he's misrepresenting the reality of his arrangement. Even though a guaranteed payment comes in no matter what the financial health of Halliburton, the payment still qualifies as financial ties. The GAO even said so after investigating Cheney.

Nice post, DM.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Problem with Dick "Big Time" Cheney is that he gets a guaranteed deferred payment from Halliburton to the tune of $180,000 a year, even while in office. Dick goes around telling the American people that he has no financial ties to Halliburton whatsoever. Completely severed all ties with the company when he resigned to take the VP job.

So in the end, I suppose it depends on what your definition of "financial ties" is. Or what the definition of "is" is. ;)

EDIT: Just because Cheney gets this guaranteed payment from Halliburton. doesn't mean he's necessarily done anything wrong. For me, the issue is his denial of financial ties - meaning he's misrepresenting the reality of his arrangement. Even though a guaranteed payment comes in no matter what the financial health of Halliburton, the payment still qualifies as financial ties. The GAO even said so after investigating Cheney.

So if he would have said - "No financial risk(stake)" in the company would it be ok? Because if they go bankrupt he's protected and if his stock makes any money it's given to charity. So it would seem to me that personally it doesn't matter what or how Halliburton does - because Cheney doesn't profit or lose. no?

The whole point I'm trying to say is that No matter what - Cheney's ties to the company are effectively nil since he neither gains nor loses from decisions made by the company or the gov't.

Plus there is the whole part about how Haliburton has had a history of getting contracts from the gov't even before Bush/Cheney took office. I don't see how the chant from the left hold any credible weight when infact during the Clinton Administration Halliburton lost the LOGCAP bidding yet was awarded a no-bid contract for the Balkan exercises. So were their chants of "favoritism", "conspiracy", and "corruption" back then? Why not? The LOGCAP was competitively bid and Halliburton won the contract - if you want to take issue with LOGCAP - fine, I don't have a problem taking issue with that but to say that it's Bush's or Cheney's "fault" is asinine. The procedures were followed and have precedent.

CkG
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
I think America would be served by Cheney if he would stop taking his Meds and just expire. To bad he can't take Asscroft, Rummy and Wolfowitz with him. If he could he should be put on a Dollar bill
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,749
422
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think America would be served by Cheney if he would stop taking his Meds and just expire. To bad he can't take Asscroft, Rummy and Wolfowitz with him. If he could he should be put on a Dollar bill


You are a bitter , bitter person, to the point of mental illness. Ever consider paxil? My insane neighbor takes it and is very likable now.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think America would be served by Cheney if he would stop taking his Meds and just expire. To bad he can't take Asscroft, Rummy and Wolfowitz with him. If he could he should be put on a Dollar bill


You are a bitter , bitter person, to the point of mental illness. Ever consider paxil? My insane neighbor takes it and is very likable now.

Red has some issues, but he's got a good heart.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Cad - the problem is Cheney is being deceptive. He wants America to think there are "no financial ties," meaning nothing there. Nada. No money coming in. But that's not the reality of it.

Now, I've already said that just because Cheney gets paid yearly by Halliburton, that doesn't necessarily mean he's done anything wrong. IMO, it looks like a conflict of interests and a lot of people would argue that the present administration is completely in bed with the energy companies and/or corporate America. However, unless someone can uncover some actual wrongdoing, there's not a lot of weight behind this issue.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad - the problem is Cheney is being deceptive. He wants America to think there are "no financial ties," meaning nothing there. Nada. No money coming in. But that's not the reality of it.

Now, I've already said that just because Cheney gets paid yearly by Halliburton, that doesn't necessarily mean he's done anything wrong. IMO, it looks like a conflict of interests and a lot of people would argue that the present administration is completely in bed with the energy companies and/or corporate America. However, unless someone can uncover some actual wrongdoing, there's not a lot of weight behind this issue.

To add to your argument, consider this from Gaard's link:

An aide to the vice president said yesterday: "This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time."

The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad - the problem is Cheney is being deceptive. He wants America to think there are "no financial ties," meaning nothing there. Nada. No money coming in. But that's not the reality of it.

Now, I've already said that just because Cheney gets paid yearly by Halliburton, that doesn't necessarily mean he's done anything wrong. IMO, it looks like a conflict of interests and a lot of people would argue that the present administration is completely in bed with the energy companies and/or corporate America. However, unless someone can uncover some actual wrongdoing, there's not a lot of weight behind this issue.

Good to see you think that.:) Conspiracy theorists abound - this is one such case. This whole issue of Halliburton and Cheney and the contracts is almost a non-issue but by looking at the news one wouldn't know that. Cheney's name is always a couple words behing Halliburton...Hmmm... Yes this issue about the gas should be resolved(and it will) but for people to constantly jump to the Cheney conspiracy argument is getting tiring.

CkG
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
CAD -

Do you really think that Cheney is squeaky-clean when as the VP he's still collecting a stipend from Halliburton ?
Bush is sending in Jim Baker - another 'Deep Bushie' to clean this mess up (NYT-Op/Ed)
Too much baggage, and excessive insider action here. Baker even has long time buisness interests for himself and for Cheney.
Carlyle Group

Not that I'm that much of a Clinton lover, but I have never seen such a corrupt and deceitful in my lifetime as the Bush Bunch.
They are doing more damage to our country from within that any enemy has ever done to our country from the outside.
Paranoid schitzophrenics leading our government. Not since Nixon has there been such paranoia in the (Miss)Leadership of our nation.
==============================================================================================
CLIP -

Lastweek, the White House summoned James Baker III, the Bush family's persuader of last resort, back to public service. His new portfolio is the diplomatically ticklish and economically crucial problem of restructuring Iraq's currently unpayable official debts. As a former secretary of both the State and Treasury Departments and a public and private Middle East deal maker, he is in many ways a supremely qualified choice. Yet as it stands right now, Mr. Baker is far too tangled in a matrix of lucrative private business relationships that leave him looking like a potentially interested party in any debt-restructuring formula. The obvious solution is for him to sever his ties to all firms doing work directly or indirectly related to Iraq.

Mr. Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton. Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh and a strategic alliance with another firm in the United Arab Emirates, and it deploys Mr. Baker's name and past government service on its Web site to solicit Middle East business. It is inappropriate for Mr. Baker to remain attached to these businesses, whose clients and potential future clients could be affected by the decisions made about Iraq's official debt.

Iraq's overall debt is estimated at something over $100 billion, with another $100 billion or so owed in reparations. Just servicing that debt, without paying back any principal, looks beyond the means of a country whose oil revenues amounted to only $13 billion in the last full year before the war.

Finding a way to persuade creditor nations like France, Russia and the Persian Gulf Arab states to forgive part of Iraq's debt and restructure the rest is critical to the administration's foreign policy. It is no wonder the president turned to an experienced hand like Mr. Baker, whose legal maneuvering in Florida did so much to secure his hold on the White House in 2000. Yet before any of this can happen, Mr. Baker must show that he will be free of any private business entanglements that could raise legitimate questions about his recommendations. If the administration needs a political reason for doing the right thing, it need only look at the deep suspicion raised about the Iraqi construction contracts doled out to Halliburton, a company that was run by Dick Cheney before he became vice president.

Mr. Baker has agreed to forgo earnings from clients with obvious connections to Iraqi debts, a process that Baker Botts attorneys would supervise for the law firm and that the White House would oversee for the Carlyle Group. That is not good enough. Businesses like Carlyle and Baker Botts make their living by flaunting their connections to the politically powerful. To perform honorably in his new public job, Mr. Baker must give up these two private ones.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
CnK - I think this issue has been overblown. His money is tied up. He makes no gain and risks no loss. He was owed compensation - he is recieving what is due. Chant corruption and conspiracy all you want but it just doesn't hold up. The LOGCAP contract was competitively won by Halliburton - period. Granting them emergency no-bids is nothing different than what Clinton did in the Balkan situation. So yes - I think people are a stretching this WAY too far.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad - the problem is Cheney is being deceptive. He wants America to think there are "no financial ties," meaning nothing there. Nada. No money coming in. But that's not the reality of it.

Now, I've already said that just because Cheney gets paid yearly by Halliburton, that doesn't necessarily mean he's done anything wrong. IMO, it looks like a conflict of interests and a lot of people would argue that the present administration is completely in bed with the energy companies and/or corporate America. However, unless someone can uncover some actual wrongdoing, there's not a lot of weight behind this issue.

Good to see you think that.:) Conspiracy theorists abound - this is one such case. This whole issue of Halliburton and Cheney and the contracts is almost a non-issue but by looking at the news one wouldn't know that. Cheney's name is always a couple words behing Halliburton...Hmmm... Yes this issue about the gas should be resolved(and it will) but for people to constantly jump to the Cheney conspiracy argument is getting tiring.

CkG

Cad, the solution is quite simple: Cheney can divest himself completely of ALL financial ties to Halliburton. That would likely stop much of the suspicion and appearances of a conflict of interest. I really think at this point, it's far too late to do so. The time to do so would have been before he took the VP post. I don't see why anyone would blame the media over this, it's quite clearly Cheney's fault for leaving these financial ties in place to begin with.