On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:42:28 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

In context, it's clear that "the subcontractor" Phil is referring to is the
Halliburton's own subsidiary, Kellogg, Brwon & Root". Saying Halliburton
"did not appear to have profited from (its subcontractor's/subsidiary's)
over charging for fuel "but instead paid a subcontracor (owned by
Halliburton) "too much...." is ludicrous to the point of absurdity. If KBR
profits, Halliburton profits. When Halliburton charges the Pentagon for
paying its own subsidiary too much for fuel, and its subsidiary reaps
excessive profits, then so does Halliburton, and ultimately we, the
taxpayers, have been ripped off by one of Cheney's cronies.

You're wrong about this. The overcharging was done *to* KBR *from* the
Kuwaiti oil distributor. KBR made the same amount of profit *for*
Halliburton that it made from the cheaper Turkish oil (according to
all accounts). The $61 million figure was the difference between the
$1.18 that was paid to the Turkish company and the $2.28 (or whatever
it was) minus the profit of a 'few cents per gallon" that was paid to
the Kuwaitis. However, it looks like President Bush is going to make
Halliburton pay for its foulup for paying the Kuwaitis that extra
amount.

The question that's on my mind right now is whether or not there might
have been a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis with some of that money
coming back to KBR surreptiously. I have nothing to base that on other
than the question as to how they could have honored such a contract
when they had much cheaper gas that they were already buying from
Turkey (unless Turkey couldn't supply the requisite quantities). This
doesn'tlook like a "bookkeeping error" and are they *really* that
stupid to pay double for the gas?