"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Phil" wrote:
Well, there is a bit of a problem with the whole Bush/Cheney
cronyism
angle
and I'll just take a quote from today's New York Times article.
"The officials said Halliburton did not appear to have profited
from
overcharging for fuel, but had instead paid a subcontractor too
much
for
the
gasoline in the first place."--news story, New York Times, Dec. 12
To bad, it appears your dreams of cronyism is again, wrong.
The "subcontractor" was Halliburton's own. The money still went
into
Halliburton's pockets, and the Pentagon is in the process of
extracting
it,
with, by now, Bush's blessing.
Sandman
Not exactly, you better check your sources again. The over charge was
the
Kuwaiti source of oil, not the Halliburton division, therefore as the
New
York Times stated Halliburton did not profit from the over charge and
by
t
he
way the White House was holding Halliburton responsible for the error
of
its
sub-contractor even though it is not part of its company.
Again your sources and your assumptions are inaccurate.
I'll look into it, Phil.
Meanwhile, all I know is that news channels are still referring to the
subcontractor as a Halliburton "subsidiary". Think back six months or
so
to
the brouhaha which resulted when the Bush administration awarded a
no-bid
contract to Halliburton for Iraqi reconstruction. In response,
Halliburton
transferred the contract to one of its subsidiaries, which it
transparently
referred to as a "subcontractor". Even Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. saw
through
that veil, and eventually, to distract attention to the blantant
cronyism
between Cheney and Halliburton (where Cheney worked prior to becoming
VP)
the administration awarded some other no-bid contracts to one or more of
its
buddies - the one that comes to mind is Bechtel.
My reference to "cronyism", BTW, had to do with the awarding of no-bid
contracts to Cheney's old pals in the first place. Any profiteering
*resulting* from that cronyism, whether wrongful or not, is irrelevant
to
the issue of cronyism in the first place. Any malfeasance on the part
of
any of Halliburton's or Bechtel's subsidiaries/subcontractors in Iraq is
a
*consequence* of cronyism, not cronyism itself. If there is malfeasance
found, it merely casts a longer dark shadow over an already dark hole.
Although Phil's quote from the NY Times article is correct, it is taken
out
of context: Here is the context:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/in...st/12PENT.html
"A Pentagon investigation has found evidence that a subsidiary of the
politically connected Halliburton Company overcharged the government by as
much as $61 million for fuel delivered to Iraq under huge no-bid
reconstruction contracts, senior military officials said Thursday."
"The subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, also submitted a proposal for
cafeteria services that seemed to be inflated by $67 million, the
officials
said. The Pentagon rejected that proposal, they said...."
"Military officials said the Pentagon was negotiating with K.B.R. over how
to resolve the fuel charges. But Michael Thibault, deputy director of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency, said in a telephone interview that a draft
report by the agency had recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers seek
reimbursement."
Phil quoted only the next paragraph:
"The officials said Halliburton did not appear to have profited from
overcharging for fuel, but had instead paid a subcontractor too much for
the
gasoline in the first place."
It goes on:
"Halliburton has also said that one reason it needed to charge a high
price
for fuel was that it must be delivered in a combat zone. Several K.B.R.
workers have been killed or wounded in attacks by Iraqis."
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.
Wrong again. A meaning of terms, you can not give a subcontract to a
subsidiary. A subcontract goes to a separate company. Second, if the
subsidiary profits then Halliburton profits but the New York Times said
Halliburton didn't profit. Third, Halliburton or the KBR subsidiary owns no
oil, so where did it get the oil, from a Kuwaiti company as has been
reported. The Kuwaiti company is the source of the over-charge, however even
before all this handwring, the Bush administration was holding Halliburton
responsible for the actions of its subcontractor. Something that is not
always done but the Bush administration requires a higher level of
responsibility than other administrations.
Phil