http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda, how
about posting the article instead of the link to some place people have to
fill out a form.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda, how
about posting the article instead of the link to some place people have to
fill out a form.

Because it's not polite to post lengthy articles.

The other thing is that it's actually a copyright issue as well.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda, how
about posting the article instead of the link to some place people have
to
fill out a form.

Because it's not polite to post lengthy articles.

The other thing is that it's actually a copyright issue as well.

Isn't also impolite to constantly post fiction and claim it as fact?
Sanders is so far out the reality loop, it's just sad.

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the chances of
him losing re-election are non-existent.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:01:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the chances of
him losing re-election are non-existent.

More hyperbole.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep. John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep. John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Had enough yet???

"Sandman" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...




http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and
other violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction
contracts for Iraq that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's
former company, military officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector
general investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to
Iraq by Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a
contract from the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq
until local oil refineries are brought back up to speed. The company
has been accused of overcharging the U.S. for the gasoline, but has
said that the high price is due to the cost of providing security.
Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney,
received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without going through the
normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the
article would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a
handful of Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just
this but other charges of malfeasance.

Sanders, I would hope that most readers have cleverly discerned that
"Senators... ...have requested that the Pentagon... ...investigate" doesn't
mean the same thing as "Senators are investigating".

I also hope that most people, outside of some radical Democrats who are
thirsty for administration blood, understand that "investigation" doesn't
mean the same thing as "criminal conviction".

I also hope that when some influential Senators ask the Pentagon for an
investigation, they get one but of course it's at taxpayer expense too,
isn't it? By the way how big is that investigation, is it as small as a
bread box or as big as an aircraft carrier?

After all, it's the Pentagon
that's getting slapped with Halliburton's price-gouging bills.

Like I said: ...outside of some radical Democrats who are thirsty for
administration blood.

And that means you, me, and every other American taxpayer is getting
gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

And proof of the claim that Halliburton was gouging has been legally proven
in which court of law?

I guess in Sanders-speak, "investigation" means the same thing as "reliable
evidence of wrongdoing", means the same thing as "indictment", means the
same thing as "trial", means the same thing as "conviction". What was your
profession again, Sanders?

Had enough yet???

Not yet, as deconstructing badly-thought-out claims is one of my hobbies.

Sandman a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message



"Sandman" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h

p



Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for

Iraq

that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep. John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil

refineries

are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without

going

through the normal competitive bidding process.


Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Had enough yet???


So ?
Is it really a big surprise ?
I haven't read that democrats have organized a revolution, sorry an
important manifestation.
Since you know where the money is, it's time now to open a special
subscription for Iraqi orphans.

What are you exactly looking for ?
True or arguments for the next electoral campaign ?

True was available since a long time, there's just was an incredible
dearth of "strongly-balled" American guy to tell it loudly.
Do you propose to Iraqi to replace a republican parasite by a democrat
vermin ? Interesting program they will surely interested.
What a country of moron !

Sorry to make this noise during your victory masquerade.
No champagne, thanks I've taken a valium.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:01:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the chances
of
him losing re-election are non-existent.

More hyperbole.

Political reality. The Democrat wonks may be whooping it up but the reality
is that they are in a shambles. There's always the hardcore that will vote
for their candidates but elections are won by swing voters. They are not
far left and will not vote for any of the idiots being put forth this time
around.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep. John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep. John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.


Translation, the Dems have nothing so they dig for dirt.
The price they are charging for gas is hardly unreasonable given the cost of
security. You lefty's do understand there are people shooting over there,
right?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:31:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Translation, the Dems have nothing so they dig for dirt.
The price they are charging for gas is hardly unreasonable given the cost of
security. You lefty's do understand there are people shooting over there,
right?

You obviously haven't been reading the coverage. Neither you nor
Sandman seem to realize that this wasn't an instance of Kellogg et.al.
gouging but *being* gouged by the Kuwaitis. They were charging almost
twice as much Turkish distributors. I don't see where there's a
substantial difference in securing oil from Kuwait versus Turkey. In
fact, one would think that delivering and securing Kuwaiti gas would
be cheaper than from Turkey. In fact, KBR claim that they make the
same amount of money (a "few" cents) from either source. So, the cost
of security of the shipments isn't the issue in this case. It's a
procurement issue. KBR claims that this supplier was the only one of
four Kuwaiti distributors that met the terms of the contract with DOD.
Yet, that doesn't explain why they couldn't continue to rely on $1.18
a gallon gas from Turkish sources, or require the distributors from
Kuwait to drop their prices from the $2.27 price and/or meet the Core
of Engineers standards of the contract.

It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

There are quite a few other instances of overcharging and/or
overserving for billing purposes.

Despite what Mr. Krueger said, all of this was uncovered by an
internal Pentagon audit triggered by the concerns of several
Congressmen. Partisan or not, it looks like they may have done the
"Republican" thing and uncovered instances of waste, incompetence, or
possible abuse in the Federal government.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...




http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company,
military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep.
John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract
from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of
overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to
the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the
article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting
slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Had enough yet???


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.

Phil

"Phil" wrote in message
news:_UqCb.525744$Fm2.506887@attbi_s04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...





http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and
other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts
for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company,
military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and Rep.
John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract
from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of
overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due to
the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the
article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting
slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and
every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Had enough yet???


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

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:_UqCb.525744$Fm2.506887@attbi_s04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...






http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing
propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and
other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts
for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company,
military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and
Rep.
John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a contract
from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of
overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due
to
the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by
Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts
without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the
article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but
other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting
slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and
every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Had enough yet???


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 the
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.

Phil

"Phil" wrote in message
news:UauCb.35838$8y1.150806@attbi_s52...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:_UqCb.525744$Fm2.506887@attbi_s04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...







http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing
propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging and
other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction
contracts
for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company,
military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and
Rep.
John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a
contract
from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of
overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is due
to
the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run by
Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts
without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read the
article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful
of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but
other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's getting
slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me, and
every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney
cronyism.

Had enough yet???


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.

"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.

One point I overlooked:

"Phil" wrote:

by the 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.

The "subcontractor*, KBR, *is* part of Halliburton, as its wholly owned
*subsidiary*, which is why "the White House was holding Halliburton
responsible". Why? Because under agency law, the principal (Halliburton)
is responsible for the acts of its agent (KBR - Halliburton's subsidiary,
which for transparent political purposes, it has called "a subconctractor").

"Sandman" wrote in message

One point I overlooked:

"Phil" wrote:

by the 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.

The "subcontractor*, KBR, *is* part of Halliburton, as its wholly
owned *subsidiary*, which is why "the White House was holding
Halliburton responsible". Why? Because under agency law, the
principal (Halliburton) is responsible for the acts of its agent (KBR
- Halliburton's subsidiary, which for transparent political purposes,
it has called "a subcontractor").

You're way behind CNN & Fox, Sanders. Even the "Truthout" site
http://truthout.org/docs_03/121103D.shtml has things more correct and
up-to-date than you do.

The *subcontractor* is a Kuwaiti firm, and not Kellogg Brown & Root (the
relevant Halliburton subsidiary)

http://www.kiplinger.com/news/XmlSto...212670.6.357_7
b8502d20935c0fd

"But the charge is not that Halliburton profited from this deal, but merely
that it might not have been diligent enough in negotiating a market price
contract from a subcontractor, Kuwaiti oil company that was designated by
the Kuwaiti government as the only company that could bid on this contract."

As usual Sanders, you've got all the relevant facts wrong.

Update:

http://www.halliburton.com/news/arch...nws_031299.jsp

"Kellogg, Brown & Root is a business unit of Halliburton Company (NYSE:
HAL):"

That's a direct quote from Halliburton's home page, where on the left side,
one sees "KBR Engineering, Construction & Services"

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?

dave weil said:

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).

Begorra yes, laddie -- this "deal" stinks to high heaven of
kickbacks.

This doesn'tlook like a "bookkeeping error" and are they *really*
that stupid to pay double for the gas?

Maybe they hired a McKelvy to do their procurement.

George M. Middius wrote:

dave weil said:

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).

Begorra yes, laddie -- this "deal" stinks to high heaven of
kickbacks.

This doesn'tlook like a "bookkeeping error" and are they *really*
that stupid to pay double for the gas?

Maybe they hired a McKelvy to do their procurement.










I certainly would not be surprised to learn that he's a procurer.



Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

You're way behind CNN & Fox, Sanders.

Well, I was just now watching "Hardball" on MSNBC, and one right-wing pundit
has continued to identify the "subcractor" as "KBR", a division of
Halliburton.

Even the "Truthout" site
http://truthout.org/docs_03/121103D.shtml has things more correct and
up-to-date than you do.

Obviously, the NY Times article was poorly written, as it both referred to
an identified "subcontractor" (Halliburton's own KBR) and an unidentified
"subcontractor.

The story there is far more complex than you'd lead us to believe.
The *subcontractor* is a Kuwaiti firm, and not Kellogg Brown & Root (the
relevant Halliburton subsidiary)


http://www.kiplinger.com/news/XmlSto...212670.6.357_7
b8502d20935c0fd

"But the charge is not that Halliburton profited from this deal, but
merely
that it might not have been diligent enough in negotiating a market price
contract from a subcontractor, Kuwaiti oil company that was designated by
the Kuwaiti government as the only company that could bid on this
contract."

As usual Sanders, you've got all the relevant facts wrong.

I relied on the NY Times article, which was the first news I saw about it.
Admittedly, it is confused. Yet you selectively quote some very misleading
stuff. Halliburton is still to blame for its involvement in this scandal,
and it's more complex than you pretend. Why not just put it all on the
table by quoting from truthout.org's article:

"High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq
By Don Van Natta Jr.
New York Times

Wednesday 10 December 2003

The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an
average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from
Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel,
government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import
fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government
officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and
fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October
when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge
Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at
a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that
Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's
oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available
for 71 cents wholesale.

But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents
recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with
The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of
fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's
pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime
situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting,"
she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which
administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile
environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15
cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to
avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support
Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price,
the records show.

Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks
damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making
fuel runs into Iraq.

She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a
company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton
is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple
as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended
the price of imported fuel.

"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the
dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti
said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government
audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction
efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the
world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and
an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations
sanctions.

Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and
other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87
billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last
month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including
$690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons
of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of
more than $383 million.

A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually
razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny
a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its
gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of gas
from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger,
a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK
Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium - that's the only term to describe
it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe
would salivate to have that sort of contract."

In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair
Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in
work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part
because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive
officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the
spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait
subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon
wholesale in the Middle East.

In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel
an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying
22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for
"mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to
cover the overhead for administering the contract.

Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call
it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general
and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said.
"These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of
Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and
approved by U.S. government auditors."

In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen.
Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show
that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from
Kuwait in late November.

If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered
the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total
value of the gas it imported.

Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and
the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security
reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat
who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had
identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several
independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said
they had not heard of Altanmia.

Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office,
which provided them to The Times.

Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in
gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides
to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO - and by Halliburton's
subcontractor - are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the
same military escorts.

The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per
gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That
includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the
United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been
borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush
last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning
early next year.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest
information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that
Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis
and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said."

In another article I read, it noted, as above, Halliburton stands to profit
between a minimum 2% and a maximum 7% on the Kuwaiti overcharges - meaning
w/r/t the overcharges alone, Halliburton stands to profit an extra $1.2
million to over $4 million.

What is clear, is that this secretive "subcontractor" in Kuwait is charging
a lot more than other oil firms in Kuwait for oil imported into Iraq? What
the hell is Halliburton doing using our taxpayer dollars paying such an
outrageous price to this secretive "subcontractor" when it can get much
lower prices from other Kuwaiti and Turkish companies?. It smells pretty
oily to me. I'm sure there's a lot going on that neither the Pentagon,
Bush, Halliburton, or Kuwait want us to know.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...
"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing propaganda, how
about posting the article instead of the link to some place people have
to
fill out a form.

Because it's not polite to post lengthy articles.

The other thing is that it's actually a copyright issue as well.

Isn't also impolite to constantly post fiction and claim it as fact?
Sanders is so far out the reality loop, it's just sad.

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the chances of
him losing re-election are non-existent.


Your ass is plonked. Furthermore, I will be sending an abuse complaint to your ISP.

"Malev" wrote in message
om
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing
propaganda, how about posting the article instead of the link to
some place people have
to
fill out a form.

Because it's not polite to post lengthy articles.

The other thing is that it's actually a copyright issue as well.

Isn't also impolite to constantly post fiction and claim it as fact?
Sanders is so far out the reality loop, it's just sad.

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the
chances of him losing re-election are non-existent.


Your ass is plonked.

That's your privelege.

Furthermore, I will be sending an abuse complaint to your ISP.

For what? Having an opinon that you disagree with? I'm sure you'll get the
usual polite letter saying they'll investigate it. Behind your back they'll
probably be laughing about what a baby you are.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:UauCb.35838$8y1.150806@attbi_s52...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:_UqCb.525744$Fm2.506887@attbi_s04...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message


"Sandman" wrote in message
...








http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/in...ND-PENT.html?h
p


Hey Sand Brain! If you want people to read your ****ing
propaganda,
how about posting the article instead of the link to some
place
people have to fill out a form.

Sanders is right, here we go again.

" A Pentagon investigation has found evidence of overcharging
and
other
violations in billions of dollars worth of reconstruction
contracts
for
Iraq
that were awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former
company,
military
officials said today."

This relates to this item:

http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefro...e/2003_11.html

Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal) and
Rep.
John
Dingell (D-Mich)have requested that the Pentagon inspector
general
investigate the alleged over-pricing of gasoline sent to Iraq by
Halliburton, Reuters reports. Haliburton is working under a
contract
from
the Army Corps of Engineers to supply gas to Iraq until local
oil
refineries
are brought back up to speed. The company has been accused of
overcharging
the U.S. for the gasoline, but has said that the high price is
due
to
the
cost of providing security. Haliburton, which was formerly run
by
Vice
President Dick Cheney, received Iraqi reconstruction contracts
without
going
through the normal competitive bidding process.

Any of you who had taken the time to fill out the form and read
the
article
would have noticed that it *is* the *Pentagon*, not just a handful
of
Senators, which is investigating Halliburton on not just this but
other
charges of malfeasance. After all, it's the Pentagon that's
getting
slapped
with Halliburton's price-gouging bills. And that means you, me,
and
every
other American taxpayer is getting gouged by the Bush/Cheney
cronyism.

Had enough yet???


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.

You are wrong again, because you don't know how logistic contracts are
rewarded. First, this method, having civilians do the logistics was created
during the Clinton administration. During this time companies were selected
to do different task. This was done by bidding. A company was selected but
there was no contract. At time of war the selected company would be given a
contract based on their bid many years ago. For the oil work the contractor
was Halliburton. It was selected by the Clinton administration, not Bush.
There was no bidding for the contract since bidding had already taken place.

Phil

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:12:11 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:01:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Unless Bush is caught in a hit and run or something similar the chances
of
him losing re-election are non-existent.

More hyperbole.

Political reality. The Democrat wonks may be whooping it up but the reality
is that they are in a shambles. There's always the hardcore that will vote
for their candidates but elections are won by swing voters. They are not
far left and will not vote for any of the idiots being put forth this time
around.


Weren't you dead?

Oh, sorry--that was Corey.

--
td

"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

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:31:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Translation, the Dems have nothing so they dig for dirt.
The price they are charging for gas is hardly unreasonable given the
cost of
security. You lefty's do understand there are people shooting over
there,
right?

You obviously haven't been reading the coverage. Neither you nor
Sandman seem to realize that this wasn't an instance of Kellogg et.al.
gouging but *being* gouged by the Kuwaitis. They were charging almost
twice as much Turkish distributors. I don't see where there's a
substantial difference in securing oil from Kuwait versus Turkey. In
fact, one would think that delivering and securing Kuwaiti gas would
be cheaper than from Turkey. In fact, KBR claim that they make the
same amount of money (a "few" cents) from either source. So, the cost
of security of the shipments isn't the issue in this case. It's a
procurement issue. KBR claims that this supplier was the only one of
four Kuwaiti distributors that met the terms of the contract with DOD.
Yet, that doesn't explain why they couldn't continue to rely on $1.18
a gallon gas from Turkish sources, or require the distributors from
Kuwait to drop their prices from the $2.27 price and/or meet the Core
of Engineers standards of the contract.

It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery requirement.
Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.
What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

ScottW

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:31:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Translation, the Dems have nothing so they dig for dirt.
The price they are charging for gas is hardly unreasonable given the
cost of
security. You lefty's do understand there are people shooting over
there,
right?

You obviously haven't been reading the coverage. Neither you nor
Sandman seem to realize that this wasn't an instance of Kellogg et.al.
gouging but *being* gouged by the Kuwaitis. They were charging almost
twice as much Turkish distributors. I don't see where there's a
substantial difference in securing oil from Kuwait versus Turkey. In
fact, one would think that delivering and securing Kuwaiti gas would
be cheaper than from Turkey. In fact, KBR claim that they make the
same amount of money (a "few" cents) from either source. So, the cost
of security of the shipments isn't the issue in this case. It's a
procurement issue. KBR claims that this supplier was the only one of
four Kuwaiti distributors that met the terms of the contract with DOD.
Yet, that doesn't explain why they couldn't continue to rely on $1.18
a gallon gas from Turkish sources, or require the distributors from
Kuwait to drop their prices from the $2.27 price and/or meet the Core
of Engineers standards of the contract.

It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this. Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

You're way behind CNN & Fox, Sanders.

Well, I was just now watching "Hardball" on MSNBC, and one right-wing
pundit
has continued to identify the "subcractor" as "KBR", a division of
Halliburton.

Even the "Truthout" site
http://truthout.org/docs_03/121103D.shtml has things more correct and
up-to-date than you do.

Obviously, the NY Times article was poorly written, as it both referred to
an identified "subcontractor" (Halliburton's own KBR) and an unidentified
"subcontractor.

The story there is far more complex than you'd lead us to believe.
The *subcontractor* is a Kuwaiti firm, and not Kellogg Brown & Root (the
relevant Halliburton subsidiary)



http://www.kiplinger.com/news/XmlSto...212670.6.357_7
b8502d20935c0fd

"But the charge is not that Halliburton profited from this deal, but
merely
that it might not have been diligent enough in negotiating a market
price
contract from a subcontractor, Kuwaiti oil company that was designated
by
the Kuwaiti government as the only company that could bid on this
contract."

As usual Sanders, you've got all the relevant facts wrong.

I relied on the NY Times article, which was the first news I saw about it.
Admittedly, it is confused.

Those guys at the NY Times are usually so accurate and unbiased. :-(

Yet you selectively quote some very misleading
stuff. Halliburton is still to blame for its involvement in this scandal,
and it's more complex than you pretend. Why not just put it all on the
table by quoting from truthout.org's article:

"High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq
By Don Van Natta Jr.
New York Times

Wednesday 10 December 2003

The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an
average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from
Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel,
government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import
fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government
officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead
and
fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in
October
when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge
Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices
at
a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that
Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's
oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available
for 71 cents wholesale.

But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents
recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared
with
The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon
of
fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's
pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a
wartime
situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting,"
she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which
administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile
environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to
15
cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to
avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support
Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price,
the records show.

Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks
damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making
fuel runs into Iraq.

She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find
a
company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because
Halliburton
is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple
as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also
defended
the price of imported fuel.

"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about
the
dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr.
Faletti
said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government
audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction
efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in
the
world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures
and
an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations
sanctions.

Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and
other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87
billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last
month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including
$690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million
gallons
of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of
more than $383 million.

A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually
razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a
penny
a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its
gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of
gas
from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil
Verleger,
a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK
Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium - that's the only term to
describe
it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and
Europe
would salivate to have that sort of contract."

In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair
Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in
work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part
because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive
officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the
spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait
subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon
wholesale in the Middle East.

In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the
fuel
an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is
paying
22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for
"mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to
cover the overhead for administering the contract.

Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to
call
it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the
general
and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said.
"These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps
of
Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and
approved by U.S. government auditors."

In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen.
Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show
that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from
Kuwait in late November.

If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered
the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total
value of the gas it imported.

Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and
the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing
security
reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat
who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had
identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several
independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States
said
they had not heard of Altanmia.

Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office,
which provided them to The Times.

Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in
gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the
aides
to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO - and by
Halliburton's
subcontractor - are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the
same military escorts.

The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per
gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That
includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from
the
United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been
borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush
last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning
early next year.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest
information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable
that
Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for
Iraqis
and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said."

In another article I read, it noted, as above, Halliburton stands to
profit
between a minimum 2% and a maximum 7% on the Kuwaiti overcharges - meaning
w/r/t the overcharges alone, Halliburton stands to profit an extra $1.2
million to over $4 million.

What is clear, is that this secretive "subcontractor" in Kuwait is
charging
a lot more than other oil firms in Kuwait for oil imported into Iraq?
What
the hell is Halliburton doing using our taxpayer dollars paying such an
outrageous price to this secretive "subcontractor" when it can get much
lower prices from other Kuwaiti and Turkish companies?. It smells pretty
oily to me. I'm sure there's a lot going on that neither the Pentagon,
Bush, Halliburton, or Kuwait want us to know.


Of course it seems bad to you, that's part of why your drinking the
kool-aid.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:31:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Translation, the Dems have nothing so they dig for dirt.
The price they are charging for gas is hardly unreasonable given the cost
of
security. You lefty's do understand there are people shooting over
there,
right?

You obviously haven't been reading the coverage. Neither you nor
Sandman seem to realize that this wasn't an instance of Kellogg et.al.
gouging but *being* gouged by the Kuwaitis. They were charging almost
twice as much Turkish distributors. I don't see where there's a
substantial difference in securing oil from Kuwait versus Turkey. In
fact, one would think that delivering and securing Kuwaiti gas would
be cheaper than from Turkey. In fact, KBR claim that they make the
same amount of money (a "few" cents) from either source. So, the cost
of security of the shipments isn't the issue in this case. It's a
procurement issue. KBR claims that this supplier was the only one of
four Kuwaiti distributors that met the terms of the contract with DOD.
Yet, that doesn't explain why they couldn't continue to rely on $1.18
a gallon gas from Turkish sources, or require the distributors from
Kuwait to drop their prices from the $2.27 price and/or meet the Core
of Engineers standards of the contract.

It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

There are quite a few other instances of overcharging and/or
overserving for billing purposes.

Despite what Mr. Krueger said, all of this was uncovered by an
internal Pentagon audit triggered by the concerns of several
Congressmen. Partisan or not, it looks like they may have done the
"Republican" thing and uncovered instances of waste, incompetence, or
possible abuse in the Federal government.

If only theycould clean their own house so well.

My hunch is that in the end Haliburton will in fact be blameless and Sandman
will look for new lies to tell.

BTW, I went to Dean's web site and found that he believes women should be
paid the same as men.

Obviously the inference is that the women are not being paid the same as
men. This is of course false. I'm guessing this would be an example of why
the Dems love the guy, he's just as capable as anybody of telling the same
old lies.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:23:22 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Of course it seems bad to you, that's part of why your drinking the
kool-aid.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery
requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Isn't that what this thread is all about? Weren't you speculating
a sweetheart deal? Don't be so blatantly hypocritical
in your attempts to criticize.

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

Halliburton is going to move slowly. False statements in this
kind of situation don't go over very well. They won't say anything
the lawyers haven't confirmed and triple checked.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

More speculation. You don't know where the actual destination was.
It could have been well into Iraq. It might have been cheaper to
buy Kuwaiti gas at over $2/gal than try to move Turkish fuel to southern
Iraq. Certainly quicker.

What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

Yet there were still shortages.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this.

Not at all. I expect them to ask questions and demand answers. It's the
spin in the New York Times that appears I find counter productive.

Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

Till then, all we can do is speculate. Still some folks feel the need to
jump to their feet and cry "Gotcha". Why they take such joy in
finding fault with our own government is hard to understand.

ScottW

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:17:47 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery
requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Isn't that what this thread is all about? Weren't you speculating
a sweetheart deal? Don't be so blatantly hypocritical
in your attempts to criticize.

Oh shut up Scottie. Mine was a secondary point at best. I made sure to
note that it was pure conjecture on my part anyway. "Sounds like"
might be your way of saying the same thing, but it has the ring of
"that's the way it is".

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

Halliburton is going to move slowly. False statements in this
kind of situation don't go over very well. They won't say anything
the lawyers haven't confirmed and triple checked.

Well, they've been throwing out a lot of "statements" supporting their
view. If there was a lead time issue, it wouldn't be hard to vet that
through a lawyer.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

More speculation. You don't know where the actual destination was.
It could have been well into Iraq. It might have been cheaper to
buy Kuwaiti gas at over $2/gal than try to move Turkish fuel to southern
Iraq. Certainly quicker.

That *is* a possibility. I'll grant you that.

What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

So you snottily say. However, our guests understand that we don't buy
a lot of prepackeaged, frozen, easily stored stuff. Most of our stuff
is freshly prepared. Therefore, there are times that we might run out
of an item (in fact, as I said, it happens to menu items around once a
month and it happens to our specials almost every might before the
close of business). I know that you aren't used to eating in
restaurants that offer creative menus and fresh products and aren't
chains, but there are plenty of people who prefer to eat in a
restaurant that isn't going to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Besides, the food procurement business doesn't work the way you seem
to think it does.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

Yet there were still shortages.

We don't know that any shortages were due to procurement. It might
have been logistics inside a still war-torn country.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this.

Not at all. I expect them to ask questions and demand answers. It's the
spin in the New York Times that appears I find counter productive.

President Bush, in his statements of recent days, seem to back up the
Times and their 'spin". He seems quite firm that Halliburton is going
pay back a lot of money.

Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

Till then, all we can do is speculate. Still some folks feel the need to
jump to their feet and cry "Gotcha". Why they take such joy in
finding fault with our own government is hard to understand.

Yes, I thought that all during the Clinton administration as well.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:17:47 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the
Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery
requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Isn't that what this thread is all about? Weren't you speculating
a sweetheart deal? Don't be so blatantly hypocritical
in your attempts to criticize.

Oh shut up Scottie.

I guess I hit a nerve. Truth can be so painful at times.

(snip the repitition)
What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if
your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

So you snottily say. However, our guests understand that we don't buy
a lot of prepackeaged, frozen, easily stored stuff. Most of our stuff
is freshly prepared. Therefore, there are times that we might run out
of an item (in fact, as I said, it happens to menu items around once a
month and it happens to our specials almost every might before the
close of business).
I know that you aren't used to eating in
restaurants that offer creative menus and fresh products and aren't
chains,

and, and, and....
So much for avoiding bald speculation.
Sounds like a Kreuger tactic. Can't refute the point so spin it into
condescending commentary.

but there are plenty of people who prefer to eat in a
restaurant that isn't going to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Besides, the food procurement business doesn't work the way you seem
to think it does.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the
post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

Yet there were still shortages.

We don't know that any shortages were due to procurement. It might
have been logistics inside a still war-torn country.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this.

Not at all. I expect them to ask questions and demand answers. It's the
spin in the New York Times that appears I find counter productive.

President Bush, in his statements of recent days, seem to back up the
Times and their 'spin". He seems quite firm that Halliburton is going
pay back a lot of money.

Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

Till then, all we can do is speculate. Still some folks feel the need
to
jump to their feet and cry "Gotcha". Why they take such joy in
finding fault with our own government is hard to understand.

Yes, I thought that all during the Clinton administration as well.

If it was wrong then it is wrong now, except for a hypocrite.

ScottW

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:16:25 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Oh shut up Scottie.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Well, yes. I know that you live for this, so I hope it makes your
Monday really swell.

You really *are* a piece of work...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:16:25 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if
your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

So you snottily say. However, our guests understand that we don't buy
a lot of prepackeaged, frozen, easily stored stuff. Most of our stuff
is freshly prepared. Therefore, there are times that we might run out
of an item (in fact, as I said, it happens to menu items around once a
month and it happens to our specials almost every might before the
close of business).
I know that you aren't used to eating in
restaurants that offer creative menus and fresh products and aren't
chains,

and, and, and....
So much for avoiding bald speculation.
Sounds like a Kreuger tactic. Can't refute the point so spin it into
condescending commentary.

No, I just told you the truth. You don't understand the food business
and you use it to make an imperfect analogy. I note that you have no
answer except to moan and **** again. I'm sorry, my friend, but it's
*you* who was snotty, while I was trying to take the high road and
discuss facts in my original reply. *You* started with the hypocrite
stuff and playing the "you're just a waiter" card again (by bringing
up my line of work gratuitously). You need to look in a mirror and see
that you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of. I didn't
attack you and the *only* thing that might have ticked you off was the
use of the word "bald" in the phrase "bald speculation". Everything
thing else I discussed was based on the facts as I knew them (except
for *my* very plainly stated speculation, LABELED AS SUCH) in a
previous post.

No, it was *you* who got nasty, so as far as I'm concerned, that's the
way you want to play it.

Stop being ****ed that I told you about Arnold from the beginning but
you didn't listen. That's not *my*fault.

Once again, your comment about customer service was ill-chosen. For
you, it's all about, "If it's on the menu, you should have it in-house
- quality be damned" For you, it's "Let me speak about things I don't
know anything about in an attempt to deflect the conversation". For
you, it's, "Digital phones are the same thing as food - I know all
about the digital phone business and I grill lobsters at home, so I
must know all about the restaurant business". Well, when you dine at
McDonald's, I guess it's right to be ****ed if they run out of Quarter
Pounders, since it simply means that someone didn't keep the freezer
stocked properly.

But, you can be happy that you pushed my button this weekend, I
suppose. Forget about discussing an issue without invective.

Finally, I note that you actually snipped out or didn't answer any of
the actually *relevant* points, so I guess I'll take a victory in the
debate over getting ticked off for a moment. *That* gets the week
started off on the right foot.

Have a nice day...