[Sarge]

Anyone care to comment on Dick Cheney and his "old company" Halliburton? While I was deployed in Iraq, there were civilians who worked for a company called Kellogs Brown & Root. They were doing damn near everything we were doing with the exception of fighting the war. At the time I didnt understand why we (US) were contracting this company when there were soldiers who could do the same exact thing. There were mechanics, truck drivers, cooks, repairmen, etc. I learned that VP Cheney used to either own, had stock or had some affiliation with the company (It was unsure at the time). From what I know, Brown & Root is owned by Halliburton. Brown & Root has a contract with the DOD that will last a very long time and generate a lot of cash. Now Im not the smartest dude on the block but something smells real fishy here.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...625189001.html

[bassetman]

I think you saw bold faced corruption!

You ask very good questions, I would like to hear the Admins answers!

[eggplant43]

Brown and Root has a very long history of involvement with the US Government and the US Military. When I was stationed in Viet Nam (62-63) they were present at Tan Son Nhut (Saigon Airport). They have always had this cozy relationship with our war efforts, so there is some basis for their presence. Now whether they should be there without having to provide a competitive bid is an entirely different question.

[Stoner]

Hi Sarge,



The article you posted pretty well sums up what I've read. However, I was unaware of the Polish angle.

Contracts awarded without bidding certainly do look suspicious, especially with a connection to the Whitehouse!

I think Bassetman called it accurately---'I think you saw bold faced corruption!'
I do, too!


Jack

[pyritechips]

From the article:

Halliburton began work in Iraq with a $US37.5 million ($A56.5 million) no-bid contract in February to put out oil fires.

It's interesting to note that after Canada declined to suport the invasion of Iraq, Safety Boss of Alberta was blocked from bidding on the contract to put out the Iraqi fires, despite having the best record in Kuwait in 1991.

[Rep]

Eggplant43 Copied from his post #120 over in the, "Cost of the War in Iraq" thread.

I have been monitoring Talking Points Memo by Josh Micah Marshall ever since he kept the Trent Lott affair going over the initial weekend the media ignored the story by keeping people posted on the internet. I think he's a great investigative reporter.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

He now brings to our attention the involvement of the Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith in the distribution of funds in Iraq. This could be big, really big! See the section posted at 4:12 AM Sept 18th for the pertinent information.

The following is the info Eggplant directed us to:

(September 18th, 2003 -- 4:12 AM EDT // link)
I took a bit of a day off Wednesday and watched a lot of TV in the evening, including Paula Zahn's show. She interviewed Joe Klein and former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke about the whole Cheney Halliburton business. They were chatting back and forth and at one point Klein said that Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith shouldn't be rustling up clients who want to get business in Iraq for his old law firm, Feith & Zell.

Now, I hadn't heard that.

Is it really that bad? Have things really gotten to that level?

Well, I quickly found this piece by Al Kamen in the Post from September 10th. Here's the relevant portion ...

With a great chunk of President Bush's proposed $87 billion scheduled to flow to Iraqi reconstruction "big time," as they say, we've come across a most timely announcement from the highly regarded international corporate and commercial law firm of Zell, Goldberg & Co.

The firm "has recently established a task force dealing with issues and opportunities relating to the recently ended war with Iraq," its Web site announced. With offices in Israel and Washington, the firm says it "is assisting regional construction and logistics firms to collaborate with contractors from the United States and other coalition countries in implementing infrastructure and other reconstruction projects in Iraq. Through its Washington, D.C., office, ZGC is also assisting American companies in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects as prime contractors and consultants."

Interested parties can reach the law firm through its Web site, at www.fandz.com. Fandz.com? Hmmm. Rings a bell. Oh, yes, that was the Web site of the Washington law firm of Feith & Zell, P.C., as in Douglas J. Feith, former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and now undersecretary of defense for policy and head of -- what else? -- reconstruction matters in Iraq.

It would be impossible indeed to overestimate how perfect ZGC would be in "assisting American companies in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects."

Infrastructure and other reconstruction projects, it says. Could that be telecommunications stuff? Cell phones? Stuff like that?
Now, I quickly walked back to the TPM archives and pulled Feith's government disclosure statement from 2002 (which we've just now added to the TPM Document Collection). Feith turns out to be a fairly wealthy man -- at least by TPM's plebian standards.

More to the point, though, his wealth seems almost entirely bound up in telecommunications stocks: AT&T -- $500,000 to $1,000,000, Bell South -- $500,000 to 1,000,000, Lucent -- $250,000 to $500,000, SBC Comm -- $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, Verizon -- $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, Qwest Comm Intl $500,000 to $1,000,000, Vodafone $250,000 to $500,000, more in trusts and so forth, the list goes on and on. See the whole thing here.

Is that the industry Feith & Zell, P.C. focused on? Is this the industry the 'task force' is going to help "in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects as prime contractors and consultants." Or did he just own a ton of AT&T stock back in the day and hold on to it as it broke up into the baby bells? Or is he just a deep believer in the power of phones? The spread of telecom stocks does seem to work with the one-time owner of tons of pre-break-up AT&T stock theory. So many questions.

Seems worth looking into ...

________________________________________________


It may be a good idea for the President to call for full and bi-partisan hearings on the accounting of money used for the war and post construction activities.

To protect the integrity of the administration during these times of difficulties, it may be prudent to do so. It appears that these types of rumors, if left to themselves to fester, would not be good for the President.

[combsdon]

hmmmmm........ don't seem to see muldy & company in here explainin'

[eggplant43]

We really don't know whether this is valid at this point, dirty tricks, or just a stupid rumor, that remains to be seen. But I do think that it is something that bears inquiry. We have seen what happens in this country when our Congress does not debate, where difficult questions are not asked, where the mainstream media gives the Administration the benefit of the doubt, every time, and where the citizenry simply is asleep at the wheel. We need to be more vigilant, afterall they work for us, and eventually we pay the bills.

[bassetman]

hmmmmm........ don't seem to see muldy & company in here explainin'

ROFLMAO!

[Wino]

"Brown Root" - kinda gives you the idea of what Bush is doing to the country! This is his version of a BJ and Blue dress. Seems the right only worries about sexual pettiness - not true political corruption. I personally will be happy when this group of pirates are out of office.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by combsdon:
hmmmmm........ don't seem to see muldy & company in here explainin'

Does it really make any difference? There is no debate of an issue here--like asking the Christians why they aren't fighting back against the lions? You liberals are at a point of hysterical frenzy--all rational thought was gone a long time ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Halliburton smear
Rich Lowry (archive)

September 18, 2003 | Print | Send

The Democrats have discovered the enemy in the ongoing Iraq war. And it is Halliburton.

Nothing quite so angers Democrats about the current situation in Iraq than that Halliburton is making money there. Dennis Kucinich, the out-to-lunch leftist who sounds ever more mainstream given the leftward drift of the rest of the Democratic field, wants the United Nations in Iraq so there will be "no more Halliburton sweetheart deals." Bob Graham huffs, "I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq." John Edwards vows "to stop this president from giving billions of dollars in American taxpayer money to companies like Halliburton in unbid contracts."

The Texas oil-services giant formerly headed by Dick Cheney, who still gets deferred compensation from the firm, has achieved iconic status. Halliburton is the equivalent of Dow, the maker of a key ingredient to napalm, during the Vietnam War -- the focus of supposed corporate evil during wartime. It is the equivalent of Mena Airport, the Arkansas site that obsessed anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists during the 1990s -- the focus of dark speculation about the mercenary scheming of a U.S. president.

Behind the Democratic outrage is the implicit, and sometimes explicit, charge that Bush waged war in Iraq to fatten the bottom line of one corporation. As The New York Times has put it, Halliburton's Iraq contract "undermines the Bush administration's portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre." But to have risked his presidency -- not mention American lives -- on the war in order to benefit Halliburton, Bush would have to be a psychopath. That the Halliburton charge has become a chief Democratic critique of the war is another sign of the party's descent into unhinged ravings.

As journalist Byron York has reported, it's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone with a half a brain (which excludes most liberals) would wonder why in the hell would Bush and Cheney provide such an obvious opportunity to be accused of unethical conduct if that's what they really did?

But then ask yourself why did Clinton and Gore also use Halliburton? Could it possibly be that is the best company for the job?

Naahh--couldn't be--that would be too obvious!

[DNeurococo]

Mulder, no one ever said that the war was started SOLELY to enrich Halliburton - - so your article is shooting down straw men.

However, now that the war is here, it is unseemly for money to flow to a company connected with the Vice President.

The fact that Halliburton won a past contract for LOGCAP does not change the fact that it got its CURRENT contracts on a no-bid basis.

Your article refers to the "highly classified requirement" of the work. What exactly is "highly classified" about what Halliburton is doing? Are they afraid Saddam is going to find out how to build a bridge from them? And if it really WERE that highly classified, then shouldn't the work be done by the Army Corps of Engineers? Shouldn't the work be done by soldiers who are in current service and can be controlled and ORDERED to keep quiet instead of private citizens?

If the Halliburton contract were temporary, as your article claims, then shouldn't it have been superseded by now by some company, such as Safety Boss?

And shouldn't Cheney be called upon to categorically state that he and his family will not accept ANY money (speaking fees, consultant fees, appointment to the board) from Halliburton after Cheney leaves the office?

#$DN

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by DNeurococo:
The fact that Halliburton won a past contract for LOGCAP does not change the fact that it got its CURRENT contracts on a no-bid basis.

#$DN

Maybe you missed this:

As journalist Byron York has reported, it's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

I guess the Army Corps of Engineers is also getting a payoff from Halliburton?

But as I said, is it really won't make any difference whether Halliburton is twice as good as any other company or the cheapest either. You clowns are still going to think what you're going to think so just go ahead and keep thinking it. (note--terms "think" and "thinking" used in the loosest sense)

[DNeurococo]

Mulder: My point was that Halliburton has NOT specifically bid on what it is doing in Iraq on a competative basis. They are getting the work on the basis of an open-ended contract awarded in the past -- in 2001 -- before anyone could possibly know what would be needed in Iraq. It is therefore not a competative bid on the work needed - - only a sleezey, backdoor, loophole via a vague and open-ended contract.

Here is what Rep. Henry Waxman had to say about it:

This extensive reliance on Brown & Root under the LOGCAP contract raises
significant questions. One important question is whether this arrangement
protects the interests of the taxpayer. It appears that many, if not all,
the task orders under the contract were awarded without any competition.
This type of arrangement poses inherent risks to taxpayers. Indeed, GAO has
found that work by Brown & Root under a prior LOGCAP contract resulted in
significant overcharges to the government. It is unclear what safeguards,
if any, the Army is using to prevent excessive charges to the government.

Moreover, the LOGCAP contract significantly increases the amount of work
awarded to Halliburton relating to Iraq. In total, Halliburton has received
at least $496.3 million from the Army for contracts relating to Iraq. And
the amount that Halliburton could receive in the future is virtually
limitless. The contract with the Corps for oil field repair and operation
has a two-year duration and a ceiling of $7 billion, while the LOGCAP
contract has no ceiling at all. It is simply remarkable that a single
company could earn so much money from the war in Iraq.


And as for Byron York, he seems to play fast and loose with his facts. See http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/01/20/94705 and http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082203.shtml

#$DN

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Mulder:

The Texas oil-services giant formerly headed by Dick Cheney, was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

That might all be fine and dandy if all Brown & Root were doing is putting out oil fires (how long does it take to put out an oil fire anyway?) but there are thousands of Brown & Root employees in Iraq this moment who are not putting out any oil fires. They are transporting military equipment, handling fuel and other HAZMAT (hazardous materials), repairing military equipment, constructing military buildings, and preparing military food. My question is why? Each one of these tasks that Brown & Root are doing, which average up to $8000 per person, per month, could be done by military personnel for an average $2000 per person, per month. When you take this into consideration, with the fact that VP used to head the company, you have to be, at the least somewhat suspicious. Isnt VP still recieving money from his former company? Is there not a conflict of interest here somewhere?