• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks

So you never ripped Bush or his administration over Haliburton?

Are you sure about that?

To the best of my memory, I have not. I don't really like the concept of nobid contracts, but based on the reading I have done today, they do serve a purpose. I do think they can be handled better(a nonpartisan panel to look for conflict of interest issues maybe?). Note that before I did my reading on the subject of nobid contracts, I was willing to criticism this administration over this as well. Any issue I have is with the system, not either administration.
 
If it will help end corruption and corporatism in our country, no, I don't.


how will it help if the end result of the bureaucracy required to get there is already known?
 
There aren't many companies that can do what they do.

If they want speed, they go to those who can.
I'm sure they have good bean counters estimating costs.

It may not be ideal, but sometimes these no-bids are necessary. It's the real world.
Clinton did it, Bush 43, and I'm sure there's a long history of it.
What's the alternative, gobs of bureacracy? Which will do what?
Most likely raise costs for all the BS the companies would have to do, and slow the process to a snail's pace.

I never understood the mania about Halliburton and Cheney.
It was pathetically hollow.

.
 
apdst said:
I recall all the nashing of the teeth over Halliburton getting the Iraq job. My argument always was: What other oilfield service company in the world had the resources to handle the job? I never got an answer, needless to say, because there isn't one.
Just because you weren't lead to the water doesn't mean it wasn't there.

A couple of posts between me and Sir Loin. I was replying to someone making the same erroneous claim, as you, that Haliburton was the only one that could do the job.

BWG said:
Weatherford

The aforementioned - Schlumberger

Baker Hughes

That's just off the top of my head. I've been retired for 10 years, so I'm sure there are others that I'm not recalling immediately.

Point being Haliburton/KBR is not the only oilfield company capable of doing what had to be done in Iraq.

And besides I gave more explanation than 'that's BS', unlike some of those claiming Haliburton/KBR was the only one capable.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/65671-palins-risky-bid-lead-tea-party-38.html#post1058545455
Sir Loin said:
I actually made a mistake and edited out the end of my last post. Let me correct that.

All the Houston oil services companies off 410 got in on the Iraq action. Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and engineering giants KBR (yes we know who they are a subsidy of) Bechtel, Parsons, Flour and Foster Wheeler were all employed in Iraq. I know that legend has it that Halliburton was the only outfit granted access to the reconstruction work in Iraq. But then people making that argument are none too well informed. And this all has what to do with Palin and the Tea Party movement?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/65671-palins-risky-bid-lead-tea-party-38.html#post1058545529

This was in a thread that you actually participated in less than an hour after Sir Loin's post.

And as a side note, if you want to look further back through that thread, I said I didn't really care if Haliburton got a no-bid contract. My only argument was that they weren't the only ones that could handle the job.
 
KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.

The Justice Department said the government will join a suit filed by whistleblowers alleging that two freight-forwarding firms gave KBR transportation department employees kickbacks in the form of meals, drinks, sports tickets and golf outings.





One of the biggest complaints from the left was no-bid contracts for haliburton during the Bush administration. Here we have the same thing. What say you now on Obama granting no bid contracts to halibuton.
 
I have never understood the reasoning behind no-bid contracting. Can some one explain why the system is used? Unless there is something I don't understand that makes no-bid contracts a good idea, I oppose them no matter who is running things. I think this is a mistake.

Damn liberal hypocrisy...err, wait....

There are some specialized jobs that only certain companies can do, one of those would be jobs; such as, reconstruction in disaster or warzones or providing private security in a warzone, for example there was no other company on the planet that could do what Halliburton could do so who was going to bid against them?
 
If it will help end corruption and corporatism in our country, no, I don't.

Um a bid is opened, Halliburton knows no other company can do the job, so Halliburton puts up a twice than appropriate cost estimate, no one else bids, Halliburton wins the contract by default at a much higher price than a negotiated contract. Ya that would help end corruption and corporatism. :roll:
 
Government support of business interests through tax revenue without competitive bids isn't an aspect of fascism?

A) There was no company other than Halliburton capable of doing the job, there was no other company to bid against.

B) Government support of business through tax revenue is not an aspect of fascism; whereas, total or partial government takeover of private business interests is an aspect of fascism.
 
One of the biggest complaints from the left was no-bid contracts for haliburton during the Bush administration. Here we have the same thing. What say you now on Obama granting no bid contracts to halibuton.

Its either gonna be a *crickets chirping* session or a "Bush did it so that makes it OK for Obama" session.
 
Just because you weren't lead to the water doesn't mean it wasn't there.

A couple of posts between me and Sir Loin. I was replying to someone making the same erroneous claim, as you, that Haliburton was the only one that could do the job.




This was in a thread that you actually participated in less than an hour after Sir Loin's post.

And as a side note, if you want to look further back through that thread, I said I didn't really care if Haliburton got a no-bid contract. My only argument was that they weren't the only ones that could handle the job.

A) The idea that a contract should have been awarded to a French company in a war that they refused to participate in is ridiculous.

B) Halliburton provides more than just oil field services, it also provided construction and engineering through its subsidiary KBR. There was no other company like Halliburton at the time the war started.
 
Just because you change the man at the top, does not mean that the rot below goes away.
 
KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.


KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

Whats this? Evil Haliburton getting a NO BID contract under the Obama Administration for over half a BILLION dollars?


mmmmmm You can almost taste the rank hypocrisy of the far left.

Where was the outrage from the Bushneviks when Bush was doing it? Was it OK then, but not OK now? Of course not. It was WRONG then, just as it is WRONG now. But only now do you hear the outrage from the Bushnevik supporters. I wonder why? Could it be that the reason is because the president now in office has a "D" after his name, and not an "R", in which case, it would be perfectly OK?
 
Last edited:
Where was the outrage from the Bushneviks when Bush was doing it? Was it OK then, but not OK now? Of course not. It was WRONG then, just as it is WRONG now. But only now do you hear the outrage from the Bushnevik supporters. I wonder why? Could it be that the reason is because the president now in office has a "D" after his name?

What's wrong with negotiating a contract with a company for a job that no other company on the planet was capable of doing? Who was Halliburton going to bid against exactly?
 
What's wrong with negotiating a contract with a company for a job that no other company on the planet was capable of doing? Who was Halliburton going to bid against exactly?

You then support what Obama is doing? If so, then I appreciate your honesty.
 
Agent Ferris said:
A) The idea that a contract should have been awarded to a French company in a war that they refused to participate in is ridiculous.

I'm guessing you're talking about Schlumberger. Schlumberger is the world's largest oilfield services corporation. Yes it was founded by a couple of French brothers and has that funny little French name, but it's been headquartered in Houston for 70 years and is listed on the NYSE.

Agent Ferris said:
B) Halliburton provides more than just oil field services, it also provided construction and engineering through its subsidiary KBR. There was no other company like Halliburton at the time the war started.
Yes, Haliburton provided more than oil field services, they provided 3 squares a day for our troops, they laundered their clothes and cleaned their living quarters. They provided truck drivers to deliver fuel, water etc. They provided lots of diverse things, but one thing they didn't do, and that was 'everything'. They contracted out a large percentage of the tasks that had to be performed. Basically what the government did was what I call 'Wal-Mart' shopping. One stop, does it all. Instead of the government doling out contracts for food service, another for building housing, another for transportation, they just gave it all to Haliburton and said 'there I'm done, you handle it'. From there Haliburton sub-contracted to other companies. In many, many cases Haliburton was merely the middle man. They didn't actually perform the task. So the myth that Haliburton was the ONLY company that could handle the job is quite simply laughable.
 
If I remember correctly, the objections against Haliburton were not because it got a no-bid contract. It was because of the obvious cronyism involved in the fact that it got the contract.

Halliburton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[42] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[43] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[44]

Bunnatine Greenhouse, a civil servant with 20 years of contracting experience, had complained to Army officials on numerous occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general.

In one of the many examples of abuse, Greenhouse said that military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. She also complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After her testimony, Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance.[45] Greenhouse's attorney, Michael Kohn, stated in the New York Times that "she is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs.[46]

But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way.
 
I'm guessing you're talking about Schlumberger. Schlumberger is the world's largest oilfield services corporation. Yes it was founded by a couple of French brothers and has that funny little French name, but it's been headquartered in Houston for 70 years and is listed on the NYSE.

And Halliburton relocated their headquarters to Dubai but are still a U.S. Company.

Yes, Haliburton provided more than oil field services, they provided 3 squares a day for our troops, they laundered their clothes and cleaned their living quarters. They provided truck drivers to deliver fuel, water etc. They provided lots of diverse things, but one thing they didn't do, and that was 'everything'. They contracted out a large percentage of the tasks that had to be performed. Basically what the government did was what I call 'Wal-Mart' shopping. One stop, does it all. Instead of the government doling out contracts for food service, another for building housing, another for transportation, they just gave it all to Haliburton and said 'there I'm done, you handle it'. From there Haliburton sub-contracted to other companies. In many, many cases Haliburton was merely the middle man. They didn't actually perform the task. So the myth that Haliburton was the ONLY company that could handle the job is quite simply laughable.

Tell me what other company had subsidiary's which handled food service, construction, water purification etc? Anyways did you expect the military to perform the logistics of coordinating all of those operations while they were fighting the war? You needed an under one roof company to do it.
 
If I remember correctly, the objections against Haliburton were not because it got a no-bid contract. It was because of the obvious cronyism involved in the fact that it got the contract.

Halliburton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way.

Cheney didn't make a dime off of Halliburton, he signed a voluntary yet binding contractual agreement that all of his stock proceeds would go to charity, the only money he got from Halliburton was from his retirement package which did not go up or down no matter how well or poorly Halliburton did. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way.
 
Cheney didn't make a dime off of Halliburton,

Oh I beg to differ. He made 39 million dollars off Haliburton. Do you disagree?

he signed a voluntary yet binding contractual agreement that all of his stock proceeds would go to charity,

Seems like a small price to pay for a check worth 39 million dollar.

the only money he got from Halliburton was from his retirement package

So you just contradicted yourself? I'll remind you of this:

Cheney didn't make a dime off of Halliburton,

which did not go up or down no matter how well or poorly Halliburton did. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way.

How about we actually look at what I said instead of what you think I said? I'll explain to you the key phrase in my post:

Hatuey said:
It was because of the obvious cronyism involved in the fact that it got the contract.

Now I'll explain to you the key word in that phrase:

Noun

* S: (n) cronyism (favoritism shown to friends and associates (as by appointing them to positions without regard for their qualifications))

WordNet home page

In other words, it is highly suspect that Haliburton, which is essentially a company that people outsource jobs to so that it can outsource it to others would get a no-bid contract. SPECIALLY considering the fact that the Vice President had gotten 39 million dollars worth of their money not even a year before becoming Vice President.

Do you understand the post now Agent Ferris?
 
Oh I beg to differ. He made 39 million dollars off Haliburton. Do you disagree?

I disagree, you are lying.

Seems like a small price to pay for a check worth 39 million dollar.

lmfao the severance package was something he was entitled to and it included his stock options which again went to charity, the other portion of his severance package was his deferred salary which didn't go up or down no matter how well or poorly Halliburton did.

So you just contradicted yourself? I'll remind you of this:

Oh give me a freaking break, he didn't make a dime off of Halliburton due to the Iraq war or Halliburton getting no-bid contracts.

How about we actually look at what I said instead of what you think I said? I'll explain to you the key phrase in my post:

Now I'll explain to you the key word in that phrase:


In other words, it is highly suspect that Haliburton, which is essentially a company that people outsource jobs to so that it can outsource it to others would get a no-bid contract. SPECIALLY considering the fact that the Vice President had gotten 39 million dollars worth of their money not even a year before becoming Vice President.

The 36 million dollar (not 39) included his stock options and his deferred salary, again the profits from his stock options go to charity and his deferred salary does not go up or down no matter how well or poorly Halliburton does. What is suspect about getting the money that was owed to him? Are you asserting that he helped to award Halliburton with the contract even though he had absolutely no financial stake in the company just out of some sense of loyalty? Are you ****ing kidding me?

Do you understand the post now Agent Ferris?

Yes I understand that even though Cheney doesn't make a dime from Halliburton no-bid contracts and doesn't profit or lose money no matter how well or poorly Halliburton stock does, and has absolutely 0 financial state in the company that you people will continue to see something nefarious that isn't there.
 
Back
Top Bottom