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

Hatuey · May 13, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
I disagree, you are lying.

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.

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.

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?

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.

This is called a strawman. You're making up an argument I never made. I made the argument that Cheney's ties to Halliburton secured Halliburton its no-bid contract regardless of whether or not he made money from them. That is essentially the definition of cronyism. He was partial to them because they had been good for him in the past. Much in the same way Ronald Rumsfeld benefited from U.S. spending on Avian Flu vaccines from a company he had millions of dollars in stock in. It is simply a sign of the cronyism that plagued the Bush administration.

snopes.com: Tamiflu and Donald Rumsfeld

texmaster · May 13, 2010

Hatuey said:
This is called a strawman. You're making up an argument I never made. I made the argument that Cheney's ties to Halliburton secured Halliburton its no-bid contract regardless of whether or not he made money from them. That is essentially the definition of cronyism. He was partial to them because they had been good for him in the past. Much in the same way Ronald Rumsfeld benefited from U.S. spending on Avian Flu vaccines from a company he had millions of dollars in stock in. It is simply a sign of the cronyism that plagued the Bush administration.

snopes.com: Tamiflu and Donald Rumsfeld

There is nothing more lazy than quoting separate points into one quote then dismissing it all.

You made a claim about the amount of money. He argued that point and gave you the right number. You ducked it. That isn't a strawman.

You then ducked the fact that the severance package was something built into his contract. That again isn't a strawman.

If you are going to debate Hatuey, at least have the courtesy to address all points and not lump them together in a false claim of "strawman"

Most people who try to categorize an argument then declare victory are the ones loosing the argument.

Agent Ferris · May 13, 2010

Hatuey said:
This is called a strawman. You're making up an argument I never made. I made the argument that Cheney's ties to Halliburton secured Halliburton its no-bid contract regardless of whether or not he made money from them. That is essentially the definition of cronyism. He was partial to them because they had been good for him in the past. Much in the same way Ronald Rumsfeld benefited from U.S. spending on Avian Flu vaccines from a company he had millions of dollars in stock in. It is simply a sign of the cronyism that plagued the Bush administration.

snopes.com: Tamiflu and Donald Rumsfeld

Ya I gotcha so even though Cheney had absolutely 0 financial stake in the company he decided to award them a no-bid contract out of the kindness of his heart. :roll:

texmaster · May 13, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
Ya I gotcha so even though Cheney had no financial stake in the company he decided to award them a no-bid contract out of the kindness of his heart. :roll:

And gee what a shocker the government is still offering no bid contracts to them under a Democrat controlled government :roll:

Crunch · May 13, 2010

texmaster said:
And gee what a shocker the government is still offering no bid contracts to them under a Democrat controlled government :roll:

That's because the evil Cheney is really Barry's puppet master and is still pulling all of the strings in this administration….. Probably with the behind the scenes help of the nit wit Palin. :roll:

Caine · May 13, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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.

What do you mean YOU PEOPLE ?????

You Racist!!!!!

Caine · May 13, 2010

Hatuey said:
This is called a strawman. You're making up an argument I never made. I made the argument that Cheney's ties to Halliburton secured Halliburton its no-bid contract regardless of whether or not he made money from them. That is essentially the definition of cronyism. He was partial to them because they had been good for him in the past. Much in the same way Ronald Rumsfeld benefited from U.S. spending on Avian Flu vaccines from a company he had millions of dollars in stock in. It is simply a sign of the cronyism that plagued the Bush administration.

snopes.com: Tamiflu and Donald Rumsfeld

Stay on topic....this isnt about Rumsfeld.

Its about Haliburton getting no bid contracts under both administrations, showing your claims of cronyism to be......

FAIL

1984 · May 13, 2010

danarhea said:
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?

It was okay then, and it is okay now, since Halliburton is the only AMERICAN company that is capable of meeting the terms of the contract.

danarhea · May 13, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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?

I call BS on that argument. Baker Hughes, Bechtel, Technip, and Schlumberger are all able to do that kind of work on that kind of scale, and there are quite a few smaller companies that could have done parts of it.

The contract with Halliburton was done due to cronyism.

Caine · May 13, 2010

danarhea said:
I call BS on that argument. Baker Hughes, Bechtel, Technip, and Schlumberger are all able to do that kind of work on that kind of scale, and there are quite a few smaller companies that could have done parts of it.

The contract with Halliburton was done due to cronyism.

And is it still cronyism?

The Prof · May 13, 2010

never forget that our heroes are sacrificing and dying in the mountains on the moon while operating under preposterous ROE's, rules of engagement, which disallow gi gustavo from firing at the enemy if abdullah is NOT currently pointing a weapon at him

CNSNews.com - U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Under New Orders to Hold Fire

today, we learn of the pentagon's new promotion: hold your fire and earn a MEDAL!

Hold fire, earn a medal - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Redress · May 14, 2010

I think this thread is a pretty good indicator that while nobid contracts may be necessary and overall a good thing, more oversight of the process, to at least get rid of any appearance of impropriety would be a good thing.

American · May 14, 2010

Redress said:
If that is accurate, I withdraw my objection to nobid contracts.

The govt term for "no bid contract" is a "sole source contract". There FAR has justification requirements for this type of contract.

Zyphlin · May 14, 2010

danarhea said:
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?

In all honesty I'm not seeing any outrage from "Bushneviks" over the awarding of the no bid contract. Even the poster you quoted was not complaining honestly that Obama shouldn't have given out no bid contracts becuase no bid contracts are bad.

They are showing outrage because Obama and those on the left for years now have been bitching about no bid contracts and halliburton, only to then turn around when they're in office and give a no bid contract to essentially halliburton. They "outrage" is over the hypocrisy of it all. They couldn't have expressed similar outrage at Bush over the no-bid/halliburton thing because the situation was not in any way the same, nor was the reason people were "outraged" the same.

Think you're a bit off base on that one dana.

Zyphlin · May 14, 2010

Hatuey said:
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.

However the only "proof" of it being due to cronyism was that Cheney was at one point connected to Halliburton. That was it. Halliburton had one no bid contracts before, PRIOR to Cheney. Halliburton has won No Bid contracts since, AFTER Cheney (we're talking about it in this thread). For it to literally be about cronyism one would have to believe that the only, or primary, reason that Halliburton was awarded the No Bid contracts was because of Cheney which to do so one would have to ignore the fact that they had gotten, and continue to get, no-bid contracts.

Is it likely that cronyism played into it? Quite possibly. But there's no definitive truth, and even if it did there's an equally strong argument to be made that Halliburton was simply the best choice for the job regardless of Cheney's former position.

Also, while cronyism was part of the outrage its absolutely wrong to suggest the outrage "was not about no-bid contracts" at all. There was certainly a fair amount of that. Even looking at old news archieves:

"Justice pondering Halliburton probe Company criticized for no-bid contract issued before Iraq war"

Article: Halliburton Allegations Are Sent to Justice Dept.; No-Bid Contracts In Iraq Are at Issue

Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq should outrage public

Numerous stories, if not focusing on the fact it was no-bid, continually would reference it and add it in to give the insight of mispropriety and unfairness that no one else was let into the process. To argue that it the complaints were ONLY about the "no-bid" nature of it would be foolish and wrong. However to argue that the complaints were not about the No-Bid nature of it at all just isn't correct.

Agent Ferris · May 14, 2010

danarhea said:
I call BS on that argument. Baker Hughes, Bechtel, Technip, and Schlumberger are all able to do that kind of work on that kind of scale, and there are quite a few smaller companies that could have done parts of it.

Once again which of those companies had affiliates like KBR capable of handling reconstruction? Halliburton is much much more than an oil services company. And yes I suppose you could have had dolled out hundreds of of small contracts to independent companies, one for water purification, one for oil services, one for telecommunications, one for food distribution etc, but what then? Who was going to coordinate the massive logistics of all of those independent companies? The military? They were busy fighting the war. Another faction within the U.S. government bureaucracy? Hello FEMA. You needed a single under one roof conglomerate to handle the massive logistics involved in a warzone like that.

The contract with Halliburton was done due to cronyism.

So you're saying that people make multi-billion dollar decisions out of some sense of loyalty even though they have no financial stake in the company? Has Cheney gone back to working for Halliburton? Is Cheney doing some sort of consulting work for Halliburton? Cronyism implies doing a political favor for a company with an expectation of getting something in return later from the private sector, what exactly is Cheney expecting in return? To my knowledge the man has completely retired from the private sector.

And if that were the case then why did Halliburton get no-bid contracts both before and after Cheney?

Zyphlin · May 14, 2010

danarhea said:
The contract with Halliburton was done due to cronyism.

So is EVERY time Halliburton, or ANY company, is given a no-bid contract cronyism?

Is it cronyism when they're being given one now? Was it cronyism when they won no-bid contracts prior to the Bush Administration?

And if its not now, and its not then, why is it that it HAS to be cronyism when it was during the Bush Administration.

Simply because Cheney was part of Halliburton at one time does not prove it was cronyism in any way. The case would be far stronger if they were never used prior to it, and never used after it, but that's NOT the case.

There were legitimate reasons under the rules for No-Bid contracts and their uses to award it to Halliburton. Did Cronyism play into it? Quite possibly. But its pure and utter speculation and relatively weak ones at that given history and the present.

apdst · May 14, 2010

BWG said:
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.

And, IMO, you would be mistaken. Schlumberger nor Baker Hughes had the resources to take on the Iraq job. But, that's not the only point I made earlier in this thread. I also talked about how another reason for Halliburton getting the Iraq job, is that no one else wanted it.

BWG · May 14, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
And Halliburton relocated their headquarters to Dubai but are still a U.S. Company.

Haliburton was incorporated in the U.S. Schlumberger was incorporated in Curaçao of the Netherlands Antilles, not France.

BTW, doesn't it make you chest swell with patriotic pride that Haliburton took all that American taxpayer money to Dubai?

Agent Ferris said:
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.

Tell me, which of these is a Haliburton/KBR subsidiary?

Tamimi Global
ESS
Eagle Global Logistics
Event Source
Prime Projects International (PPI)

The correct answer is none of the above. They are just a few companies, domestic and foreign, sub-contracted by Haliburton/KBR to provide various services under the contract Haliburton received from the government. Any of the companies that have previously been mentioned could have done the same thing. Haliburton wasn't in the food service business, they weren't in the fuel transportation business. They had expertise in a lot of the work under the contract, , as did a a few others. A lot of the work under the contract they had little or no expertise in, so they sub-contracted, just like any of the other companies would be able to do.

American said:
The govt term for "no bid contract" is a "sole source contract". There FAR has justification requirements for this type of contract.

If one company is the only source for that type of work why do Parsons, Fluor, Washington Group International, Shaw Group/Shaw Engineering and Infrastructure, Bechtel, Perini, et.al. have billion dollar contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan

Zyphlin said:
Is it likely that cronyism played into it? Quite possibly.

Zyphlin said:
Did Cronyism play into it? Quite possibly.

Even in your mind the possibility lurks, however so slight. Therefore in the mind of a 'leftie' that crack would tend to be ever so widened, so that the next natural step - from either side - would be the finger pointing.

Agent Ferris said:
So you're saying that people make multi-billion dollar decisions out of some sense of loyalty even though they have no financial stake in the company? Has Cheney gone back to working for Halliburton? Is Cheney doing some sort of consulting work for Halliburton? Cronyism implies doing a political favor for a company with an expectation of getting something in return later from the private sector, what exactly is Cheney expecting in return? To my knowledge the man has completely retired from the private sector.

Money doesn't necessarily have to change hands in return for a 'favor'.

Hatuey · May 14, 2010

Zyphlin said:
However the only "proof" of it being due to cronyism was that Cheney was at one point connected to Halliburton. That was it. Halliburton had one no bid contracts before, PRIOR to Cheney. Halliburton has won No Bid contracts since, AFTER Cheney (we're talking about it in this thread). For it to literally be about cronyism one would have to believe that the only, or primary, reason that Halliburton was awarded the No Bid contracts was because of Cheney which to do so one would have to ignore the fact that they had gotten, and continue to get, no-bid contracts.

Is it likely that cronyism played into it? Quite possibly. But there's no definitive truth, and even if it did there's an equally strong argument to be made that Halliburton was simply the best choice for the job regardless of Cheney's former position.

Also, while cronyism was part of the outrage its absolutely wrong to suggest the outrage "was not about no-bid contracts" at all. There was certainly a fair amount of that. Even looking at old news archieves:

Cheney wasn't tied to Halliburton. He was the CEO of the damned thing. It's like saying 'Bill Gates has a stake in Microsoft'. While correct, it is an understatement of what he actually did and was within the company. If you're going to rant about 'intellectual dishonesty' try avoiding it yourself.

This lie that any other company other that Halliburton couldn't have gotten the job is quite simply a lie which has been proven over and over again.

"Justice pondering Halliburton probe Company criticized for no-bid contract issued before Iraq war"

Article: Halliburton Allegations Are Sent to Justice Dept.; No-Bid Contracts In Iraq Are at Issue

Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq should outrage public

Numerous stories, if not focusing on the fact it was no-bid, continually would reference it and add it in to give the insight of mispropriety and unfairness that no one else was let into the process. To argue that it the complaints were ONLY about the "no-bid" nature of it would be foolish and wrong. However to argue that the complaints were not about the No-Bid nature of it at all just isn't correct.

If anything this simply reaffirms the claim. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton BEFORE the Iraq war and before that he had been the Defense Secretary. The connection between the two span at the very least 18 years.

* Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.[20]
* Thomas H. Cruikshank, who served as chairman and CEO from 1989 until 1995, was replaced by Dick Cheney.[21]
* In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, Halliburton crews helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.[22]
* In the early 1990s Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.[23]
* In the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services.[citation needed]
* In 1998 Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton. Former United States president George H. W. Bush worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948–1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.[citation needed]

Anybody who claims cronyism did not play a part in this is simply refusing to see the truth. Cheney hands contracts to Halliburton. Less than 4 years later he becomes CEO of the company. Less than 8 years later Halliburton what is probably the largest contract in its history by and administration who is crawling with people attached to it? Who the **** are you kidding?

Zyphlin · May 14, 2010

BWG said:
Even in your mind the possibility lurks, however so slight. Therefore in the mind of a 'leftie' that crack would tend to be ever so widened, so that the next natural step - from either side - would be the finger pointing.

There's no real way to "prove" that it wasn't cronyism. Someone could detail every single solitary reason why Halliburton was the only option and the simple presense of Cheney would still cause claims of Cronyism. As such, yeah...I'm never going to sit here and say "Without a doubt, without question, cronyism had NOTHING to do with it". I won't say it, because I can't say it, because its making a factual statement without any real factual information.

Likewise, those saying it was DEFINITELY cronyism are doing the exact same thing but simply on the flip side of the coin. The only "proof" they seemingly have that this no-bid contract to Halliburton was different than any other contract given to Halliburton in a similar way is that Cheney was connected to the company in the past...which isn't actually "proof" of anything really.

Liberals who take the possability that cronyism may or may not have had some role in it and expand that crack to grand canyon sized proportions of absolute fact and singularity are no more correct than those on the right that act as if its one long piece of solid ground. The finger pointing, on both sides, based on assumptions presented as facts is foolishness.

If it hadn't been Halliburton, but instead a small company who in no way shape or form fit the bill in regards to being legitimately able to fulfill the criteria for a no-bid contract and had no history working with the government in such a capacity (and is never again used after it)...than yeah, I'd be much more apt to cry foul, scream of cronyism, and think something fishy happened. Then it would definitely look like someone just fulfilling their interest.

That just wasn't the case though.

Hatuey · May 14, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
Ya I gotcha so even though Cheney had absolutely 0 financial stake in the company he decided to award them a no-bid contract out of the kindness of his heart.

No. It is out of a verifiable relationship which spanned nearly 20 years.

Caine said:
Stay on topic....this isnt about Rumsfeld.

Its about Haliburton getting no bid contracts under both administrations, showing your claims of cronyism to be......

FAIL

texmaster said:
And gee what a shocker the government is still offering no bid contracts to them under a Democrat controlled government :roll:

Oh I get it... it's the two stooges and the trailer park rent-a-cop. Halliburton doesn't own KBR.

Formation of KBR, Inc.

Halliburton announced on April 5, 2007, that it had finally broken ties with KBR, which has been its contracting, engineering and construction unit as a part of the company for 44 years.[10] The move was prefaced by a statement registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2006, stating that Halliburton planned to sell up to 20 percent of its KBR stock on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). On November 16, 2006, KBR shares were offered for the public in an Initial Public Offering with shares priced at $17. The shares closed up more than 22 percent to $20.75 a share on the first trading day.[11]

On May 7, 2008, the company announced that it would acquire Birmingham, Alabama-based engineering and construction firm BE&K for $550 million. BE&K plans to remain headquartered in Birmingham.[12]

Hatuey · May 14, 2010

texmaster said:
There is nothing more lazy than quoting separate points into one quote then dismissing it all.

If they're based on the same strawman? Then no. It's not lazy. Just efficient.

You made a claim about the amount of money. He argued that point and gave you the right number. You ducked it. That isn't a strawman.

A 3 million dollar difference in a 39 million dollar paycheck.

You then ducked the fact that the severance package was something built into his contract. That again isn't a strawman.

If you are going to debate Hatuey, at least have the courtesy to address all points and not lump them together in a false claim of "strawman"

Most people who try to categorize an argument then declare victory are the ones loosing the argument.

Good lawd, are you paid to troll? Do you know what a strawman is? It is when you concoct an argument that nobody has made. Example, his severance package, the fact that it 36 and not 39 million dollars is irrelevant at the end of the day. My argument is that Cheney's relationship with Halliburton helped it secure a no-bid contract. If you got evidence proving the opposite, I welcome it. PS: KBR? NOT Halliburton.

Zyphlin · May 14, 2010

Hatuey said:
Cheney wasn't tied to Halliburton. He was the CEO of the damned thing. It's like saying 'Bill Gates has a stake in Microsoft'. While correct, it is an understatement of what he actually did and was within the company. If you're going to rant about 'intellectual dishonesty' try avoiding it yourself.

Yes, he WAS the CEO of the thing. He wasn't any longer. That doesn't in any way somehow make my statement that he was previously tied to the company any less false? He was previously tied to the company, by being their CEO. Tied is the correct word, because while he WAS CEO he was no longer directly involved with the company so it was simply his past ties. My point still stands, exactly as I said it. Cheney being tied to the company in the past, having been its CEO, does not in any way "prove" that cronyism was THE reason they recieved the contract.

This lie that any other company other that Halliburton couldn't have gotten the job is quite simply a lie which has been proven over and over again.

Actually, it is a matter that has been routinely disputed and debated since the time with experts weighing in on both sides. Stop proclaiming opinion or arguments as if they're facts. A legitimate argument could be made that Halliburton fit the requirements that are in place to recieve a no-bid contract and the best and only bet in regards to scope, experience, and necessary time to do it. While an argument can be made against that, especially in hindsight, it is not an absolutely absurd notion. Regardless, even if they were not the only company that could've appleid to the situation, that still does not "prove" cronyism as they have prior to it and since gotten No-Bid contracts where an equally strong argument agains them being the "only" company able to do it can be made.

If anything this simply reaffirms the claim.

Um, no it doesn't. Your claim:

Hatuey said:
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.

It doens't reaffirm your claim, it shows your memory that led to your claim to be faulty. Yes, Cronyism was definitely a complaint people had. However, so was the fact it was a no-bid contract. If you'll actually notice, its this claim...made by you....that led to my initial comment. It was not a comment stating that cronyism played no part, but one countering your point that it was in no way No-Bid contracts, but Cronyism, that caused the outcry of the left against the matter.

Anybody who claims cronyism did not play a part in this is simply refusing to see the truth.

Well, glad we can agree Hautey.

Zyphlin said:
Did Cronyism play into it? Quite possibly

Zyphlin said:
Is it likely that cronyism played into it? Quite possibly.

Zyphlin said:
As such, yeah...I'm never going to sit here and say "Without a doubt, without question, cronyism had NOTHING to do with it".

Zyphlin said:
Liberals who take the possability that cronyism may or may not have had some role in it and expand that crack to grand canyon sized proportions of absolute fact and singularity are no more correct than those on the right that act as if its one long piece of solid ground. The finger pointing, on both sides, based on assumptions presented as facts is foolishness.

Its foolish to think that Cronyism absolutely had no chance of being a part of the choice.

However its also absolutely foolish to act like your assumptions are absolute indisputable facts when they're not, they're your opinion based on a few loose facts that you then meld into your opinion and shift to your world view in hopes of presenting your reality as if its absolute gospel truth.

Yet here, 2 years after Bush is gone...Cheney is gone....Obama is here, we see a no-bid contract given to KBR.

I guess that must "prove" Obama has some KBR crony's too, how else could they possibly have recieved a no-bid contract.

American · May 14, 2010

BWG said:
Haliburton was incorporated in the U.S. Schlumberger was incorporated in Curaçao of the Netherlands Antilles, not France.

BTW, doesn't it make you chest swell with patriotic pride that Haliburton took all that American taxpayer money to Dubai?

Tell me, which of these is a Haliburton/KBR subsidiary?

Tamimi Global
ESS
Eagle Global Logistics
Event Source
Prime Projects International (PPI)

The correct answer is none of the above. They are just a few companies, domestic and foreign, sub-contracted by Haliburton/KBR to provide various services under the contract Haliburton received from the government. Any of the companies that have previously been mentioned could have done the same thing. Haliburton wasn't in the food service business, they weren't in the fuel transportation business. They had expertise in a lot of the work under the contract, , as did a a few others. A lot of the work under the contract they had little or no expertise in, so they sub-contracted, just like any of the other companies would be able to do.

If one company is the only source for that type of work why do Parsons, Fluor, Washington Group International, Shaw Group/Shaw Engineering and Infrastructure, Bechtel, Perini, et.al. have billion dollar contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan

Even in your mind the possibility lurks, however so slight. Therefore in the mind of a 'leftie' that crack would tend to be ever so widened, so that the next natural step - from either side - would be the finger pointing.

Money doesn't necessarily have to change hands in return for a 'favor'.

Is there any reason why you decided to take my comment and make something more of it than it was?

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

Hatuey

Rule of Two

texmaster

Hippie Hater

Agent Ferris

texmaster

Hippie Hater

Crunch

Caine

Caine

1984

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Caine

The Prof

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Agent Ferris

Zyphlin

apdst

BWG

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Zyphlin

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Zyphlin

American

Trump Grump Whisperer