Halliburton: We're here to put out fires*

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Senators critical of Halliburton

 

Boxer sees possible 'hanky-panky' in Iraq contract; Nagel urges White House to be 'clear' on deals.

May 11, 2003: 1:58 PM EDT

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) - "Hanky-panky" may have gotten a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's former company a lucrative contract to rehabilitate and operate Iraq's oil wells, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Sunday.

 

Boxer, speaking on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, did not accuse the vice president of wrong-doing but said it was wrong to award an open-ended contract worth up to $7 billion to Halliburton Co. (HAL: Research, Estimates) subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root without competitive bidding.

 

"I don't believe it is right to have a sole-source contract that goes on and on and on," the senator said. "For emergencies, it's fine. After 90 days, you bid it out."

 

"When I say hanky-panky," she said, "I mean it because the bottom line is the taxpayers have a lot at stake."

 

Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton when he became presidential candidate George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

 

Last month, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., asked the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to look into contracts received over the last two years by Halliburton and its subsidiaries, which the congressmen said totaled at least $600 million.

 

The oil contract, awarded in March, was among those the congressmen asked the GAO to investigate.

 

On Friday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to formally investigate the contract.

 

A spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said on April 8 that Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded the contract because it had already won a bid in December 2001 to pre-position firefighting assets in the region.

 

But earlier this week, Corps officials acknowledged that the contract, which has no set limits on time or money, allows the subsidiary to operate Iraq's oil fields and distribute its oil, rather than just putting out fires and making repairs.

 

Cheney's office, the White House and Halliburton have repeatedly denied any involvement in the way the Corps handled the contract.

 

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the affair indicated how important it is for the Bush administration to be open.

 

"I don't know anything about hanky-panky," he said, also on Late Edition, "but this is a clear example that the administration has to be very clear, transparent with all these things, can defend it all. This is but one example and I suspect there'll be more."

 

Boxer called Halliburton a "very powerful special interest," and said Congress must "find out what's behind a sole-source contract" like the one to the company.

 

Now I was against those claiming that Halliburton should never receive government work again, but it's funny how after all this talk of them having a tiny role this finally gets out.

 

 

Thoughts?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

No offense.

 

How many damn threads about Haliburton are there going to be. Haliburton got the f'n contract. This is partisan b.s. by the democrats (republicans would do the same thing). If Haliburton wouldn't of gotten the deal, another big company would. Honestly would anyone outraged by this, look at any company differently...I doubt it.

[Guest Powerplay]

Now I was against those claiming that Halliburton should never receive government work again, but it's funny how after all this talk of them having a tiny role this finally gets out.

 

 

Thoughts?

This is just getting fucking irritating because we've heard it around 10 times already. You are acting like this is somehow new information. We already knew about the subsidiary stuff. That was revealled a while back while the war was still ongoing.

 

Secondly, you act like this was some sort of favor when it's continually said that they won the competitive bid a fucking YEAR ago. The contract would have been exactly the same for everyone else who was up for it had THEY gotten it. This is exactly how it's supposed to work. Jesus, is it that hard to understand?

[Guest Vyce]

Now I was against those claiming that Halliburton should never receive government work again, but it's funny how after all this talk of them having a tiny role this finally gets out.

 

 

Thoughts?

Just one:

 

This is not going to turn into Bush / Cheney's very own Whitewater-type scandal, if that's where you're going with this.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well I think it was brought up again, because when I brought it up a week or so ago, lots of people were claiming it had nothing to do with the oil, and they were there to put out fires.

[Guest Powerplay]

Well I think it was brought up again, because when I brought it up a week or so ago, lots of people were claiming it had nothing to do with the oil, and they were there to put out fires.

Haliburton is. Their subsidiaries can do whatever they want. Again, if you haven't noticed they got the bid for this a year ago. And since they got the bid, they were the cheapest out there. That means every other company that bid was HIGHER than Haliburton's. So aren't we saving money here?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Iraq has broken from OPEC. And so it begins...

BAGHDAD, May 16 -- The U.S. executive selected by the Pentagon to advise Iraq's Ministry of Oil suggested today that the country might best be served by exporting as much oil as it can and disregarding quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. His comments offered the strongest indication to date that the future Iraqi government may break ranks with the international petroleum cartel.

 

"Historically, Iraq has had, let's say, an irregular participation in OPEC quota systems," said Philip J. Carroll, who formerly headed Royal Dutch Shell in the United States and now chairs a commission advising Iraq's oil ministry. "They have from time to time, because of compelling national interest, elected to opt out of the quota system and pursue their own path. . . . They may elect to do that same thing. To me, it's a very important national question."

 

In an interview held in an anteroom off a cavernous ballroom at Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace, Carroll also signaled that oil contracts signed under the old regime are now potentially void or subject to renegotiation.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003May16.html

 

NOT IN ANY WAY ABOUT OIL, NOSSIR.

 

Meanwhile, Russia may step in to fill in the hole:

 

The Russian oil industry is now making moves towards OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), whose membership it has shunned so far. Russian officials are worried that the price of their crude will fall if the market is flooded with Iraqi oil.

 

At a briefing at the end of Qatar oil minister and OPEC president Adbullah al-Attiyah's visit to Russia recently, Energy Minister Igor Yusufov said that Russia was prepared to join other oil-producing nations in cutting exports if prices dropped. He said that Russia supports a price range of $20 to $25 a barrel.

 

Russia has promised before to cut exports to help OPEC support oil prices, but rarely keeps its pledges. The situation Russia faces now is more difficult, and it is expected to be more conciliatory towards OPEC.

 

Al-Attiyah said that OPEC wants Russia to become a full member of OPEC. That possibility is "open to negotiations", Yusufov said. Russia has accepted OPEC's invitation to attend its next meeting in Qatar on June 11 as an observer.

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/...a/EE20Ag01.html

 

 

A rational response by Russia, but a big WTF in Iraq. Let's add more fuel to the oil fire. Ugh. Can't they learn to lay low or do this stuff more covertly?

[Guest Powerplay]

Oh Christ, overreact much? Iraq disregarding the quota system IS something good for THEM. It means they can ship more oil, be more competitive in the World Oil market, and bring in money to the people of Iraq. Christ...

 

You aren't actually supporting this confederation of nations trying to keep World Power by holding world industry hostage with it's control over oil. I, personally, want to form FOODPEC with Argentina, Australia, and Canada (The biggest agricultural producers, I believe) and set the same quotas as they do .

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Iraq has broken from OPEC. And so it begins...

BAGHDAD, May 16 -- The U.S. executive selected by the Pentagon to advise Iraq's Ministry of Oil suggested today that the country might best be served by exporting as much oil as it can and disregarding quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. His comments offered the strongest indication to date that the future Iraqi government may break ranks with the international petroleum cartel.

 

"Historically, Iraq has had, let's say, an irregular participation in OPEC quota systems," said Philip J. Carroll, who formerly headed Royal Dutch Shell in the United States and now chairs a commission advising Iraq's oil ministry. "They have from time to time, because of compelling national interest, elected to opt out of the quota system and pursue their own path. . . . They may elect to do that same thing. To me, it's a very important national question."

 

In an interview held in an anteroom off a cavernous ballroom at Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace, Carroll also signaled that oil contracts signed under the old regime are now potentially void or subject to renegotiation.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003May16.html

 

NOT IN ANY WAY ABOUT OIL, NOSSIR.

 

Meanwhile, Russia may step in to fill in the hole:

 

The Russian oil industry is now making moves towards OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), whose membership it has shunned so far. Russian officials are worried that the price of their crude will fall if the market is flooded with Iraqi oil.

 

At a briefing at the end of Qatar oil minister and OPEC president Adbullah al-Attiyah's visit to Russia recently, Energy Minister Igor Yusufov said that Russia was prepared to join other oil-producing nations in cutting exports if prices dropped. He said that Russia supports a price range of $20 to $25 a barrel.

 

Russia has promised before to cut exports to help OPEC support oil prices, but rarely keeps its pledges. The situation Russia faces now is more difficult, and it is expected to be more conciliatory towards OPEC.

 

Al-Attiyah said that OPEC wants Russia to become a full member of OPEC. That possibility is "open to negotiations", Yusufov said. Russia has accepted OPEC's invitation to attend its next meeting in Qatar on June 11 as an observer.

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/...a/EE20Ag01.html

 

 

A rational response by Russia, but a big WTF in Iraq. Let's add more fuel to the oil fire. Ugh. Can't they learn to lay low or do this stuff more covertly?

Oh no. The U.S might hurt a cartel that keeps oil prices artificially high?

 

Man, how EVIL!

 

And, just as a rule, it is common knowledge that the contracts signed by a deposed regime tend to be null and void when the regime is deposed. Heck, if you want to be REALLY technical, ALL of the nuclear arms limitations treaties the U.S signed with the U.S.S.R ceased to actually exist back in 1990-91.

 

Just a question --- why is there NO condemnation on this board from those on the left that Sen. Diane Feinstein's husband has FAR more ties to Haliburton than ANYBODY in the Bush White House has presently.

 

Maybe she wanted to give her hubby a little extra cash, huh?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

btw, why are we handing out contracts to sell iraqs oil to anyone in the first place?

 

i thought that was their natural treasure and blah blah we're not taking it. now we're holding bids for it?

[Guest MrRant]

We are giving out contracts on behalf of the Iraqis.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

lol, ok. i'm too drugged post-op to care right now (just had tommy john surgery), but it just baffled me because i thought we said we werent gonna do that

[Guest NoCalMike]

lol, ok. i'm too drugged post-op to care right now (just had tommy john surgery), but it just baffled me because i thought we said we werent gonna do that

Well a lot of the general public is in the "mindless following" mode right now. I mean let's face it, the majority polled right now don't even care that we may NEVER find WMD, even though that makes this administration bold face liars, so it is going to be a hard sell to make these same individuals care about selling Iraqi oil.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

if it makes any difference, i think i was pretty pissed about this before i had my elbow butchered.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

by the way, the bidding on these contracts seem to have been far from open

[Guest TheMikeSC]

lol, ok. i'm too drugged post-op to care right now (just had tommy john surgery), but it just baffled me because i thought we said we werent gonna do that

Well a lot of the general public is in the "mindless following" mode right now. I mean let's face it, the majority polled right now don't even care that we may NEVER find WMD, even though that makes this administration bold face liars, so it is going to be a hard sell to make these same individuals care about selling Iraqi oil.

Iraqi scientists have admitted that they did a rush job of destroying WMD as the war started. And, odds are, we WILL still find 'em.

 

But, for a moment, let's say we find nothing.

 

We STILL did the right thing and to claim otherwise is to be blind to reality.

 

I love that the public who supports the President are "mindless followers", but those who OPPOSE aren't "mindless", even though the ALL seem to use the exact same rhetoric.

-=Mike

[Guest hardyz1]

even though that makes this administration bold face liars,

So? It's a Republicratic administration, of course they're liars. "I plan to turn the economy around", "I will work for the comon man", "I want to get government out of your lives", they all fucking lie. This one (if it comes to fruition) will be on a higher scale, but it's not something that will keep me awake at night. The Republicrats have a monopoly on national government, and we're all screwed as long as that's the case.

 

Sorry if I sound too much like a whining hippy. I'm not one of them, I swear.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

anyone wanna address my first post?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

We are giving out contracts on behalf of the Iraqis.

Indeed.

 

Iraq needs money NOW. Are we supposed to wait a few years for a stable gov't to fully form before oil is sold?

 

We'll rebuild Iraq --- then we'll get out of the way.

 

I can't even IMAGINE what some on these boards would have said when we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII had they been alive at the time.

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

We are giving out contracts on behalf of the Iraqis. 

Indeed.

 

Iraq needs money NOW. Are we supposed to wait a few years for a stable gov't to fully form before oil is sold?

 

We'll rebuild Iraq --- then we'll get out of the way.

 

I can't even IMAGINE what some on these boards would have said when we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII had they been alive at the time.

-=Mike

azif the money is going to Iraq.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I love that the public who supports the President are "mindless followers", but those who OPPOSE aren't "mindless", even though the ALL seem to use the exact same rhetoric.

-=Mike

I didn't mean everyone who agrees with the administration. However I am speaking of the "9/11" crowd, that just feels that we shouldn't be questioning the president, so they just follow by default.

[Guest Powerplay]

 

I love that the public who supports the President are "mindless followers", but those who OPPOSE aren't "mindless", even though the ALL seem to use the exact same rhetoric.

                    -=Mike

I didn't mean everyone who agrees with the administration. However I am speaking of the "9/11" crowd, that just feels that we shouldn't be questioning the president, so they just follow by default.

And how about those who think we should question the government simply because they are the government? I think you are talking about a much smaller minority than you think.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We are giving out contracts on behalf of the Iraqis. 

Indeed.

 

Iraq needs money NOW. Are we supposed to wait a few years for a stable gov't to fully form before oil is sold?

 

We'll rebuild Iraq --- then we'll get out of the way.

 

I can't even IMAGINE what some on these boards would have said when we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII had they been alive at the time.

-=Mike

i would venture a guess that a very modest percentage goes straight back to the company pumping it, though, and that in and of itself is something we pledged not to do.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

 

I love that the public who supports the President are "mindless followers", but those who OPPOSE aren't "mindless", even though the ALL seem to use the exact same rhetoric.

                    -=Mike

I didn't mean everyone who agrees with the administration. However I am speaking of the "9/11" crowd, that just feels that we shouldn't be questioning the president, so they just follow by default.

And how about those who think we should question the government simply because they are the government? I think you are talking about a much smaller minority than you think.

isn't that the textbook definition of a conservative?

[Guest NoCalMike]

I amply agree that folks on both sides can be robotic at times. However I am specifically talking about people right now that have no insight into anything except to say, "ummm, the Prez knows best because he told me so" or, "why would they say this if it was not 100% true"

[Guest Blacklight Angel]

isn't that the textbook definition of a conservative?

 

No, we conservatives tend to question "government programs." We don't question law enforcement, because that's a Constitutionally-mandated function of the government.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

conservativism strives to involve government as little as possible with everyday life. that includes most police power and whatnot; they want the least amount possible so as not to trample on their rights.

[Guest Blacklight Angel]

There's no need to ask the question if you already have an answer to it, Tyler.

 

Unless, of course, you need a real-live Republican to answer it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

it was a rhetorical question...

 

obviously i knew the answer; i'm a polysci major. the purpose of the rhetorical question was to point out that judge's suggestion that the government-fearing groups are in the minority -- at least, that is how my percacet drugged head read it -- would also imply that conservatives are a minority as well. it was an interesting allegation to come from a conservative.

 

thanks for the obligatory "lets talk down to liberals" response, though; i didn't quite get enough of that from marney earlier.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

it was a rhetorical question...

 

obviously i knew the answer; i'm a polysci major.

Well now, I guess we don't need to regard this as a forum for discussion anymore. We have a "polysci" major here to bring us Pravda every day. Everyone can just sit and worship at your feet until you dispense a pearl of enlightenment, and then we can simply marvel at your wisdom. How grand!

 

thanks for the obligatory "lets talk down to liberals" response, though; i didn't quite get enough of that from marney earlier.

Hope you aren't still feeling deprived.

 

It's a pity they didn't operate on both your arms. (Nice work avoiding the shift key, by the way. Very convincing - or it would be if it weren't quite easy to use it with one hand.) I might've been spared at least one whiny pompous self-aggrandizing farce of a post. Do you ever get tired of giving yourself blowjobs?

Edited May 27, 2003 by Cancer Marney