How much blame does Haliburton deserve?

[Guest Cerebus]

A good article by Max Boot.

 

Don't Blame Halliburton

* The company and its subsidiaries don't deserve the thrashing they are getting for their wartime work.

 

Halliburton surely got lambasted last week by John Kerry. "This war brings billions of dollars to big companies, either to those that manufacture weapons or those who reconstruct Iraq, like Halliburton and its sister companies," he thundered. "And from here it becomes clear who benefits from the outbreak of wars and bloodshed: war traders and vampires who administer world politics from behind the curtain."

 

Oops, sorry. That wasn't John Kerry. That was Osama bin Laden, or at least someone claiming to be him on an audiotape. When the rhetorical lines blur between the leader of the Democratic Party and the leader of Al Qaeda, maybe it's time for the Democrats to reconsider their demonization of the Houston-based corporation. Especially when the bodies of three more Halliburton employees have been found, bringing to 33 the number killed in Iraq.

 

The critique of Halliburton comes in two parts. First, the company is said to have unfairly acquired its contracts in Iraq through political influence. Second, it's said to have unfairly taken advantage of those contracts to engage in war profiteering.

 

The first charge is particularly seductive because Halliburton's former No. 1 man is now the country's No. 2, and there is a long history of companies getting government work through political influence. Kellogg Brown & Root, now a Halliburton subsidiary known as KBR, had close ties with Lyndon Johnson, which helped it to snare lucrative contracts during the Vietnam War. Surely, cynics reason, similar machinations were behind Halliburton establishing itself in Iraq.

 

Actually, Halliburton is in Iraq primarily because in 2001 it won a competitive bidding process to administer the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, a multiyear contract to supply the Army. Halliburton has also gotten some no-bid jobs in Iraq, just as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and for the same reason: Not a lot of other firms have similar expertise in supplying the U.S. military, and with a war on there's no time to stage a lengthy bidding process.

 

Although Halliburton's work in the 1990s was praised by Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" panel, its current contracts have led to charges that it's mulcting the taxpayer. Maybe so, but the proof is hardly in. The biggest controversies have involved alleged overcharging by subcontractors for food and fuel. In both cases, Halliburton argues that its expenses were justified, and some Army officials back it up. It has, however, suspended billing for $176 million in meals until this dispute is resolved. A criminal investigation of the fuel flap is underway.

 

Halliburton certainly does not appear to be making a fortune under its deal with the government. It's guaranteed only a 1% profit on most of its Iraq work plus performance bonuses of 2% to 3% — not a whole lot considering the risks it runs.

 

By focusing on Halliburton, critics ignore the real scandal, which is how inefficient our procurement bureaucracy is. Remember those stories from the 1980s about the Pentagon buying $640 toilet seats and $435 hammers? Well, things haven't changed a lot. The same gold-plated approach is being taken to administer aid to Iraq.

 

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, when he was in charge of northern Iraq, was told by the Army Corps of Engineers that it would cost $15 million to $23 million to rehabilitate a single cement plant. He managed to get it done for just $800,000 by paying local firms.

 

Why was the original estimate so high? Not because the Army or its contractors are corrupt. It's because they are obligated to build everything to extremely demanding standards and to fill out reams of paperwork justifying every nickel they spend.

 

This system is bad enough for normal military needs; it's even worse in the case of Iraq. We desperately need to create jobs so young Iraqi men will have something better to do with their time than shooting coalition soldiers. The best way to do that would be to toss the procurement process out the window. If the result is that buildings in Iraq aren't up to the latest in U.S. standards, or a few million dollars goes astray, so what? That's a small price to pay for getting the country back on its feet.

 

U.S. military commanders have done some informal contracting, but their discretionary funds are limited. Big projects have to go through the bureaucracy — which means they have to be administered by giant firms like Halliburton that have legions of lawyers and accountants to decipher the impenetrable thickets of procurement regulations.

 

Instead of blaming Halliburton, critics would be better off trying to change the system. But that's not terribly glamorous. It's much more fun to beat up Texas plutocrats.

[Guest MikeSC]

A good article by Max Boot.

 

Don't Blame Halliburton

* The company and its subsidiaries don't deserve the thrashing they are getting for their wartime work.

 

Halliburton surely got lambasted last week by John Kerry. "This war brings billions of dollars to big companies, either to those that manufacture weapons or those who reconstruct Iraq, like Halliburton and its sister companies," he thundered. "And from here it becomes clear who benefits from the outbreak of wars and bloodshed: war traders and vampires who administer world politics from behind the curtain."

 

Oops, sorry. That wasn't John Kerry. That was Osama bin Laden, or at least someone claiming to be him on an audiotape. When the rhetorical lines blur between the leader of the Democratic Party and the leader of Al Qaeda, maybe it's time for the Democrats to reconsider their demonization of the Houston-based corporation. Especially when the bodies of three more Halliburton employees have been found, bringing to 33 the number killed in Iraq.

 

The critique of Halliburton comes in two parts. First, the company is said to have unfairly acquired its contracts in Iraq through political influence. Second, it's said to have unfairly taken advantage of those contracts to engage in war profiteering.

 

The first charge is particularly seductive because Halliburton's former No. 1 man is now the country's No. 2, and there is a long history of companies getting government work through political influence. Kellogg Brown & Root, now a Halliburton subsidiary known as KBR, had close ties with Lyndon Johnson, which helped it to snare lucrative contracts during the Vietnam War. Surely, cynics reason, similar machinations were behind Halliburton establishing itself in Iraq.

 

Actually, Halliburton is in Iraq primarily because in 2001 it won a competitive bidding process to administer the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, a multiyear contract to supply the Army. Halliburton has also gotten some no-bid jobs in Iraq, just as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and for the same reason: Not a lot of other firms have similar expertise in supplying the U.S. military, and with a war on there's no time to stage a lengthy bidding process.

 

Although Halliburton's work in the 1990s was praised by Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" panel, its current contracts have led to charges that it's mulcting the taxpayer. Maybe so, but the proof is hardly in. The biggest controversies have involved alleged overcharging by subcontractors for food and fuel. In both cases, Halliburton argues that its expenses were justified, and some Army officials back it up. It has, however, suspended billing for $176 million in meals until this dispute is resolved. A criminal investigation of the fuel flap is underway.

 

Halliburton certainly does not appear to be making a fortune under its deal with the government. It's guaranteed only a 1% profit on most of its Iraq work plus performance bonuses of 2% to 3% — not a whole lot considering the risks it runs.

 

By focusing on Halliburton, critics ignore the real scandal, which is how inefficient our procurement bureaucracy is. Remember those stories from the 1980s about the Pentagon buying $640 toilet seats and $435 hammers? Well, things haven't changed a lot. The same gold-plated approach is being taken to administer aid to Iraq.

 

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, when he was in charge of northern Iraq, was told by the Army Corps of Engineers that it would cost $15 million to $23 million to rehabilitate a single cement plant. He managed to get it done for just $800,000 by paying local firms.

 

Why was the original estimate so high? Not because the Army or its contractors are corrupt. It's because they are obligated to build everything to extremely demanding standards and to fill out reams of paperwork justifying every nickel they spend.

 

This system is bad enough for normal military needs; it's even worse in the case of Iraq. We desperately need to create jobs so young Iraqi men will have something better to do with their time than shooting coalition soldiers. The best way to do that would be to toss the procurement process out the window. If the result is that buildings in Iraq aren't up to the latest in U.S. standards, or a few million dollars goes astray, so what? That's a small price to pay for getting the country back on its feet.

 

U.S. military commanders have done some informal contracting, but their discretionary funds are limited. Big projects have to go through the bureaucracy — which means they have to be administered by giant firms like Halliburton that have legions of lawyers and accountants to decipher the impenetrable thickets of procurement regulations.

 

Instead of blaming Halliburton, critics would be better off trying to change the system. But that's not terribly glamorous. It's much more fun to beat up Texas plutocrats.

Good points, but Haliburton is the left's bogeyman --- up there with Karl Rove and John Ashcroft. They'll demonize them, whether they deserve it or not.

 

And, ironically, should Kerry win --- odds are, Haliburton would STILL have their contract in 2008.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Good points, but Haliburton is the left's bogeyman --- up there with Karl Rove and John Ashcroft. They'll demonize them, whether they deserve it or not.

Actually, there's a difference there.

 

Karl Rove and John Ashcroft *DO* deserve it (though Rove, nor anybody else who hasn't commited any crimes, deserves someone going up to their personal home and protesting like what happened a few weeks ago.) Halliburton, not to that extent. But I do feel more comfortable knowing there's watchdogs keeping tabs on them out there.

 

You can say Halliburton is squeaky clean and free of guilt if you want, but then you can't at the same time compare them to the man who used push polls to win and the man who wants to start a war on porn.

[Guest Razor Roman]

Haliburton was doing the same job in the Balkans when Clinton was president AND Dick Cheney (then a former Bush Sec. of Defense) was running it for real. Plus, from what I understand they're one of a few companies, and if I recall correctly, the only American company that does the specific kind of work they do.

 

So I really don't get the problem.

 

PLUS, if they were SOOO in with Bush, and John Kerry says we're paying "Haliburton Prices" at the pump, why wouldn't they "conspire" to lower the price of gas temporarily so Bush can be re-elected more easily.

 

It's like the old mafia rule of bleeding someone slow, that way you get to keep bleeding them for a long time and make more money. IF they were the Evil Geniuses Al Franken says they are, they would surely know that.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

IF they were the Evil Geniuses Al Franken says they are, they would surely know that.

Well, if they're so smart how come we all know that they are in bed with the Bush Administration?...

[snuffbox 0]

And the point remains missed....

 

The difference between Haliburton under Clinton etc and Haliburton under GWB isnt about 'how' they got the contracts...

 

The problem is that there is a huge conflict of interest right now as Haliburton is making big money and one of its appendages, Dick Cheney, is the Vice President....

 

Conflict of Interest.

 

and, cerebus, any intentions to stop milking the capitalized LOL thing?

[Guest MikeSC]

Good points, but Haliburton is the left's bogeyman --- up there with Karl Rove and John Ashcroft. They'll demonize them, whether they deserve it or not.

Actually, there's a difference there.

 

Karl Rove and John Ashcroft *DO* deserve it (though Rove, nor anybody else who hasn't commited any crimes, deserves someone going up to their personal home and protesting like what happened a few weeks ago.) Halliburton, not to that extent. But I do feel more comfortable knowing there's watchdogs keeping tabs on them out there.

 

You can say Halliburton is squeaky clean and free of guilt if you want, but then you can't at the same time compare them to the man who used push polls to win and the man who wants to start a war on porn.

You know what's ironic about the whole McCain in 2000 thing?

 

When people make charges about push polling, traditionally, they would have taped a call.

 

Nobody had a tape of one of these calls. And the LA Times investigated the story a week later and of all the people they talked to who received calls, not one found a call within an inch of what Donna Duren (the woman whose 14-year old son claimed to get a call) said.

 

Nobody can find ANY evidence that any of this alleged push-polling happened. They've found no scripts. They've found no tapes. They've found no callers. And people who DID receive calls do not indicate that the calls were about him fathering black children out of wedlock or that he was a liar and a cheater.

 

So, you condemn Rove without, honestly, even a scant iota of evidence behind the charges.

 

As for Ashcroft, his war on porn, while asinine, isn't even remotely illegal.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And the point remains missed....

 

The difference between Haliburton under Clinton etc and Haliburton under GWB isnt about 'how' they got the contracts...

 

The problem is that there is a huge conflict of interest right now as Haliburton is making big money and one of its appendages, Dick Cheney, is the Vice President....

 

Conflict of Interest.

 

and, cerebus, any intentions to stop milking the capitalized LOL thing?

Dick Cheney is not involved w/ Haliburton. He divested himself fully.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You know what's ironic about the whole McCain in 2000 thing?

 

When people make charges about push polling, traditionally, they would have taped a call.

 

Nobody had a tape of one of these calls. And the LA Times investigated the story a week later and of all the people they talked to who received calls, not one found a call within an inch of what Donna Duren (the woman whose 14-year old son claimed to get a call) said.

Fine, then what about the time where right before the election he "discovered" a bug that later we found he planted in his own office?

 

You can try as hard as you can, but Rove ain't a saint.

 

As for Ashcroft, his war on porn, while asinine, isn't even remotely illegal.

Sure. But it does serve as government promoting a way of living on people that they may not like without any regard to the constitution. So, that makes him at least as bad as the San Francsico Mayor, who was doing the same thing according to our conversation on that issue.

Sure, it's not prosecutable, but it's the same princple.

[Guest Cerebus]

and, cerebus, any intentions to stop milking the capitalized LOL thing?

No. If you don't like it, by all means don't post here. In fact, I actively encourge you to do just that.

[Justice 0]

The difference between Haliburton under Clinton etc and Haliburton under GWB isnt about 'how' they got the contracts...

Isn't that the entire point? I mean, everyone is crying foul because everyone says that Cheney gave them the contract, remember?

 

The problem is that there is a huge conflict of interest right now as Haliburton is making big money and one of its appendages, Dick Cheney, is the Vice President....

 

Conflict of Interest.

 

Actually, he sold all their stock from the company and gets a fixed income from them no matter how well or bad they do. They can't cut that off, either, so they literally have no control over him. Remember he had to do this to become V.P?

[NoCalMike 0]

i thought declaring war on your own people was considered treason or something........I dunno.

[snuffbox 0]

So you kids honestly believe that Cheney has no personal involvement with anyone in power at Haliburton?

 

Would your opinions change if Cheneys name was 'Al Gore'?

[Justice 0]

So you kids honestly believe that Cheney has no personal involvement with anyone in power at Haliburton?

 

Would your opinions change if Cheneys name was 'Al Gore'?

... Not really, no. Dumb question, eh?

[Guest MikeSC]

So you kids honestly believe that Cheney has no personal involvement with anyone in power at Haliburton?

 

Would your opinions change if Cheneys name was 'Al Gore'?

No. I'm not going to punish a guy for being a success before he comes to Washington.

-=Mike