Cheney's Halliburton disaster continues, and Bush blunders again

[elf6c]

Sorry for the longer title- truth in disclosure laws ect.

Anyway. Topic 1: after the unseemly Billion Dollar no-bid contracts given to Cheney’s closest pals at his former company Halliburton, even more fun:

Defense Department auditors have discovered that a Halliburton Inc. subsidiary may have overcharged the government $61 million on a contract to supply fuel for Iraq, a Pentagon official said at a hurriedly called news conference last night.

In another contract to operate U.S. military mess halls, Halliburton, which was headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, would have been overpaid $67 million if auditors hadn’t questioned the arrangement, officials said, citing findings of a draft audit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57520-2003Dec11.html

Nice. Guess the No-Bid contract wasn’t enough. They needed to price gouge as well. Nice to see the fox guarding the henhouse on this one. I guess as long as the campaign money is coming in, the “Rangers” are free to do as they please. But somehow, I am sure this is Hillary Clinton’s fault. Or the liberal media. :rolleyes:

George’s amazing flip-flopin’ no logic Iraq policy takes another turn for the worse.

President Bush yesterday fiercely defended his decision to bar France, Germany, Russia and Canada from Iraq reconstruction contracts, defying a furious outcry from allies and even objections from GOP and conservative leaders.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan branded the U.S. policy “unfortunate,” echoing protests from allies such as Germany and France and claims that the Bush administration move may be violating international law. At home, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) registered his concerns, and other Republicans on Capitol Hill expressed puzzlement that the White House decided to support a policy it rejected only months ago.

Oops even the party faithful are baffled by George’s hamfisted move. Flipity flop:

The White House vigorously opposed a similar policy when lawmakers tried to add it to legislation earlier this year, according to congressional officials. In April, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice personally lobbied Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to drop from a Pentagon spending bill a proposal to block France and Germany from Iraq contracts.

“They didn’t like it. They thought it was reactionary,” one aide said.

The White House came under scathing criticism even from supporters, who called the policy a blunder. In a memorandum distributed to U.S. opinion leaders, neoconservative writers William Kristol and Robert Kagan said the policy should be abandoned sooner rather than later to minimize the diplomatic damage.

“A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war – as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity. But instead of being smart, clever or magnanimous, the Bush administration has done a dumb thing,” they wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57805-2003Dec11_2.html

Damn when the GOP Congress and the Neocons desert you, you know you screwed up badly. Damn Hillary Clinton for forcing Bush to screw up again. Is there no end to her treachery?

[Sauron]

I voted for Bush in 2000.

I will not be making that same mistake again.

[One_And_Only_Wanderers]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
** Guess the No-Bid contract wasn’t enough. They needed to price gouge as well.

**

This site says that they didn’t profit from it. The extra money went to a local supplier. The mistake lay in using the local supplier at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3312015.stm

**Pentagon officials say the firm is not alleged to have profited from the overcharging, but it may have paid a local sub-contractor too much for fuel. **

[Lissa]

I was a little shocked at Bush’s comment when asked at the meeting if such a stance violated international law. His reply;

“International law? Well, I better call my lawyer!”

At this point, scoffing only aggravates the situation. A more decorous and appropriate response would have been something along the lines of, “No, I don’t think so.” Instead, he had to get snarky.

[elucidator]

The redoubtable Mr. Krugman from the NYTimes

Opinion | A Deliberate Debacle (Published 2003)

Highly recommended.

Sauron, I can empathize, to a certain degree. Didn’t vote for him, never voted Pubbie in my life. But I was fairly calm about the 2000 election as it was proceeding. A left-centrist against a right-centrist, perhaps, I hoped, American politics was calming down a bit after the ludicrous debacle about Bill’s willy.

Then they guy loses the popular vote and, without blinking an eye, proceeds to govern as though he won an absolute mandate by way of an overwhelming landslide. He’s either utterly dishonest or irredeemably stupid and I don’t care which!

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by One And Only Wanderers *
**…Pentagon officials say the firm is not alleged to have profited from the overcharging, but it may have paid a local sub-contractor too much for fuel. **

Oh, goody! They’re not crooked, merely incompetent. Swell. Peachy.

[yojimbo]

The Irish Gov. isn’t happy. They went against public opinion and let the US use Shannon Airport for a fueling stop before and during the war and now find that Irish companies can’t bid for electrical/communications contracts.

We’ve got a 2 Billion dollar metro system up for bids at the moment. Maybe we should tell the US companies they can’t bid. Nah that would be silly to the extreme

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Sauron *
**I voted for Bush in 2000.

I will not be making that same mistake again. **

That’s ok, I voted for Bush, Sr. Oops, I regretted that one.

I also voted for Reagan- but didn’t regret that. Even though he was a lying sack of crap on Iran-Contra, the S&L crisis and his administration’s countless various criminal investigations make Clinton look like a choir boy. He was the right man for the job at the time. Unfortunately, his economic and moral compass was a bit off. That is why the new found Neo-Con deification of the man so misplaced.

But then again, I would take him in a heartbeat over Bush, Jr. who has all of his moral failings and poor choices of cabinent members and advisors with almost none of his virtues.

[elucidator]

The redoubtable Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can claim to be well informed.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

"What a surprise …

When Congress voted the $87 billion for military expenditures and reconstruction in Iraq they were keen to create an office of Inspector General at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to watch out for all manner of waste, fraud, abuse, price gouging and various other shenanigans.

Now it seems that Paul Wolfowitz has gutted that provision.

According to Inside the Pentagon, a weekly newsletter, “Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last week directed a newly formed inspector general’s office in Iraq not to request sensitive information about Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) activities related to intelligence or operational plans.”

The report goes on to quote Wolfowitz’s order …

In his statement, upon approving the act, the president directed that, in exercising these authorities and responsibilities, the IG/CPA shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administration units of the [Defense Department] related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security.

In plain English, that sounds a lot like the IG should refrain from doing anything."

Quoting further might be pushing it. Go read. Be appalled.
Mr. Wolfowitz isn’t spending enough time with his family.

[Coldfire]

Finally. I was about to start this thread myself.

I can’t believe they’re trying to hide behind that subcontractor lie. It’s the oldest one in the oil business. Example: whenever fuel prices rise where I live, a Shell spokesperson shows up on TV, telling with a sincere face how their gas stations operate on .5% margins, and how it’s all the governments fault for taxing fuel so ridiculously high.

While the latter may be true, it doesn’t negate the fact that the Shell refineries operate at profit margins of, shall we say, A LOT FUCKING BIGGER THAN .5%.

Same applies to these shits at Halliburton. If a subcontractor is screwing you, you cut the contract, and find another part. What’s next, are they going to claim they weren’t well versed enough in the Iraqi oil market?? :rolleyes:

It stinks, and it don’t just stink of oil.

[UncleBeer]

Same applies to these shits at Halliburton. If a subcontractor is screwing you, you cut the contract, and find another part.

Well, apparently they did just that. Unsuccessfully. From the linked article:

On the fuel pricing, he said only one supplier from Kuwait met the government’s specifications and said the company has repeatedly tried to transfer the delivery work to another contractor.

And frankly, given the complexity of government defense contracts, I think $128 million bucks on $5 billion worth of contracted services, is a reasonable error percentage. It’s only about 2.5% of the total. Contracts for engineering services at my company are considerably less complex and billing errors are right around that same 2.5%.

In any case, the errors have been caught during what appears to be a normal audit process and no intentional overcharging has been idenified yet. Everything seems to be working according to the safeguards built into the process. Given this, I see little reason for the outrage. Presumably, the errors will be corrected. If they aren’t, then I can see a cause for outrage; 'til then, no.

[Coldfire]

So there were no other oil companies in Ku-frickin’-wait to handle this job?

I’m sorry, I remain skeptical. I want to know what those mysterious requirements are, if they effectively filter out all but one oil companies in Kuwait, of all fricking places. Also from the article:

On the gas contract, Halliburton subsidiary KBR has been charging the U.S. government $2.27 a gallon to deliver gasoline from Kuwait, while a similar contract for gas from Turkey sets the price at only $1.18, the official said.

Gee, a subsidiary company overcharges. Guess where the profits end up in that case?

Hell, Halliburton.com mentions KBR right on the front page. In other words, see my Shell example above. It’s shoving heaps of money around, nothing more.

Hey, it’s your tax money. Not mine. Agreed, it’s a small amount on the grand total. It still reeks to high heaven.

[elf6c]

A correction UncleBeer. It wasn’t found that the $128 million overcharge was on the entire contract (which would still be bad), but on a small portion of it. Doing the number’s that way would be more accurate. Ummm, sir.

Cite:

But government documents show that the United States government is paying Halliburton an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying.

More than twice as much is not 2.5% obviously.

And, additionally:

Defense Department and other government officials said a draft report of the audit agency’s finding was sent to K.B.R. on Dec. 5 and included “harsh assessments” of the company’s handling of its contract to import fuel from Kuwait.

. . . .

The audit agency has also discussed with K.B.R. the delays in the pricing of elements of the logistics contract, military officials said. Among projects under way, the company has provided the government with cost estimates for just 12 orders, with 69 outstanding and overdue, the officials said. They said the delays raised the possibility that the company would eventually claim an unacceptably high cost for a project whose work was already largely completed.

Yahoo version of a NYTIMES story- so you don’t need to go to the registration required NY Times site.

Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

[Coldfire]

'Beer’s not talking about the price hike in gasoline alone, but about the difference as a percentage of the total contract. Both of y’all have valid points, but you’re not saying the same thing.

Still, I proved that the so-called subcontractor was actually a subsidiary, so the case is therefore closed: it stinks.

[furlibusea]

I can’t find a link right now, but will keep looking. Wasn’t Haliburton charged with overcharging before they even got this contract. I seem to remember that they had to pay a fine for doing this very thing before.

[Coldfire]

I don’t know about that, to be honest. But the fact that it’s a no bid contract, AND they end up overcharging through a subsidiary says enough right there, doesn’t it?

[Scylla]

Mr. Coldfire:

I believe you are confusing KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary, with the unnamed Kuwaiti subcontractor.

You don’t get very much credit for showing that KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, since the fact that it was a subsidiary that was involved is revealed in the first sentence of the story linked in the Op, and only a few paragraphs later the fact that this subsidiary is named KBR is also revealed.

So, while your intrepid sleuthing about on Halliburton’s home page in diligent search of the truth is to be admired, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that you have proven not only the obvious, but the oft stated.

Had you actually uncovered the name of the unnamed Kuwaiti company or suggested that that company was a subsidiary of Halliburton, your point might be valid. You haven’t though, so it’s not.

It seems to me that Halliburton’s subsidiary made an obvious screw up that was sure to be caught. It was caught in the first round of a process specifically set up to catch such things. The reason this process is in place is because such things have a tendency to happen.

Once this mistake was caught it was announced publically and openly in a press conference.

Halliburton then “welcomes” the correction.

The mistake itself is characterized as “obvious” and “stupid.” Why it happened seems to be because there was no choice in subcontractors due to a bureaucratic snafu.

No Woodward and Bernstein was involved. This information was volunteered. There is no evidence of a coverup.

To me, this looks like a shining example of what Government/private sector interractions should be like. Given that mistakes will be made, I think that it’s a good thing that they be caught in the first line of defense, made public, discussed openly, admitted openly by the company that made them, and then rectified.

Apparently, you feel differently. It stinks or smells fishy to you.

I personally don’t see how you can rationally think this.

Exactly what is it that you are suggesting is wrong here other than the fact that an error has been made?

[Coldfire]

You’re right, there IS another layer to this, and I overlooked it:

Halliburton didn’t profit from that differential, officials said. “This isn’t money that went to the company,” said Larry DiRita, the Pentagon’s top spokesman. Rather, he said, the money the Pentagon believes was overcharged went to a private Kuwaiti company that is a subcontractor on the contract. He declined to identify that company.

I guess the logical question is: why won’t they name this mysterious Kuwaiti oil company? What does “private” mean here? That it’s not state owned?

I dare not suggest it, but: could it be that Halliburton has a stake in it?

I’ll eat crow if that doesn’t turn out to be the case, but I fail to understand why they’re being so mysterious about the subcontractor.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**It seems to me that Halliburton’s subsidiary made an obvious screw up that was sure to be caught. It was caught in the first round of a process specifically set up to catch such things. The reason this process is in place is because such things have a tendency to happen.

Once this mistake was caught it was announced publically and openly in a press conference.

Halliburton then “welcomes” the correction.

The mistake itself is characterized as “obvious” and “stupid.” Why it happened seems to be because there was no choice in subcontractors due to a bureaucratic snafu.

No Woodward and Bernstein was involved. This information was volunteered. There is no evidence of a coverup.

To me, this looks like a shining example of what Government/private sector interractions should be like. Given that mistakes will be made, I think that it’s a good thing that they be caught in the first line of defense, made public, discussed openly, admitted openly by the company that made them, and then rectified.
**

Bullshit. It wasn’t an honest mistake “caught in the first line of defense, made public, discussed openly”.

It’s been a scandal ongoing for months.

Rice urged to probe Halliburton complaint

Thursday 30 October 2003, 5:06 Makka Time, 2:06 GMT

The US government is paying Halliburton - vice president Dick Cheyney’s former firm - $2.65 a gallon (3.7 litres) for gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait.

Democrats Representatives Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of Michigan say this gross overpayment was made worse by the fact that the US government resold the fuel to Iraq for four to 15 cents a gallon.

In a letter of complaint sent to President George Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, the two lawmakers said experts they consulted think the cost of buying and transporting gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq should cost less than $1 a gallon.

The Iraqi oil company SOMO is paying only 97 cents a gallon to import gasoline from Kuwait to Iraq, they said.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
**You’re right, there IS another layer to this, and I overlooked it:I guess the logical question is: why won’t they name this mysterious Kuwaiti oil company? What does “private” mean here? That it’s not state owned?

**

Beats me. Maybe they’re looking for an answer as to why the price was so high from this company before they say anything.

I dare not suggest it, but: could it be that Halliburton has a stake in it?

It could be. If it is, that doesn’t mean that it’s not an honest mistake, or it could be an attempt to defraud. I don’t think we have enough info to tell just yet.
Demo:

Bullshit. It wasn’t an honest mistake “caught in the first line of defense, made public, discussed openly”.

It’s been a scandal ongoing for months.

Who are you blaming for what?