Well, gosh, Elvis, the White House has got a lot on its plate right now, what with thier dogged pursuit of the Valerie Plame affair, and the 9/11 infestigation, and all. I don’t think we can reasonably expect any results on any of this before, say, late November, '04.
And just an aside to Minty: are you persecuting poor Scylla again? Never gets old, does it? But I hasten to remind you there can be only one numero uno in the Perfidious Liars [sup]TM[/sup], and it is a privilege I guard jealously.
You are still a lawyer, which means you should have a full appreciation for the value of not running off half-cocked – of being certain that you have all the key facts in front of you prior to rushing to judgment. One would hope you don’t check those values at the door as you walk out of the office each day.
I’m not suggesting that one need wait for juridical standards of proof before leveling judgment, but one should still recognize that a complex situation like this one – and contracts of this size are always complicated – demands more facts than we have available to us now before we can reach a valid conclusion. We also shouldn’t dismiss out of hand benign explanations (remember the saying about attributing things to stupidity versus malice).
And I’m saying that lawyers, moreso than anyone else, should recognize the value of the above approach. Shame on you for not doing so.
Exactomundo. I would also add that speed is not exactly part of the resolution process for contracts of this size. I’m not a litigator, but I do have contact with that world, and I know it isn’t unsual for a client to take a couple of months to decide whether or not simply making a demand of the other side is warranted, much less deciding whether or not to initiate suit. These things just do not happen in a week or less.
Minty, of course, is a litigator, and at a very large law firm to boot – the kind of firm that litigates over very large contracts. He’s certainly aware of this fact, which makes his participation in this thread quite odd.
All in all, I have some sympathy for the notion that this whole magilla is a bit trivial. After all, when the gorilla throws you to the ground for a jolly good rogering, why complain about his cologne?
I am not “running off half-cocked” at all. Halliburton, long the firm with the closest contacts to the Bush White House, was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. As part of that contract, it charged the government twice the market rate for gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, for a grand total of $61 million additional dollars.
I am not calling for the imprisonment of anyone in particular (though I humbly suggest that price-gouging the government in wartime ought to be a capital offense). But it is eminently reasonable to conclude that something seriously fraudulent occurred somewhere in that deal, and it is completely unreasonable for The Usual Weasel to suggest that those who so conclude are a bunch of assholes who haven’t stopped to consider that additional imaginary facts might prove the whole thing to be completely
$61,000,000 from the sale of gasoline at twice the market rate? A “straightforward error”? Like hell, and not until somebody fucking well proves it.
I note that you have chosen to focus on the meaningless distinction between “cost-plus” and “pass-through”, rather than try to actually defend you earlier false claim that it was a flat fee.
Well, there is one element that gives me pause, and that is that if Haliburton were up to chicanery, they would have to be aware that they would be very closely watched by such as we.
So it was either a dumb mistake, or a dumb mistake.
But a “capital offense”? Gee, Minty, wouldn’t executing white Republicans in suits require some sort of Constitutional amendment?
Minor hijack here. Can anyone remember the exact quote from Lyndon Johnson about how he didn’t care how the legislation was worded, so long as Brown & Root gets the contract?
You should know the folly of using an absolute figure to determine the size of an error – what’s material for a $100 million contract may not be material for a contract worth several billion. And frankly, the reason you have routine audits is precisely because such errors are commonplace.
Malice vs. stupidity, stupidity is the right call 90% of the time.
Of course not. You’d need three inches to do that.
Yes, and according to Squink’s most recent cite they didn’t benefit from it:
“KBR did not benefit, another official added. The $61 million appears to have flowed to the Kuwaiti subcontractor.”
Now Demostylus, a dishonest partisan half-wit to equal yourself, has made the claim that the difference between “cost plus” and “pass through” is meaningless.
Squink’s is yet another cite suggesting that the mechanism of the oil contract for commoditties is a pure pass-through which does not enter into profit calculations. If it were cost plus a percentage than Halliburton would stand to profit. I’m not sure why Demostylus considers this meaningless. Probably just stupidity.
We have contradictory cites saying that it is a pass-through and other cites saying it is a cost plus a percentage.
Now I’m not a lawyer, but then you’re a transparently myopic blowhard, so I have no doubt I’ll be up to handling your rebuttal. It seems to me though, from a lawyerly or a legal standpoint, whether or not Halliburton profited, or was able to profit from the transaction.
If they did not, or could not have, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s really much of a motive, and an intent to defraud might be difficult to establish.
Not knowing it, you’re assignation of guilt is irresponsible.
You’re prevaricating, Sleazebag. Look at the title of the thread, you incompetant dipshit. Not only has the conclusion that Halliburton is guilty been jumped to, but it’s already Bush and Cheney’s fault. Those are the issues I have taken umbrage with not your nebulous weasel words… “something* seriously fraudulent occurred somewhere in that deal,” Really? You think? What a fucking audacious statement!
In point of fact though, it is not a reasonable conclusion. It is unreasonable to draw a conclusion in an absence of facts. We do not know why the subcontractor charged what it charged. Until we do, drawing a conclusion just shows your own knee-jerk stupidity.
You’re the one drawing conclusions. You need to prove them. Who profited? Who committed the fraud?
These are basic fucking questions that need to be answered, counselor. Can you answer them?
I know you can’t.
Hopefully you don’t go into court similarly bereft of reason.
I was thinking even less of you, you witless fop. You’re the jackass who showed up here calling names, you prickle-headed midget of a pretender. It’s a little late to get offended now, and it makes a poor excuse for a rebuttal of substance, sleazebag.
Whilst I realise the futility of arguing with a transparently dishonest fucker like yourself, Scylla, I wouldn’t want any of the other readers to be left with the impression that anything you say actually makes any sense.
Your own cite explained exactly how Hallibuton stood to profit.
The unnamed official, in saying that KBR didn’t stand to benefit, is obviously talking complete crap, as are you.
Halliburton’s references to “a few cents on the dollar” are also complete crap.
Must be really fucking expensive light bulbs.
The identity of the subcontractor is also revealed in the NYT story.
You do realise, don’t you, that both of those “empty and naked assertions” were backed by cites? Which anyone who cares to scroll upward a bit can see? I really can’t see the point of your lying about this.
Because one is an obviously false assertion from an unnamed official in an administration that has made a habit of lying?
That’s a particularly interesting quote. They’ve been supplying under the same terms since May, but are only able to “negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel”.
The quote about the dangers is followed up by this:
Faletti also says “recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.”, which is why I objected initially to your “routine audit” claim. The routine audits didn’t pick this up. If there hadn’t been external pressure, the rubber stamp would’ve OK’d this rip-off.
And bear in mind, it’s you that’s getting ripped off, not me. Which is another reason why I find your branding of me as “partisan” puzzling. I live in another fucking country, dude.
I wouldn’t worry too much about that, elucidator; minty said “in wartime”, which would ssem to require that a declaration of war be issued by Congress. That seems to make the issue irrelevant.
