NOW can we say Halliburton and the Bush Administration are just a little TOO cozy??

[RTFirefly]

From ThinkProgress:

In 2004, the UN’s International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) - the international group that oversees the use of Iraqi money on Iraqi reconstruction - wanted to know more about Halliburton. Specifically, they wanted to conduct an audit of Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root’s single-source, oh-so-lucrative Iraq contract, $1.6 billion of which came straight from Iraqi coffers. After much foot dragging, the White House finally complied, sending the IAMB heavily redacted versions of audits the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) had conducted into Halliburton’s use of the money.

Blacked out of the redacted report was the fact that Halliburton may have bilked the U.S. military out of about $100 million. Also blacked out were statements critical of KBR like “KBR was unable to reconcile the proposed costs to its accounting records” and “KBR did not always provide accurate information.”

Here’s where it gets really interesting. Wondering why the extensive redactions blocked all of the negative findings, the crack researchers in Rep. Henry Waxman’s office looked into the matter. It turns out the White House gave Halliburton a copy of the negative audit and let the company scrub out all of the negative stuff itself before it was sent to the UN group. A letter from KBR dated 9/28/04 to the Army Corps of Engineers states “we have redacted the statements of DCAA that we believe are factually incorrect or misleading and could be used by a competitor to damage KBR’s ability to win and negotiate new work.”

Nice of the White House to let Halliburton decide how much of the Pentagon’s audit was truthful enough to be forwarded to the U.N.

But I’m sure such information could indeed “be used by a competitor to damage KBR’s ability to win and negotiate new work.” Funny how that works.

[kaylasdad99]

Well, you have to understand that the actual amounts of money you’re overcharging, and the means you employ to do so, have got to be protected as “trade secrets.”

[blowero]

Why do you hate America?

[5_time_champ]

. . . and Clinton got a blowjob.

[World_Eater]

Hey at least gays can’t get married, let’s focus on the important things.

[rjung]

NOW can we say Halliburton and the Bush Administration are just a little TOO cozy??

You must be new here.

We can have verified, timestamped, notarized video footage of George W. Bush and the CEOs of a dozen major petrochemical companies in the Oval Office, cackling about how they bamboozled the nation over Iraq just so they could all rake in record-setting profits and making plans to further nosedive the nation into the dirt, and you’d still get apologists like Brutus and Manhattan in here insisting that nothing’s wrong.

[Reeder]

Hell…were I Cheney I’d edit it out.

WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.

KBR spent millions to deliver $82,100 of fuel to Iraq

[ShibbOleth]

Oh, for Pete’s sake, don’t you have any idea how difficult it is to find fuel in the Middle East?

[MysteryFellow63427]

"WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel. "

What’d they do, deliver it by reindeer sleigh?

Fucking corrupt sons of bitches.

[kidchameleon]

Was this the same board overseeing the Oil for Food program?

[Chance_the_Gardener]

Ha! Those Watergate bums were pikers!!!

[Waverly]

You freakin’ liberal toss-monkey

[/me channels Ari Fleischer]*
And just why would an [unconfirmed] accusation against Halliburton need to be included in KBR’s audit? I think you are conveniently stretching the parent / subsidiary relationship – substituting one for the other when convenient.

The other redacted comments are as subjective as they are unflattering, which is probably why they don’t appear in he report. It is one thing to include such comments in a 2nd party audit, it is another to turn them over to a 3rd party. In any audit situation, the auditee will have unfiltered to access to the findings and the ability to comment. Accepting this input is something the auditing body has the latitude to do if they feel it is justified.*
[/Fleischer mode]

OK, it took some mental gymnastics to come up with a rebuttal, but there you have it. I felt bad that no conservative apologists had volunteered one.