What??? Haliburton won the bid to rebuild Iraq in 2001???

Weren’t we told that there was a chance for no war right up to the invasion?

Bolding mine.


So what gives? They were getting bids on a war that was not in the plans yet? Or was the war a given already?

See, it wasn’t a no-bid contract.

It’s called a contingency. No doubt there were plans prepared for a possible war with Iraq in 2001. It’s like those old US war plans about invading Canada, not really necessary, but nice to have just in case.

Oops. Thanks for proving that the Halliburton contract was bid on. I love watching you discredit yourself.

Note the words “In case of war with Iraq”. Now, I don’t think anyone’s fooled anymore, I think we all know that Bush wanted Saddam Hussein so bad he could taste it. But, whether we were going come hell or high water, or just making contingency plans ('cause remember, even Clinton and his people thought that Iraq had WMDs and had on several occasions contemplated attacking Saddam), it’s only prudent to set something up just in case.

This may be your very best thread yet, Reeder. You did all the work for us. Thank you. :slight_smile:

While there’s certainly no lack of sliminess in the ties between the current administration and Halliburton, it seems unlikely that a war profiteering conspiracy years in the making would be announced on the war profiteer’s home page.

Rather, this sounds like one of those “plan for every possible contingency” sort of plans. Like invading Canada, or nuking Iceland. Considering that our last major war was with Iraq, that Iraq was still under control of the same despot, and that we’d spent the last ten years intermittently lobbing cruise missiles at Iraqi radar installations, another war with Iraq was not terribley unlikely even under the best of circumstances. a frequent criticism leveled at Bush is that we started this war with no clear idea of what to do with Iraq after we’re finished. This would seem to be evidence to the contrary.

Besides, we’ve probably already taken similar bids on rebuilding Syria, North Korea, and mainland China, just in case.

But it’s Halliburton! Evil! Conspiracy! I don’t need evidence!

Y’all really believe they actually let bids out “just in case”?? I agree with planning for a contingency. But to actually accept bids and award the winner is a bit much. That in itself speaks volumns.

It sure does. What it says is that you were WRONG.

Methinks you miscalculated with this one.

So, they should have waited until after Iraq was flattened to award reconstruction contracts, with all the resultant delays and hinderences this would cause?

I have been…involved…personally in “scenarios” for things that never happened, funded by the government, and by a non-US government. It involved examining the impacts of major disruptions of one type of energy source for electricity, and seeing if other sources of energy for electricity (which shall remain nameless…) could make up the gap, and if not how much of a gap there would be. None of it came to pass, thankfully. But there are several other projects like that I know of, which maybe a couple did come to pass. We engineers bid on and examine all sorts of things that may or may not happen. Mainly because we’re getting paid to. Sometimes because the “what if’s” are like a complex role-playing game. Like Everquest, but not so realistic. :wink:

Reeder… petard. Petard… Reeder. Glad you two could get acquainted.

Some questions, intended to be factual:

  1. When in 2001? Article doesn’t say.
  2. Upon how many other countries does the U.S. bestow the honour of conducting competitive bid processes for their reconstruction after invasion and war?
  3. Did the terms of the contract stipulate a timeframe? i.e. how long would Halliburton own the rights (I know that’s not the right phrase) to the reconstruction of Iraq? And could the government have held a subsequent, replacement bidding process if Halliburton had been discredited before the invasion?


Thanks for the link Reeder, I think everyone might want to actually read Halliburton’s self-serving press release.

[Bolding mine]

A careful parsing of the press release would seem to indicate that yes-- possible oil-well firefighting services in Iraq were competitively bid while the War in Iraq was merely a gleam in Dick Cheney’s eye. But the press release does not indicate serving the troops was a deliverable in a possible, or as it would seem preordained War in Iraq.

Why not? It’s not as though anyone cares.

Coverups are pointless if the audience is utterly apathetic.

This hardly qualifies as news. Halliburton subsidiary Brown and Root is virtually a unit of the US army. Corpwatch gave them up long ago.

Unbelievable. “No bid! No bid! No bid!” is all I hear. Now evidence is posted, ironically by the biggest Bush hater around, and what do I see? I see you claiming that it’s a coverup. :rolleyes:

So, do you know any True Scotsmen?

I claimed no such thing.

Foreign policy is based exclusively on the business interests of the vice president’s company, and conservatives don’t care because they are looking at oral sex.

This was discussed on Meet The Press awhile back. You saw it I suppose. Cheney said he had no interests in the company anymore and the fact that he used to run Haliburton had no bearing on them getting the contract. In fact he claimed to have sold all stock in the company when he took office IIRC.

:rolleyes: It may be true. I just have a hard time believing anything I hear from the Whitehouse anymore, sorry.

OK Reeder, OK! Can’t you just take a poll in IMHO about who thinks the whole eco-tariff-mili-poli process is flawed to the point where people are dying and suffering in great numbers? I’ll happily click on the “me” radio button, but I don’t know if I’ll be ready to join your PAC.

Can’t you post something skewering “that bastard at the DMV” or “my Gold Toe socks aren’t worth the Indonesian who packaged them?” :rolleyes: