Being Halliburton means never having to say you're sorry

Here’s something we haven’t been hearing much about from the so-called Liberal Media, considering what a flagrant example of abuse of political privilege it is:

Halliburton never says sorry

[quote]KBR has its defenders. Critics are just partisan, they allege. Until 2000, Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, and the VP still holds stock and receives monthly deferred payments from the company.

“In spite of the many misleading and inaccurate reports you may hear or read, we are proud of the work we are doing and appreciative of the continuing confidence of our customers,” Harl said in the Jan. 29 conference call.

The fact is, he’s right. Being Halliburton seems to mean never having to say you’re sorry. In the Balkans, Harl recalled, a similar situation arose in 2000. Indeed it did. KBR stands accused of having overcharged the U.S. government for millions of dollars. (Among other things, KBR purchased plywood in Texas at inflated prices, instead of buying cheap wood locally.) “Issues like this do occur, and investigations can take a while,” said Harl.

Meanwhile, since 2000, the number of U.S. contracts awarded to KBR has mushroomed

One thing you may also wish to point out Vay:

The scandals involving Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewart, Tyco et al all had their beginnings under the Clinton administration. ALL have been prosecuted and punished quite severely for their actions. The system works. If Halliburton is guilty, I expect that it too will be fined or suitably punished. Suggestions that connections between Cheney and the company somehow make it immune only promote undeserved cynicism in the American system of justice. After all Ken Lay of Enron was a big donor to the Bush campaign as was the Tyco Chair. What did that get them? nada. I think that the only reason Halliburton draws such attention is precisely because of Cheney’s former role at the company, and quite rightly so. Any public official whose ties might cloud thier judgement should be investigated or have extra scrutiny placed on any actions that might benefit one or both of the parties. But when no such evidence emerges, I think that it would behoove the media to either put up or shut up.