[quote=“fred smith”]Has it been proved yet that Halliburton and other companies are in fact looting the American treasury for overinflated military services supply bills? I recall that one case against Halliburton was dropped though you are forgiven for not remembering this for all the media play it received, when it proved that it paid higher prices for oil because it went through a Kuwaiti middleman who pocketed all the money. The only person who could supply this gas was him and he benefited from it disproportionately.
Now, the other case was for soldier’s meals that were not eaten. But this happens everywhere. If you make a reservation for 1,000 for dinner but only 950 show up, guess how many you still have to pay for? 1,000! My God! Attack every convention center or large hotel in the United States immediately!!! Corruption!!! Fraud!!! Outrage!!![/quote]
I don’t believe Halliburton fraud has been proven yet. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, Halliburton has billed the US for a bit more than $6 billion to date, all for services rendered in Iraq. For more than two years now, according to the WSJ, the Pentagon has disputed more than $1.8 billion of these billings. More to the point, the Pentagon has concluded that Halliburton’s accounting system is too poor to meet DoD audit requirements; Halliburton strongly disputes the DoD’s contention.
One problem, according to the WSJ, is that the Pentagon requires Halliburton to provide any number of services ‘on the fly’ and then turns around and requires a complete accounting of same.
However, we Americans should note that Halliburton’s ability to do precisely this was vouchsafed by the Bush administration in its defense of Halliburton’s no-bid contractor status in Iraq. To me, the rest is either a shit-poor excuse by Halliburton or further evidence of Bush’s ineptitude. (Hell, I already know that Bush is inept and I’m not interested in Halliburton’s excuses.)
And this gets at the real problem with Halliburton, Bush, and US credibility. According to the WSJ, Halliburton is setting aside $4+ billion in order to meet its liability with respect to a class-action, product liability, asbestos suit currently being litigated. Outside analysts think that Halliburton’s liquidity is threatened at the moment; according to the WSJ, it would take a mere $500 million shortfall in revenue over the next 2 quarters to force Halliburton into bankruptcy.
It seems reasonable to conclude that Halliburton is threatened by its asbestos set-aside.
According to the article, Halliburton has hired lobbyists to argue that it should be accorded some measure of Boeing’s or Lockheed-Martin’s status as ‘US military vendors which can’t be allowed to fail’ status because of the ‘unique’ services it provides the US effort in Iraq. The lobbyists are expected to argue that the Pentagon audit is unfair and that the $1.8 billion in billings (that under question) should be forgiven as an unavoidable cost of the war effort in Iraq.
It seems reasonable to conclude that any old $1.8 billion could help Halliburton relieve the threat from asbestos torts in the short term.
In addition, VP Cheney is a past CEO of Halliburton. Although he no longer works there, the WSJ notes that this situation leaves Bush open to any number of politically-charged accusations.
What do you, as a Bush supporter, believe should be done in order to restore both Bush’s and Halliburton’s credibility with regard to Halliburton’s no-bid status in Iraq? How can you fault those who do not support Bush when they conclude that either Cheney is a crook or that Bush is obviously inept? How can you fault those who do not support the US when they charge that we are in Iraq first to line the pockets of Bush supporters, and every other goal is secondary? In other words, how can you argue that the wildest-imaginable charges against Bush, Michael Moore charges, are examples of vile propaganda only and that Bush holds no responsibility at all for them?
Because it seems to me that your only answer must be this: ‘trust’ either Bush or the US system, or both. In other words, any objective analysis of Bush’s presidency must conclude that Bush is the most shootin’-himself-in-the-foot, inept president since the 19th century - or a crook (he’s a crook because the concept of ‘accountability’ is apparently one that applies only to others and not necessarily - rather, subjectively - to Bush himself or his administraton). No?
